Documentary/educational television

[AdamR]

I am asking this for my partner (Nadador on AC), who is planning a project in documentary/educational television, and also for a friend of ours who creates, produces, and directs documentary/educational programming. Your answers here may help mould an actual project.

What documentary/educational television programmes do you watch? What attracts you to your selections?

Are they any you really don't like, and if so, why? What do you favour in a documentary/educational TV host-presenter? Are there any you especially enjoy, or despise?

Is there any kind of documentary-type programme you would like to see that hasn't been done, done well enough, or done recently?

 

[Vanilla]

Generally I will watch documentaries about:

• Nature shows (plants & animals) - My favourite. Currently have a real fascination with deep sea fish.
  
• Travel/ different cultures
• People of interest (eg. Leonardo Da Vinci, Darwin, etc.)
• Evolution/ Pre-historic/ Ancient History/ mythology
  
• Psychology/ behavioral studies/ society in general

Factors that really grab my attention:

• Interesting, never before seen topics, or new information on topics previously covered in the past. An intimate understanding of the topic at hand, paired with an intelligent analysis of the topic.
  
• Engaging, enthusiastic, fun, suspenseful (sometimes controversial).
  
• Topics which allow you to continue to ponder, long after the show has ended
• Topics that capture your imagination
• Investigating a topic during the show, as opposed to simply showing collected information (showing how the information was obtained)

Documentaries I don't like, would simply include shows which do not offer anything new, or engaging. These tend to seem rather generic, and provide basic, general knowledge, which I find I often already know anyway. Either that, or shows that present it's topic in a less than intelligent manner (dumming topics down). I've seen some hosts, who seem to know little of their topic, and appear more like a tourist, than a teacher.

What do I like in a presenter?

• Professional
• Engaging/ entertaining
• Intelligent and thoughtful
• One that understands their topic intimately
• Charming British accent (just a personal preference )

Favourite host would of course be Sir David Attenborough.

Hmm, as I don't currently have cable TV, I may not be able to accurately say what documentaries we need to have more of, as I do not have access to them all. However, I would like to see more on mythology, ancient history, behavioral studies, and of course the deep sea fish (though that last one seems rather challenging).

Hope that was helpful

 

[AdamR]

Factors that really grab my attention:

• Engaging, enthusiastic, fun, suspenseful (sometimes controversial).
• Investigating a topic during the show, as opposed to simply showing collected information (showing how the information was obtained)

Favourite host would of course be Sir David Attenborough.

You're always helpful, Vanilla! Thank you for your thoughtful detail.

A real trick of making educational programming engaging to a broad audience is bringing a touch of drama, even sensationalism, to a show, without sacrificing the integrity of the presenter or their subject. If it's a children's show, with a host like the late Steve Irwin, there can be lots of theatrics without any loss of face or content, but for programmes mostly aimed at adults, there is an extremely fine line that can be very hard to walk to everyone's satisfaction. What you do for the scholars bores the mass audience, and what you do for the mass audience irritates the scholars!

Sir David Attenborough is of course the king of the old-school, traditional style of natural history programming, so he can get away with being quite serious and straightforward. Jacques Cousteau could, too, in his time. Contemporary presenters don't yet have their prestige--or their latitude, as popular educational networks like Discovery and National Geographic are caught up in the ratings game, and beholden to commercial sponsors. I find it sad that more people don't watch educational programming just for the pleasure of learning, and even sadder that the new marketplace for educational television has become just like any other kind of entertainment, dependent on a good gimmick, or a big personality.

P.S. And yes, a proper English accent helps! What is it about our dialect(s) that makes people more willing to listen to us?

 

[Ste11aeres]

P.S. And yes, a proper English accent helps! What is it about our dialect(s) that makes people more willing to listen to us?

Well, there are different English accents, of course. Some of them I prefer to others. Many of them are simply pleasant to listen to, just from a sensory perspective. English accents are generally free of the nasality and pinchedness that irritates me in too many other accents.
And maybe there's just a touch of historical sentimentality (I mean sentimentality based in a vague sense of history) hidden in American hearts, that makes some Americans sort of admire/look up to/respect English people. That speculation is based upon a fair number of (American) individuals that I've known. Some (not all, but some-again, this is based on persons I've known) Americans tend to just assume that English people are wiser, better educated, more tolerant. While not all Americans have such an attitude/preconceptions, those who do might be large enough in number to boost a show's popularity.

And once again, many English accents are just pleasant to listen to.
As for David Attenborough, his voice is particularly soothing.

 

[Vanilla]

You're always helpful, Vanilla! Thank you for your thoughtful detail.

A real trick of making educational programming engaging to a broad audience is bringing a touch of drama, even sensationalism, to a show, without sacrificing the integrity of the presenter or their subject. If it's a children's show, with a host like the late Steve Irwin, there can be lots of theatrics without any loss of face or content, but for programmes mostly aimed at adults, there is an extremely fine line that can be very hard to walk to everyone's satisfaction. What you do for the scholars bores the mass audience, and what you do for the mass audience irritates the scholars!

Sir David Attenborough is of course the king of the old-school, traditional style of natural history programming, so he can get away with being quite serious and straightforward. Jacques Cousteau could, too, in his time. Contemporary presenters don't yet have their prestige--or their latitude, as popular educational networks like Discovery and National Geographic are caught up in the ratings game, and beholden to commercial sponsors. I find it sad that more people don't watch educational programming just for the pleasure of learning, and even sadder that the new marketplace for educational television has become just like any other kind of entertainment, dependent on a good gimmick, or a big personality.

P.S. And yes, a proper English accent helps! What is it about our dialect(s) that makes people more willing to listen to us?

Oh yes, definitely. It does depend on the type of documentary, as to whether some, or all, of these traits should be applied. Not all would be appropriate for all situations. I should have added "dignity" to that list too

 

[AdamR]

Well, there are different English accents, of course. Some of them I prefer to others.

Some...Americans tend to just assume that English people are wiser, better educated, more tolerant.

As for David Attenborough, his voice is particularly soothing.

Well, that's because we are all those things, Ste11aeres!

I agree, some UK accents are more pleasing to the ear than others, even to us. There are some that can seriously grate, in very short order. Mine is from London and proper, from an upper-middle-class upbringing. I love going to America for the fantastic treatment I get once I've opened my mouth. I did try an American accent in the States, once, to satisfy a friend's dare. Let me tell you--I switched back posthaste when time was up!

I would gladly have Sir David narrate my life. (Morgan Freeman would also do nicely.)

So do you ever watch any documentary television--Attenborough-esque natural history programmes or otherwise? I know Nadador respects you greatly on these forums, so your thoughts would be appreciated, I'm sure. And you're evidently American, as well, which is the toughest audience to crack for this sort of programming. That's not to say Americans are anti-intellectual. I'll leave that to you to judge. I think it's more about Americans' "impress me" stance, and your incredibly broad viewing options.

 

[Harrison]

Mine is from London and proper, from an upper-middle-class upbringing.

 

[AdamR]

Bugger off, you!

And here I thought you had something useful to add to the discussion!

(We could do with proper comments from you....)

Edit: Oh my GOD, I can't stop laughing!

 

[Ste11aeres]

So do you ever watch any documentary television--Attenborough-esque natural history programmes or otherwise?

I do occasionally enjoy documentary television--Attenborough-esque natural history programme. Unfortunately, I don't have any insightful commentary to make other than the simple statement that I like them.
My favorite show about things in the natural/animal (non-human animal, that is, after all, humans are animals too) world isn't a documentary per se...it's any show with Cesar Millan, particularly his recent series Cesar 911 which I think surpasses his previous shows.

 

[Ste11aeres]

Hmm, actually I do have a complaint to make about certain documentaries. This doesn't apply so much to most documentaries about plants or animals, but rather to historical documentaries, and some science documentaries.

It annoys me when a documentary spends two hours with lots of lots of build-up, to give, at the very end, some little fact that could have been given in five minutes.
For example, I watched a documentary about the people who died in Pompei. There was all this suspense and dramatic build up about how we're going to present some groundbreaking new theory about what exactly killed them. Then at the very end they said, it wasn't the ashes that killed them, it was intense heat. And they had a brief explanation for why that was more likely. And I thought "You could have told us that in five or ten minutes! Why this two hour film?"
Now with documentaries about plants or animals, it doesn't matter if any new facts they present are only worth a few minutes, and it doesn't even matter if every fact they give is something I already know, because (and this is more important to me than new facts) I got to spend two hours watching footage of animals or of plants, and that was cool.
But with a documentary about Pompei, I didn't get to spend two hours of footage of people in the ancient Roman Empire, no I had to spend two hours listening to suspenseful music and a narrator going on about' how we will reveal a new theory'.
Also I saw part of a documentary about space which was really annoying because it was too gimmicky.
Also, documentaries with dinosaurs annoy me, because they make up so much. When it comes to a living animal they'll say "Even though we see raccoons so often, we really understand very little of their habits" and then they'll show footage of raccoons while humbly confessing ignorance of the deepest raccoon matters. But when it comes to dinosaurs, they'll just make up some imaginary scenario, then make imaginary footage of this imaginary incident. They didn't get to spend hours shooting footage of extinct creatures but they still act like they know all about them.

