It really sucks that they forced you to watch that entire sequence.
I can’t answer for you, but I can answer for me: I identify with hunger. I’m a spoiled creature of modern civilization, and I really, really hate being hungry. As in, I hate when dinner is an hour late. Some of those poor lions have gone without eating for days.
Then I think how horrible it would be to be in their situation, crouching and waiting (and getting hungrier!), and then attacking, knowing that if you failed you’d be hungrier still from the effort, and have to wait who knows how long until you could try again. So yeah, I root for the lions. Mmm, wildebeest!
Lions sometimes attack elephants, though typically younger ones. Younger elephants, I mean. Look here for a video of such an attack. Be warned that the attack might be disturbing to some.
You are, I presume, a human being, and thus descended from predators.
I use my hand to block the gory bits so I don’t have to watch them.
How is it distorted?
Are you saying that the vast majority of wildebeest aren’t killed by predators in this manner?
Are you saying that the vast majority of wildebeest won’t lose calves in this manner.
Because is those facts are true, then the only distortion would be not showing it. Right? I mean, if most individuals of a species experience such an event, how can showing the event be a distortion?
I have watched a LOT of nature docos in my life. While I can’t speak for the one that you watched, these statements simply are not true of nature documentaries in general.
For example, at about 2 minutes in this clipthe fights start. It is shown in closeup. It is slowed down. It is shown from multiple angles.
This entire video shows bears feeding on fish. And it’s all shown in closeup. It is all slowed down. It is all shown from multiple angles.
Now maybe the documentary you saw was different. Maybe in the whole thing only one scene was shown in close-up and slow motion and from multiple angles. But if that is the case, it is exceptional. I have never seen a wildlife documentary that did not have multiple scenes shot in this manner. Since the documentary you saw was exceptional, for every hour of footage of deaths shown in this way there are at least an equal number of hours showing the “majestic” aspects of nature using exactly the same techniques. So once again, the point of showing the more brutal aspects in the same manner is to provide some sort of balance and make the educational process more complete.
Just out of interest, can you tell us the name of this documentary so that we can try and see for ourselves if there really was only one scene shown in close-up from multiple angles with the sound on?
:dubious:
So people who want to see all aspects of nature portrayed in the same manner are sick? People who want to see bears eating salmon in slow motion, from multiple angles, with the sound on are nature lovers. People who want to see whales fucking in slow motion, from multiple angles, with the sound on are nature lovers. People who want to see kangaroos fighting in slow motion, from multiple angles, with the sound on are nature lovers
But people who want to crocodiles eating wildebeest in exactly the same way a are sick.
Interesting viewpoint, and very telling.
No, it wasn’t only one scene. It was every DEATH scene. The documentary was the first episode of “Great Migrations.”
People who want to see every rending tear and death squeal of a dying animal, in slow motion and zoomed in, are sick.
Are you sure it wasn’t a clip from The Passion of the Wildebeast?
Well in that case you are simply misremembering what you saw.
I put [“Great Migrations” wildebeest] into a Google video search, and it took me straight to the epiode. You can watch it yourself here.
As you can see from watching that video, much of the episode you saw was shot in slow motion and close-up with multiple angles. Indeed that video starts with shots of wildebeest walking and running, in slow motion and close-up with multiple angles.
So you simply misremembred. This is fairly common in people exposed to material they struggle with emotionally. They the human mind remembers the bits that provoked a reaction at the expense of the other details. That’s a good survival trait from an evolutionary POV because it forces us to remember events that are dangerous. It unfortunately causes problems when we need an accurate analysis of events.
It’s no big deal. But you now know that it wasn’t just the death scenes that were shot in close-up, from multiple angles and in slow motion. Much of the show was shot in that way. You just failed to remember it because those scenes didn’t have any emotional impact.
So people can watch wildebeest running, fighting, feeding and fucking with full sound, in slow motion and zoomed in, and that’s fine. But if they watch a wildebeest dying in the same manner, they are mentally ill?
