DisneyNature's Earth

[Rudy Matt]

People keep scrutinizing Disney for making a toned-down edited version of the series, but Disney didn't edit the film. BBC did. The theatrical version has already been released numerous places worldwide. As far as I know, the only changes Disney made were adding their logo to the beginning and ending and the narrator, but not the script itself.

Disney owns a stake in Discovery Channel, which I believe is how they ended up with distribution rights in the US. In addition, the formation of Disney Nature was in conjunction with the BBC and Greenlight Media, the two companies that made the series and who will also be producing the subsequent Disney Nature films.

So to say that Disney missed their mark with the film is really placing the blame on the wrong people, because unless your only reason for not liking it was James Earl Jones, then everything else was handled by BBC.

I personally thought they did a fantastic job editing 20 hours into 90 minutes. A better title for the film would have been "The Best of Planet Earth." Disney released an edited version of the True Life Adventures series in the 70's called "The Best of the True Life Adventures." In my opinion, this is basically the same type of thing.

Well, as I said four pages ago, that's quite a drop from the glory days of the True Life Adventures. I said back then that the film looked like a 90 minute version of Planet Earth, and that turns out to be exactly what it is. Disney wants to wrap themselves in the Flag of Al Gore and Green Technology, and they take a 12 hour documentary, cut it down to 90 minutes, slap the name "DisneyNature" on it, street it, and promise to plant a tree for every ticket sold...wow. That's commitment. It actually looks like a half-assed response to March of the Penguins and a cheap way to make a buck.

I remember when Walt set aside vast acreage of the WDW property as a nature preserve. Walt didn't even believe in cemetaries, as he thought they were a waste of land. Walt walked it like he talked it. He even put his own life insurance on the line to produce Seal Island. This "Earth" release is a bit of a an embarassment...hopefully the Walt Disney Company will start producing their own nature documentaries again, and drop the idea of chopping BBC productions down into familyfriendly nanobytes.

[MICKEYMOUSE]

People keep scrutinizing Disney for making a toned-down edited version of the series, but Disney didn't edit the film. BBC did. The theatrical version has already been released numerous places worldwide. As far as I know, the only changes Disney made were adding their logo to the beginning and ending and the narrator, but not the script itself.

Disney owns a stake in Discovery Channel, which I believe is how they ended up with distribution rights in the US. In addition, the formation of Disney Nature was in conjunction with the BBC and Greenlight Media, the two companies that made the series and who will also be producing the subsequent Disney Nature films.

So to say that Disney missed their mark with the film is really placing the blame on the wrong people, because unless your only reason for not liking it was James Earl Jones, then everything else was handled by BBC.

I personally thought they did a fantastic job editing 20 hours into 90 minutes. A better title for the film would have been "The Best of Planet Earth." Disney released an edited version of the True Life Adventures series in the 70's called "The Best of the True Life Adventures." In my opinion, this is basically the same type of thing.

Well, as I said four pages ago, that's quite a drop from the glory days of the True Life Adventures. I said back then that the film looked like a 90 minute version of Planet Earth, and that turns out to be exactly what it is. Disney wants to wrap themselves in the Flag of Al Gore and Green Technology, and they take a 12 hour documentary, cut it down to 90 minutes, slap the name "DisneyNature" on it, street it, and promise to plant a tree for every ticket sold...wow. That's commitment. It actually looks like a half-assed response to March of the Penguins and a cheap way to make a buck.

I remember when Walt set aside vast acreage of the WDW property as a nature preserve. Walt didn't even believe in cemetaries, as he thought they were a waste of land. Walt walked it like he talked it. He even put his own life insurance on the line to produce Seal Island. This "Earth" release is a bit of a an embarassment...hopefully the Walt Disney Company will start producing their own nature documentaries again, and drop the idea of chopping BBC productions down into familyfriendly nanobytes.

Honestly, I couldn't agree with you more. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, and I don't own Planet Earth on Blu Ray YET, but when I saw this trailer a while back, I was so excited to see something NEW!

[Tannerman]

Which part of "Disneynature is a distributor" did you not understand?