I like documentaries about extreme weather, especially tornadoes.

 

[Vanilla]

Hmm, actually I do have a complaint to make about certain documentaries. This doesn't apply so much to most documentaries about plants or animals, but rather to historical documentaries, and some science documentaries.
It annoys me when a documentary spends two hours with lots of lots of build-up, to give, at the very end, some little fact that could have been given in five minutes.
For example, I watched a documentary about the people who died in Pompei. There was all this suspense and dramatic build up about how we're going to present some groundbreaking new theory about what exactly killed them. Then at the very end they said, it wasn't the ashes that killed them, it was intense heat. And they had a brief explanation for why that was more likely. And I thought "You could have told us that in five or ten minutes! Why this two hour film?"
Now with documentaries about plants or animals, it doesn't matter if any new facts they present are only worth a few minutes, and it doesn't even matter if every fact they give is something I already know, because (and this is more important to me than new facts) I got to spend two hours watching footage of animals or of plants, and that was cool.
But with a documentary about Pompei, I didn't get to spend two hours of footage of people in the ancient Roman Empire, no I had to spend two hours listening to suspenseful music and a narrator going on about' how we will reveal a new theory'.
Also I saw part of a documentary about space which was really annoying because it was too gimmicky.
Also, documentaries with dinosaurs annoy me, because they make up so much. When it comes to a living animal they'll say "Even though we see raccoons so often, we really understand very little of their habits" and then they'll show footage of raccoons while humbly confessing ignorance of the deepest raccoon matters. But when it comes to dinosaurs, they'll just make up some imaginary scenario, then make imaginary footage of this imaginary incident. They didn't get to spend hours shooting footage of extinct creatures but they still act like they know all about them.

I like documentaries about extreme weather, especially tornadoes.

Oh, I know what you mean about hyping a subject up, and not delivering. I watched this one documentary, only a few months ago, which was about this doctor who specialised in the study of psychopaths. Rather than being informative, the documentary spent the whole time playing some cheap, horror-themed, music, and would repeatedly play jumpy sound effects, while showing poor-quality images of past psychopathic killers; which seemed misleading, as the doctor wasn't talking about psychopaths who were killers. He was talking about the everyday individuals, who are average people, trying to get by, like everyone else. He himself admitted to being one. I don't imagine he had much say in the editing of that documentary. He had only appeared in probably 20% of it too. I'm sure he was quite disappointed in how it had turned out.

 

[Judge]

I once wrote a scathing criticism of National Geographic's documentary "Nazi Scrapbook". Where they made an assumption based by a single photograph about Karl-Friedrich Höcker being physically present and active in the selection process where those disembarking trains were sent to either be gassed or assigned to labor at the Auschwitz-Birkenau Concentration Camp.

All based on an erroneous analysis of a single photograph. I contacted Rebecca Elberding, Archivist at the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum. She promptly emailed me back, acknowledging the error that myself and others had noted. It took some time, but eventually National Geographic made a somewhat lame acknowledgment and reedit to the documentary that the man in the picture was probably not Karl-Friedrich Höcker.

The man in the picture not facing the camera had ribbon around his collar and shoulder straps. Indicative of a non-commissioned officer in the SS. Höcker was an officer.

It wasn't about the man being innocent of much of anything. It's just that I expected better from National Geographic rather than use a bunch of Photoshop experts to erroneously claim someone's identity. Anyone who knew German military uniforms of the time could- and did prove them wrong.

 

[AdamR]

I do occasionally enjoy documentary television--Attenborough-esque natural history programme. Unfortunately, I don't have any insightful commentary to make other than the simple statement that I like them. My favorite show about things in the natural/animal (non-human animal, that is, after all, humans are animals too) world isn't a documentary per se...it's any show with Cesar Millan, particularly his recent series Cesar 911 which I think surpasses his previous shows.

