PlanetCatfish.com

"fluffed it" means "tone it down"; so the "5 sec attentionspan"crowd can digest it, I'll take it?


so basically, what they HAD was plenty o' really good footage, but that couldn't be shown.....
maybe it's offensive these days to be intelligent.....

please Aliens get me off this planet!

sidguppy wrote:"fluffed it" means "tone it down"; so the "5 sec attentionspan"crowd can digest it, I'll take it?

No, fluffed it means blew it. Didn't realise the projects full potential in other words.

Jools

Fluff in American English means what Sid is saying. I.E. Something weak on substance. In UK English it means to have done something improperly. Jools and I had lots of these conversations while I was visiting. Sorry to get off topic.
-Shane

Hiya,
a little OT but hmm Sidguppy how long have you played Wow?
I see first signs of sickness called Massive Multiplayer Games :P. The way you've wrote emotion: *tears hair from head* :P hehe.

Well I sat through all five episodes (150 minutes) and saw virtually no decent shots of the Amazon's aquatic life.

The programme spent more time telling us how many thousands of species there were to discover, how many dangers they faced and how dark the water was. About 5% of the programme was actually devoted to showing us aquatic wildlife! In fact part of the last episode resorted to them trying to find a sloth in the tree canopy!

To think, the BBC funded five weeks of this trip (three large boats of people etc etc) and came up with virtually no film of any interest. Imagine the money us UK tax payers gave to this.

I'm all for exploration but this programme was pathetic. Sad because with a bit of organisation it could have been fantastic!

Tom2600 wrote:Well I sat through all five episodes (150 minutes) and saw virtually no decent shots of the Amazon's aquatic life.

You weren't watching the same program as me then.

To think, the BBC funded five weeks of this trip (three large boats of people etc etc) and came up with virtually no film of any interest. Imagine the money us UK tax payers gave to this.

What's the BBC got to do with tax? Three boats on the amazon for 5 weeks is not a lot of money for the potential, given other program budgets it's not that much and I'd much rather have the BBC spend their money on this sort of speculative venture that 70% of their other output.

I'm all for exploration but this programme was pathetic. Sad because with a bit of organisation it could have been fantastic!

What makes you say the organisation was poor? They seemed pretty organised to me. I'd agree the narrative was approaching pathetic and structure of the 5 episodes poor.


Over all you get the feeling they just couldn't film where they thought they could (the "abyss") and made the rest up. For my money, I'd have preffered they'd then cut their losses and made this a 45 minute documentary presented in an informative style with the good aquatic footage they did have and leave it at that. Also, the title was a bit misleading especially for us aquarists. I they had called it "Into the Amazon" or something along those lines then we'd have been pleased with what aquatic footage there was rather than expecting 100% underwater shots.

Jools

I missed episode two (not checking the TV list well enough, thinking that it would continue next week, rather than next day), but watched all the others.

My conclusion is similar to most others: It was a lot of "snowmash" (when it melts, it becomes almost nothing. It's a swedish expression for text that is written to maximise the amount of words without adding any content).

I agree with Jools, one 45 minute episode would have been much better. The actual content was quite good to me, but there was a lot of filling out, and of course the usual "This is really dangerous", which I found both annoying (Yes, I appreciate that diving in the Amazon and similar places is not exactly like walking around in an English park) and repetetive.

But the little footage there was from under water was really good, and definitely worth having.

--
Mats

It seemed to start off well then went downhill from there. They obviously couldnt get any good footage, which was a shame. Some nice fish when we DID see them, Black Ghost Knifes, Geos, Pike Cichlids etc.

A shame, im sure it could have been 2 x 1hr long episodes.

Ben

Bronzefry wrote:Best invention of this century. IMAX movies, too.

Almost unbelievable but sadly true is the fact that future production of IMAX nature documentaries is being threatened by religious extremists in areas of the US who object to the discussion of Evolution within such films. These deranged but vociferous individuals are protesting loudly enough to worry the management of IMAX cinemas into not showing the "offending" films.

Jools wrote:You weren't watching the same program as me then.

I agree. Although there were certainly some "issues" with the content (which may have been beyond the control of the filming team), what is needed is for people to contact the Beeb and let them know who much they appreciated actually getting to see, however briefly, some of the fish we keep in our aquaria. This way there may be similar projects in the future which can be done better.

Jools wrote:I'd much rather have the BBC spend their money on this sort of speculative venture that 70% of their other output

Indeed. Give me one Neon tetra in the wild rather than all the airtime which has been given to two rather dull individuals who just happened to be getting married.

Jools wrote:Over all you get the feeling they just couldn't film where they thought they could (the "abyss") and made the rest up.