As I said, that’s very telling. The people who are watching *all *aspects of wildebeest ecology and behaviour in the same manner are somehow sick and are perceived as harming either themselves or others. Only those who insist on watching the death scenes in a totally different manner that reduces the mental impact are mentally acceptable.
Like I said, it’s very telling that you believe this.
You can actually watch the very first minute of the episode here.
The episode starts with shots of butterflies flying, in slow motion and close-up with multiple angles, and whales swimming in slow motion and close-up with multiple angles and neonatal wildebeest struggling to stand, in slow motion and close-up with multiple angles. And so forth.
Another part of the same episode here. This one features slow motion footage of a zebra mare chasing off a cheetah. No deaths involved. It also shows slow motion footage of a wildebeest calf playing. No deaths involved. (For those who struggle to deal with other aspects of wildebeest behaviour portrayed in exactly the same manner, it also shows a calf being killed, about 1/4 of a second in slow motion).
It actually looks like an OK documentary, but it’s been produced in NatGeo melodrama boilerplate, which means there are tonnes of scenes shot in slowmo, from multiple angles and with full sound.
Anybody claiming that it’s only the death scenes presented in that manner should watch the episode again, or at least the clips I’ve linked to here, and see if they change their mind.
Yes, right, National Geographic is all about creating gruesome animal deaths to titillate “sick” people. No other purpose.
I’ve seen that video, and I vehemently disagree with your overly previous, weepy characterization of it.
What you don’t get, is that there is nothing inherently “bad” about the predation of animals by other animals.
That is exclusively human subjective judgment that has no relevance in the wild.
Pretty much.
It’s a matter of degrees of emotional attachement. If I had a beloved pet domestic rabbit that was snatched off my back porch by a large raptor, it would be both “bad” and tragic from my POV.
But if I saw that same raptor take a wild rabbit in some parkland, I’d be thrilled. Because it is exceptionally rare to be in the right time at the right place to get a glimpse of that sort of wild behavior. To this day one of the most amazing wildlife moments I’ve ever seen in RL was a Sharp-Shinned Hawk snatching a Brewer’s Blackbird out of the air in an urban area ten feet above my head ( blackbird feathers rained down on my face as I gaped upwards, dumbfounded ).
Baby mammals naturally attract sympathy, almost certainly for biologically hardwired reasons. So it’s normal to fall into a pattern of rooting for them and watching such shows I often have the same involuntary reaction. But I think some folks may get a little too wrapped up in choosing sides while watching nature shows. Crocodiles have to eat and a successful kill is a triumph, which is well worth respecting and even admiring.
Speak for yourself, bub.
Regards,
Shodan
I love watching animal death scenes in nature documentaries. I also very much enjoy watching predators and prey IRL. There is no life without death. I feel empathy for anything in pain and fear, but not to the point that is disturbs my emotions. When I was very young, before I moved to a farming area and witnessed the harsher realities of nature, I used to get extremely upset over animals being in pain…
Even my most militant vegan friends have to agree with me that this is my only symptom of sickness.
No, I do get that, actually, which is why I don’t mind them showing it. I just object to how DRAMATIC they make the scenes.
A while back I saw a program about insects, one scene of which has stayed with me for some reason. Prey bug is on a branch and right behind him, and a little higher is predator bug. Prey bug knows that he’ll be safe as long as he doesn’t move. He holds out for as long as he can, but finally moves and in a flash predator bug has him. End of story.
Even that, though, I think is a bit of anthropomorphizing, as well as the idea that the wildebeest in the OP is somehow grieving for its calf. I’m willing to entertain the idea that maybe chimpanzees have some form of emotion and rudimentary consciousness that we might recognize, but wildebeests, elephants and insects? Nah. You might as well feel sorry for this lamp.
(ETA: oops, I forgot to put a warning that the video features some dramatic music and camera angles that might prompt certain posters here to go into bouts of hysterical weeping. Proceed at your own risk!)
But as I just demonstrated, they made all the scenes that dramatic. The scenes of the animals fricken’ *walking *were filmed in exactly the same way: close ups, multiple angles, slow notion. The lot.
Why do you want the death scenes filmed differently to every other aspect of wildebeest behaviour?