What ING should mean for natural history TV

Darren Naish has been praising Inside Nature’s Giants again with tomorrow night’s upcoming special on the giant squid. He’s doing so with good reason, the programs are truly superb. One of the few shows I can watch and not feel talked down to and generally learn something as well*. But what it really does for me is demonstrate the poor quality of far too much other shows.

*Well, when you are a professional biologist, it’s perhaps not surprising that most things sail under your knowledge level. I still watch and enjoy most natural history shows, but ING is special.

Because ING has won awards (like a BAFTA!) for the quality of the series. It gets great write-ups from critics and biologists alike. And it gets good viewing figures. So, the audience like it and the critics like it. Critically (for me, and others) it gets technical. It genuinely provides real education on anatomy (not the most obvious documentary subject) and evolution and even a bit of biomechanics. And people are watching it and enjoying it. You can make documentaries that educate and entertain, so can people start making a few more now please?

1 Response to “What ING should mean for natural history TV”

  1. 1 Mike Taylor 13/10/2010 at 6:33 pm

    A huge AMEN from over here. ING is one of the greatest things to happen in British TV in the last decade, not only because it’s so awesome itself, but because it proves that even in these X-Factor-infested days, there is a significant audience for really substantial science on TV.

Comments are currently closed.

@Dave_Hone on Twitter

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 492 other followers

%d bloggers like this: