# Life: shouldn't have used CGI. **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [April 19, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598 "2010-04-19T03:35:30Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 3:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/1 "2010-04-19T03:35:30Z")
I just watched the final two episodes of the BBC/Discovery series _Life_. I didn’t like the narration but I could deal with it. And there was more baboon penis that I would have prefered but that’s just nature. However, what I found unacceptable was the use of CGI. I was watching the opening of the Plants episode where they had the long stop motion tracking shot. It wasn’t overtly dramatic like animals fighting but I thought it was amazing when I considered how incredibly hard it must have been to film. I was thinking how difficult it must have been to slowly move the camera inch by inch over the course of weeks to get the shot. Except that’s not how they did. At the end of the episode they did a “behind the scenes” sequence and explained how they had faked the shot. Of course, they didn’t call it faked but that’s what I see it as. They shot an outdoor tracking shot to get a background. Then they filmed a bunch of other shots inside a studio mock-up. Then they edited all the shots together on a computer. As far as I’m concerned that’s special effect not nature photography. If you’re going to make up CGI shots for a nature documentary, you might as well go for the spectacle and throw in some dragons and unicorns and Zoe Saldana in a thong. ---
**Author:** ![Rigamarole](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/77aa72/32.png) [@Rigamarole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rigamarole)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 3:42am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/2 "2010-04-19T03:42:01Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > If you’re going to make up CGI shots for a nature documentary, you might as well go for the spectacle and throw in some dragons and unicorns and Zoe Saldana in a thong. Now _that_ would get the Discovery channel some ratings. Now you’re thinking like an exec! ---
**Author:** ![Maserschmidt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/maserschmidt/32/18829_2.png) [@Maserschmidt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Maserschmidt)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 3:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/3 "2010-04-19T03:44:02Z")
I know it’s not exactly the same thing, but ever since my wife & I became aware of “Foley Artists” we’ve made fun of the sound effects during nature programs. Now every time I see an animal tramping through a forest on Discovery I picture a woman crunching leaves in a cardboard box. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/4 "2010-04-19T03:45:00Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > there was more baboon penis that I would have prefered Now that’s a phrase you don’t hear everyday. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 3:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/5 "2010-04-19T03:45:59Z")
Editing is now considered CGI? ---
**Author:** ![statsman1982](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e79b87/32.png) [@statsman1982](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/statsman1982)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/6 "2010-04-19T03:51:58Z")
> [@Rigamarole](#): > > Now _that_ would get the Discovery channel some ratings. Now you’re thinking like an exec! Put her in a leopard print thong, and it just might fly!🙂 ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 4:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/7 "2010-04-19T04:10:45Z")
> [@GuanoLad](#): > > Editing is now considered CGI? No, I just saw what\*\* Little Nemo\*\* was talking about. They took some background tracking shots of a mossy tree scene and then said they recreated the whole scene in the studio by ‘painstakingly’ positioning the plants to film the rest of the scene. They showed them attaching plants to fake tree limbs like a florist creating a bouquet. Whatever it is, it isn’t nature photography. I am begining to doubt whether Oprah was sitting on her own ass when she narrated the story, or if they created one in the studio for her. ---
**Author:** ![Todderbob](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/e47774/32.png) [@Todderbob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Todderbob)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 4:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/8 "2010-04-19T04:22:24Z")
CGI means computer generated images, were there a lot of animated animals in Life? ---
**Author:** ![luv2draw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/46a35a/32.png) [@luv2draw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/luv2draw)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 4:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/9 "2010-04-19T04:29:53Z")
I didn’t watch anymore than the first episode because I can’t stand Oprah’s voice. ---
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 4:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/10 "2010-04-19T04:39:15Z")
> [@luv2draw](#): > > I didn’t watch anymore than the first episode because I can’t stand Oprah’s voice. You could get the DVDs (or maybe view it online) for the BBC version, narrated by Daven Attenborough, as nature documentaries should be. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 4:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/11 "2010-04-19T04:55:31Z")
Okay, I just had a look at the documentary, and I can see what you mean about it being a big visual effects cheat (though there’s certainly no CGI). But at least they were open about it. And I also recommend you watch the David Attenborough narrated version. It would be nice if they included his audio on the DVD as an alternative track. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 5:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/12 "2010-04-19T05:52:51Z")
> [@](#): > > Okay, I just had a look at the documentary, and I can see what you mean about it being a big visual effects cheat (though there’s certainly no CGI). Okay, maybe I’m misusing the terminology. I figured it was a CGI because it was generated on a computer (as opposed to other forms of trickery like using models or putting the plants on the tree for the shot). But whatever it’s called, it clearly was a fake shot - the plants we saw were never anywhere near that forest. I’d hate to see this become an acceptable practice in nature shows. Look at the difficulty they had recording some of the legitimate sequences. Next time, some producer might argue that it’s okay to fudge things a little and create the shot on a computer instead. ---
**Author:** ![GuanoLad](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/guanolad/32/42_2.png) [@GuanoLad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GuanoLad)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 6:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/13 "2010-04-19T06:03:39Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > Okay, maybe I’m misusing the terminology. I figured it was a CGI because it was generated on a computer (as opposed to other forms of trickery like using models or putting the plants on the tree for the shot). It wasn’t _generated_ on a computer. The separate elements were combined in a computer (called “compositing”) but they were all real plants really growing. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > But whatever it’s called, it clearly was a fake shot - the plants we saw were never anywhere near that forest. For that one shot, yes. It was a symbolic sequence for the early part of the documentary, with no indication from the narration that it was showing anything genuine. Most of the other shots were genuine, though sped up or slowed down, but even then I imagine a good number were filmed in controlled conditions. > [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > I’d hate to see this become an acceptable practice in nature shows. Too late. By about 100 years. Almost all nature documentaries use creative editing and artifice to make the show more interesting and informative. David Attenborough has a great [autobiography](http://www.amazon.co.uk/David-Attenborough-Life-Air-Sir/dp/0563487801) of his time as a natural history documentary maker that details several such incidents, in their attempts to entertain and educate. ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Nemo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/little_nemo/32/3120_2.png) [@Little\_Nemo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Nemo)\ **Post date:** [April 19, 2010, 6:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/life-shouldnt-have-used-cgi/536598/14 "2010-04-19T06:31:26Z")
> [@](#): > > It wasn’t generated on a computer. The separate elements were combined in a computer (called “compositing”) but they were all real plants really growing. I’ve already said I got the terminology wrong. But I’ll say it again. However, I think we all understand what the shot was at this point. > [@](#): > > Too late. By about 100 years. Almost all nature documentaries use creative editing and artifice to make the show more interesting and informative. I know. But I still think there’s a big line between manipulating images that were actually recorded and creating images that never existed outside of a computer. Obviously fakery doesn’t require computers. They could have taken a bunch of greenhouse plants and put them out in that forest for the shot. Or the guys recording the orca shots could have thrown one of the seals into the water with the orca in order to get a recording of a kill. These would have been manipulations of nature even though the recordings would have been genuine. But, as I said, I see this as taking it up to another level. These are the equivalent of those dinosaur nature shows. It’s completely unconstrained by reality.