I don't think we get Cesar Millan's shows in England, but a friend in the states sent me one of his books, which has been very helpful with my nippy, skittish little sheltie. I've also seen some clips from his programmes online--I like how he keeps things interesting without being at all dramatic. But then, I suppose calm energy is a requirement in his work with problematic dogs.

So you don't mind if a single presenter has more than one show airing at once? This isn't documentary TV, but Gordon Ramsay's fifty million different offerings get on my nerves. Enough, already!

Regarding your admiration of Attenborough, how do you think a contemporary presenter could do the cerebral, "top-shelf" sort of work he does, but still appeal to fickle, drama-hungry audiences? Is anyone out there doing it, effectively, that you've seen? And since Attenborough's personal appeal gained him a faithful audience that has carried between projects: Do you think the presenter matters much at all to your experience of a doc/ed show, or are they really just a minor factor when compared to the programme's subject? Would you follow a presenter, other than Attenborough, between projects? What would make you want to do it?

It annoys me when a documentary spends two hours with lots of lots of build-up, to give, at the very end, some little fact that could have been given in five minutes.

I agree. Very few subjects, as treated for mass consumption, are worth two hours per episode anyway. Not to mention that most of that time is spent saying the same information twenty different ways, or re-hashing what's already been said after every commercial break.

Also I saw part of a documentary about space which was really annoying because it was too gimmicky.

How so? Have you ever seen shows on other natural history subjects (besides dinosaurs) that you found too gimmicky or far-fetched as well?

I like documentaries about extreme weather, especially tornadoes.

Is this for the danger and apparent randomness of these phenomena, or some other reason?

I knew you would turn out to be a goldmine of information!

 

[AdamR]

It wasn't about the man being innocent of much of anything. It's just that I expected better from National Geographic rather than use a bunch of Photoshop experts to erroneously claim someone's identity. Anyone who knew German military uniforms of the time could- and did prove them wrong.

National Geographic's TV wing isn't nearly as concerned with integrity as its other outlets. There is some right crap on Nat Geo. I'm sorry to say I've scored soundtracks for a couple of their less impressive offerings. I have kids in college--had to bite the bullet.

Judge, you're American, correct? How do you feel Nat Geo's channels compare with those by Discovery Networks? (Not TLC and its ilk, but their more educational channels) Do you find that these channels are eroding the quality of documentary television/film, in general? It seems like every time a pure-spirited channel comes along, like Bravo and A&E once were, in the U.S., it succumbs to sensationalism and reality rubbish in no time.

 

[Ste11aeres]

Only have time to address part of your post tonight.

I don't think we get Cesar Millan's shows in England, but a friend in the states sent me one of his books, which has been very helpful with my nippy, skittish little sheltie. I've also seen some clips from his programmes online--I like how he keeps things interesting without being at all dramatic. But then, I suppose calm energy is a requirement in his work with problematic dogs.

I mostly watch those Cesar Millan episode which can be found on youtube. My one annoyance is that one of the people uploading somehow managed to end up with bad sound, and everyone having grating high voices (not what Millan really sounds like)

Regarding your admiration of Attenborough, how do you think a contemporary presenter could do the cerebral, "top-shelf" sort of work he does, but still appeal to fickle, drama-hungry audiences? Is anyone out there doing it, effectively, that you've seen? And since Attenborough's personal appeal gained him a faithful audience that has carried between projects: Do you think the presenter matters much at all to your experience of a doc/ed show, or are they really just a minor factor when compared to the programme's subject? Would you follow a presenter, other than Attenborough, between projects? What would make you want to do it?

I don't know what "audiences" as a group like.

So you don't mind if a single presenter has more than one show airing at once? This isn't documentary TV, but Gordon Ramsay's fifty million different offerings get on my nerves. Enough, already!

If it's Cesar Millan, he can have as many shows airing as he can make.

 

[AsheSkyler]

I love animal and nature documentaries, but trying to find one worth watching is hard. Unrelated, but great example, take "Most Dangerous/Extreme Animals". "The deer is a fearsome and scary creature, with hard hooves and sharp antlers meant to rend flesh" followed by "the wolf is a fearsome and scary creature with sharp fangs designed to rend flesh" and more over use of the word "flesh". Ugh... I hate the hype. I don't like nature shows that pretend all bunnies are the Monty Python Killer Rabbit, or the ones that go in the other direction and pretend rabid hyenas are as safe and cuddly as domesticated bunnies.

And I do not like documentaries that drag it out! We tried watching one dinosaur thing, and they spent over thirty minutes repeating themselves about some minor detail while they replayed a clip of an herbivore charging a carnivore. Thirty minutes of the same thing! And then the other thirty minutes of the episode on the next minor detail! There was no point in it.

I get Netflix. I don't do cable, satellite, or anything else. Over priced stuff!

 

[Judge]

National Geographic's TV wing isn't nearly as concerned with integrity as its other outlets. There is some right crap on Nat Geo. I'm sorry to say I've scored the soundtrack for a couple of their less impressive offerings. I have kids in college--had to bite the bullet.

Judge, you're American, correct? How do you feel Nat Geo's channels compare with those by Discovery Networks? (Not TLC and its ilk, but their more educational channels) Do you find that these channels are eroding the quality of documentary television/film, in general? It seems like every time a pure-spirited channel comes along, like Bravo and A&E once were, in the U.S., it succumbs to sensationalism and reality rubbish in no time.

Just my opinion...

Quality niche television network programming died the day Discovery decided to air "Jon & Kate Plus 8". Then the show migrated to TLC. One by one, niche cable networks and their programming began to abandon airing subjects relative to a specific theme because of the ratings boost.

Lots of niche networks...not much niche or quality programming now.

As for National Geographic, I gave up nearly a lifetime of subscriptions the day I discovered that over half of this once magnificent magazine contained full page advertisements on rather expensive paper.

MTV once showed music videos as their primary material. I loved it. RIP, MTV.

 

[Judge]

I have to admit, I find Animal Planet's "Fatal Attractions" absolutely riveting.

Perhaps because I suspect most of these people who collect dangerous species are probably on the spectrum. At least the ones chronicled on this documentary series.

 

[AdamR]

I love animal and nature documentaries, but trying to find one worth watching is hard. Unrelated, but great example, take "Most Dangerous/Extreme Animals". "The deer is a fearsome and scary creature, with hard hooves and sharp antlers meant to rend flesh" followed by "the wolf is a fearsome and scary creature with sharp fangs designed to rend flesh" and more over use of the word "flesh". Ugh... I hate the hype. I don't like nature shows that pretend all bunnies are the Monty Python Killer Rabbit, or the ones that go in the other direction and pretend rabid hyenas are as safe and cuddly as domesticated bunnies.

There seems to be tremendous pressure to sensationalise natural history content, these days. With multiple networks competing for both audiences and ad dollars, especially in "prime time", bunnies do tend to develop flesh-slashing fangs bathed in lethal bacteria. (Now try saying "flesh-slashing fangs" five times, very fast--I'll wait. ) Beneath the hype, though, do you at least find some solid educational content in any of them? Or once the bunnies go all Monty Python on you, do you just not care anymore?

And I do not like documentaries that drag it out! We tried watching one dinosaur thing, and they spent over thirty minutes repeating themselves about some minor detail while they replayed a clip of an herbivore charging a carnivore. Thirty minutes of the same thing! And then the other thirty minutes of the episode on the next minor detail! There was no point in it.

This seems to be a major gripe, the dragging-things-out bit. Even just here, on this thread. I wonder why this has become such a trend. I don't think I know anybody who appreciates it.

How about shows like Ste11aeres mentioned, where there's a "surprise" theory or conclusion that takes an hour or more to get to? Are you ever actually surprised, or just annoyed it took so bloody long?

 

[Ste11aeres]

I love animal and nature documentaries, but trying to find one worth watching is hard. Unrelated, but great example, take "Most Dangerous/Extreme Animals". "The deer is a fearsome and scary creature, with hard hooves and sharp antlers meant to rend flesh" followed by "the wolf is a fearsome and scary creature with sharp fangs designed to rend flesh" and more over use of the word "flesh". Ugh... I hate the hype. I don't like nature shows that pretend all bunnies are the Monty Python Killer Rabbit, or the ones that go in the other direction and pretend rabid hyenas are as safe and cuddly as domesticated bunnies.

Sorry, I can't resist sharing this thing about a dangerous-in-its-own-way animal.