[Rudy Matt]

What part of "Walt walked it like he talked it" do you not understand?

I'm all for the Disney company producing and distributing nature films. But "earth" is a clip reel of a series that has been aired countless times on cable and has sold hundreds of thousands of discs on DVD and Blu-Ray -- the Disney company has a proud tradition of conservation and nature advocacy. This is the El Cheapo way to launch a new franchise label.

[The_Iceflash]

What part of "Walt walked it like he talked it" do you not understand?

I'm all for the Disney company producing and distributing nature films. But "earth" is a clip reel of a series that has been aired countless times on cable and has sold hundreds of thousands of discs on DVD and Blu-Ray -- the Disney company has a proud tradition of conservation and nature advocacy. This is the El Cheapo way to launch a new franchise label.

It would have been worse if they made their own "earth" because it would then be seen as a knock-off of "Planet Earth" even though we know the long history of Disney and conservation and nature advocacy. Distributing it gives them more credibility in this situation.

[Rudy Matt]

Honestly, I couldn't agree with you more. Don't get me wrong, I liked the movie, and I don't own Planet Earth on Blu Ray YET, but when I saw this trailer a while back, I was so excited to see something NEW!

When I saw the trailer, I was taken aback, and mentioned on the 1st page of this thread that this was a rehash, and was told no, I was wrong, the film was full of new footage and old footage would be used sparingly.

Turns out almost the entire film is indeed the rehash we thought it was.

Don't get me wrong, fellas -- I'm just a fierce believer in the idea that the Disney label has to stand for quality and innovation. The last half of Eisner's tenure should serve as an example of what happens when you degrade the quality of your brand.

[blackcauldron85]

But wasn't Disney involved with the production the whole time? It's not like someone just gave them footage and said "Make a movie based on all the footage you had nothing to do with"...right?

[Tannerman]

What part of "Walt walked it like he talked it" do you not understand?

Um, let me see. I understand that completely. That still doesn't really relate to the Disneynature purpose. I just don't understand how you feel "deceived". From the first press release last year when the label was announced, yes, the True-Lifes were referenced, but it was never pitched as "we're doing everything in-house". It was pretty clearly stated that these other guys are doing nature films, Disney is giving them a broad audience under their name.

[2099net]

But wasn't Disney involved with the production the whole time? It's not like someone just gave them footage and said "Make a movie based on all the footage you had nothing to do with"...right?

All Disney did is record new narration. Which I suspect is for selfish copyright reasons rather than quality reasons (I mean really, who in the US doesn't know Patrick Stewart? And its not as if people complained about his accent in ST: TNG is it?).

Basically Disney are distributing Earth, just as they only distributed Valiant - or for other examples, just as Miramax bought and distributed many, many, many independent films under their own name as well as co-funding or fully funding others, but ultimately still distributed by Disney. Disney/Miramax had no creative or initial financial input into Amelie, Strictly Ballroom, Clerks, Becoming Jane, The Queen and many others.

[gardener14]

In recent years there have been many films distributed by Disney or one of its subsidiaries. I'm not sure why this one has become an issue with some here. It's a new way to bring great filmmaking to a different audience. If you've seen it before, and don't wish to see it again in this format than the movie isn't for you.

What's important to me is that Earth is a movie that I enjoyed, that I wouldn't have seen otherwise in its international format, and that stands up well under the Disney brand. I couldn't get into the Planet Earth television series because of Sigourney Weaver's narration (which I found quite dull), but I thoroughly enjoyed Earth the movie. I'm thankful Disney brought it to me in a form that I enjoyed.

Aren't the forthcoming Disneynature movies being made by Disney as original products, in a way, moreso than Earth?

[Pluto Region1]

In recent years there have been many films distributed by Disney or one of its subsidiaries. I'm not sure why this one has become an issue with some here. It's a new way to bring great filmmaking to a different audience. If you've seen it before, and don't wish to see it again in this format than the movie isn't for you.

What's important to me is that Earth is a movie that I enjoyed, that I wouldn't have seen otherwise in its international format, and that stands up well under the Disney brand.