Although some from the BBC NHU have seen Oliver's self-produced film, this was for a different project and so they may not have been aware of it.

This one got me upset. And this happened in a so-called "science museum." A "science museum" in Texas was shown an IMAX movie for their reaction. This was a test audience. The feedback was mixed. The word "evolution" was mentioned once and "big bang" was mentioned once. The four upset respondents were furious that "creationism" was not mentioned in the IMAX film. One respondent called the movie "blasphemous." This isn't the first incident, either. (All incidents are occuring in the Bible Belt.) At first, the museum refused to show the movie. After all the bad press, they relented.

The IMAX people are getting calls from the film makers. Should we include this or that? Will we upset people? The funding for IMAX films comes from Canada. They've told them to stick to science. Apparently, one of the targets was James Cameron, of Titanic fame. His latest movie is an IMAX about deep sea volcanoes. Looks wonderful.

what are IMAX films?

It used to be when you go to a science museum in the US, they have special theaters set up. They show movies that are filmed with this special method called "IMAX." I'm not sure what it means. Now, a lot of places have theaters that show these kinds of movies, like casinos, national parks, etc. It helps make extra money. Many of the movies are basic sciences. Some show what a fighter pilot ride looks like, etc. In my area, a furniture dealer has IMAX-type theaters in all of its stores. You have to walk through their entire selection of furniture before you get to the theater. Marketing, marketing......

Info on IMAX is here.

Follow the links for "how IMAX works" and "the technology of IMAX".
--
Mats

Im glad im not the only one that was disapointed with this "documentary"

The hype the previous week had got me and the family rearranging our shedules so we could be in to watch each one

ive never seen such a moaning bunch of wussies! im sure all nature program crews come across the same kinds of problems but dont spend almost the entire time moaning and whinging about them

the only fish footage was fleeting glimpses and then back to moaning some more , its too dark its too dangerous! eek

the thing i dont understand is why they couldnt get people envolved who were actually enthusiastic about the fish, there are sureley lots of interested enthusiastic people who dedicate themselves to studying fish in that area who would have jumped at the chance and the budget and make a much better job of it

i mean once they realised the equipment wasnt up to the job why didnt they net fish and put them in tanks and film them?
i would have sat through hours of that

i agree it would have made a half decent one hour program if they had cut out the whinging and the bloody crocodiles and sloths

lucy wrote:the thing i dont understand is why they couldnt get people envolved who were actually enthusiastic about the fish, there are sureley lots of interested enthusiastic people who dedicate themselves to studying fish in that area who would have jumped at the chance and the budget and make a much better job of it

I'm pretty sure that the team that produced this documentary had expected to get more under-water footage.

It may even be that they had more footage of fish under water that they intended to "polish" on the editing table, but that turned out to be useless because it was too much work/impossible to get it right for broadcast.

You could blame them for not doing their homework properly, and perhaps they should have asked more questions about when and where to go, so they could have got more clear water to take photos in.

lucy wrote: i mean once they realised the equipment wasnt up to the job why didnt they net fish and put them in tanks and film them?
i would have sat through hours of that

Not quite doing the same thing tho', as the purpose of this was to document the fish's REAL life in nature. We all know that fish in a tank isn't necessarily going to behave exactly the same (not after a while at least, when they come up and eat from our hands, etc) as in nature. [Ok, so having a 1000 lux photo-lamp shining in the face of the fish is probably not going to make them behave exactly like usual either, but that's a different story].

lucy wrote: i agree it would have made a half decent one hour program if they had cut out the whinging and the bloody crocodiles and sloths

I'm sure that they could have done that, and it would have made a better program for sure. A big part of the "whinging" came from the speaker, so it's added on afterwards. Which doesn't make it any better, but unfortunately, I think it's the trend these days to explain to everyone how dangerous things are, whether it's obvious to us or not, and whether it REALLY is dangerous or not. Part of it is of course to prevent being sued, but I don't think that's the matter in this particular case...

On the other hand, I would rather have this program on all day than "Big Brother" or any of the "reality" shows that they show all the time on all channels.

--
Mats

I wonder what non fish geeks in the general public thought of it? what were the ratings like?

You should ask Shane about his experiences with "documentary film" crews... It's not suprising to hear that this was a big let down.

Well, at work i have served 2 people that have come in to get info on starting a fish tank because they watched Amazon Abyss and the beautiful fish that they DID see re-kindled their long time fascination in underwater oddities...

One of them bought a 5 foot tank and is planning on getting catfish and cichlids...

The other... bought a 40 litre tank and wants corys and guppies lol...

Ben