Hammond: Invisible World

The last episode was slightly...ew. Just to warn ye. :blink:
 
No idea.

Anyhoo. I was half-right before, as it turns out. While the final ep aired on BBC One last night, it won't be airing on BBC HD until tomorrow night (9 pm).
 
I realised watching episode 3 that Richard makes exactly the same noise as I do when he has to confront a spider and it starts to move :lol:

*shudders just thinking about spiders' creepy legs*
 
very small spiders I can handle (though not without squeaking when they move), but I have to get someone else to remove anything bigger than that.
 
WillDAQ said:
To be brutally honest Hammond is never really that convincing on these shows.

Someone writes a script based on some science, which he clearly then reads and thinks "hey this is really interesting" which he then relays with enthusiasm to the audience.. but there's no understanding there beyond what he's been provided with. Compare this with May who writes scripts that often contains some serious technical and sociological depth behind the arguments he makes. On screen he acts as an authority figure on the given subject, which Hammond just doesn't.

On a more basic level, I wish the show would spend a little more time on the whys rather than just a series of whats.
Click to expand...

This is true.

Plus there have been some idiotic lines. And untruths.

If I hear Hammond say "invisible" again I think I'm gonna slit my wrists, and I'm only on the second episode.
Guess it would make a good drinking game - if you fancy some alcohol poisoning.
 
FordGT said:
Richard seems like the perfect host since he is essentially learning like us.
Click to expand...

THIS. You totally understand it, I say! :D

Look, gang, Richard likely could not help the number of times he had to say "invisible" (what other word/phrase would you want him to say?), or any of the other stuff said in the narration. If you're going to place blame on someone, don't do so on him. Put it on whomever wrote his narration.
 
shellygrrl said:
THIS. You totally understand it, I say! :D

Look, gang, Richard likely could not help the number of times he had to say "invisible" (what other word/phrase would you want him to say?), or any of the other stuff said in the narration. If you're going to place blame on someone, don't do so on him. Put it on whomever wrote his narration.
Click to expand...

I wasn't criticising Hammond but it doesn't mean I have to like it. No need to get defensive, yet.
Another word for invisible?

unable to be seen, hidden, concealed from view, imperceptible, indiscernible, microscopic, out of sight, unapparent, ungraspable, unnoticeable, unobservable, unperceivable, unseeable, unseen, unviewable, etc
Click to expand...

Better yet, don't even mention it. The whole series is about invisible stuff, we don't need to be reminded every 5 minutes.

As for Hammond, no I can't criticise him for taking large amounts of cash to basically "read enthusiastically", I would probably do the same. He is perfectly replaceable by anyone who can "read enthusiastically", yet the show is called "Richard Hammond's Invisible World". Even Attenborough didn't claim to own the natural world and he actually did know what he was talking about. Some people like a knowledgeable presenter who speaks with authority and enthusiasm while others prefer... Hammond. It's just personal preference.

This show does have some good footage and some interesting information (sorry if I sound up myself but I'm not learning much) so I'll keep watching. Had to fast forward through the bacteria stuff though, don't need to see that.
 
Last edited:
Finished watching all 3 eps, thought it was a great series and fun to watch. Had fantastic camera work some of which would rival the work on Planet Earth. As far as Hammond not being technical or sounding 'smart' enough in his presentation. C'mon, he's presenting in a Hammond style and acted like he was presenting from our 'everyman' point of view, basically boiled down everything to what is cool and left the pedantic stuff out for older, more drier educational presenters to discuss. Attenborough does an Attenborough style presentation very well, Hammond shouldnt try to sound like him or May. And btw May isn't the big authority either, he easily says stuff that is factually wrong from time to time but his presentation just makes it sound like he knows what he's talking about 100% of the time.

If Hammond was innaccurate, its easy to just let it slide.
 
Exactly. Methinks if you're that concerned about hard-core facts, maybe you should do your own research, yeah? ;)
 
Now I have to research my own documentaries? I don't know, I think I'm entitled to expect a documentary style TV show on the BBC to present facts and not untruths. No, I guess a documentary these days = purchase some pretty pictures from other studios/networks + B-list celeb presenter + some poorly executed research done by the intern + a dodgy script.

And the rest is a symptom of the dumbing down going on, e.g. "The only way to understand why dolphins are so at home in the water and we aren't is through the magic of a high-speed camera." Hammond. Really? That's the only way? Give me a break.
 
hansvonaxion said:
Now I have to research my own documentaries? I don't know, I think I'm entitled to expect a documentary style TV show on the BBC to present facts and not untruths.
Click to expand...

No, in fact you're expected to do your own research now. I don't know about you but I actually read about topics I'm interested in if I see it on a tv documentary.
 
edkwon said:
Had fantastic camera work some of which would rival the work on Planet Earth.
Click to expand...
I can't tell you how much I disagree with this. Planet Earth took stupefying levels of dedication and skill to create, and thanks to this, the filmmakers captured creatures and events that had never been seen before, in ways that they'd never been seen before. For instance, take the snow leopard chasing its prey - stunning stuff, a blink-and-you'll-miss-it moment, superbly caught on camera. Invisible Worlds had thermal/infrared/high-speed cameras. I'm more than happy to agree that the visuals are beautiful and interesting (in fact, the visual side is the only thing that kept me watching), but I can't believe that they weren't relatively simple to capture.

In the dumbing-down stakes, I completely agree with hansvonaxion. There is no excuse for shoddy writing and factual inaccuracies in a documentary. There was so much about this programme I disliked, it really is only the interesting visuals that I'll watch and rewatch it for.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top