I've read the last few pages of this discussion and I have to agree with gardener here. I wasn't aware this was a re-branding "best of" the original Planet Earth series, - so it's nice to know that. Sure, if you didn't know that, and you paid good money to see this edited down version, you might be disappointed. For someone like me, who missed the original series this is a good chance to at least catch the "highlights." Because I was originally an environmental science major, I agree with Calamity on a lot of issues - but what is important is anything that can be done to elevate the idea that we need to take care of this planet. (I won't get into the global warming debate etc. When I was a student in the 80s, the fear was of a coming ice age - so it goes to show how much scientific opinions have changed!). If Disney succeeds in getting more people into the theaters by re-releasing this material, than they've served a useful environmental purpose with this effort.

Like blackcauldren, I was weary of going to see it. In the old days, watching Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, I could handle more of the catch/prey scenes, but these days I just go to pieces. If BC can get through it, I guess I can handle shedding a few tears. I will see if it is still playing at El Capitan and try to catch it this week.

BTW, it doesn't seem to me that these days kids are exposed much to animals/nature shows. When I was a kid, and we only had channels 2 thru 13, the big shows we watched were Daktari, Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, and Jacques Cousteau (this was also around the time, 1969, - I was 7 yrs old - we would watch The Wonderful World of Disney" on Channel 4 on Sunday night and Mutual of Omaha's was before the Disney program).

So what do kids today watch on a weeknight, or a Saturday/Sunday evening that deals with nature and is just as educational? When I am at the gym (the only time I am exposed to the non-cable networks these days), around 4pm or so, when kids are home from school, the gym has the TVs set to like channel 9 or 13, and I see nothing by adult-oriented shows like Family Guy, etc. I am of the opinion that today, kids won't learn about nature unless parents go out of their way to provide the educational opportunities because it seems to me that prime-time TV on the networks in the USA is showing just entertainment-oriented programming.

[Rudy Matt]

But we don't live in a Big 3 or Big 4 network world any more. There's Animal Planet, Discovery Channel, and the National Geographic channel, and they do animals all day long.

That's one of the problems with Earth -- its been aired on Cable TV countless times already, and its a no-brainer and first choice for many people who buy their first HDTV and Blu-Ray.

I think arguing for reform of the primetime big 3 or big 4 is a lost cause. We're moving to a day when there won't even be television broadcasting, and people will be picking shows streaming through super-broad internet bands. Some will celebrate, some will cry, but it's inevitable.

[gardener14]

My parents saw Earth, and they hadn't seen Planet Earth the tv series, so it didn't matter one bit to them that it is reedited from the same filmwork. In expressing how much he enjoyed the movie, my father's first response to me in was, "I'm glad I got to see it on a big screen...it just wouldn't have been the same on tv."

Instead of complaining that Earth is too similar to Planet Earth, why not be glad that the film is being viewed by a new audience and gaining greater appreciation in a different form.

[goofystitch]

Great point, gardener14. That's basically the viewpoint others have been trying to express on here, but Rudy Matt doesn't seem to see things that way.

We're moving to a day when there won't even be television broadcasting, and people will be picking shows streaming through super-broad internet bands.

I think that day is further off than you seem to think. 72.5% of the US population uses the internet. Streaming TV shows and movies online is only extremely popular amongst demographics younger than 24. While this could increase in other demographics, at the moment, the day that TV is replaced by online sources doesn't seem very near. The biggest challenge currently is that many people prefer to watch shows and movies on their TV. While both Apple, Hulu, and NetFlix have released devices that can stream content to your TV in good quality, there hasn't been a huge jump to purchase these devices. Most people are satisfied with renting movies either online or at brick and mortar locations and pretty much everybody with cable now has some sort of a DVR device, so accessing the programs you enjoy is easier than it has ever been.

In an unrelated note, did anybody else see the press release today from Hulu and Disney? Disney will be adding content to Hulu soon and three executives, including Bob Iger, will be on the board at Hulu as a result. The programs listed in the initial offering are all popular with the 24 and under crowd.

[slave2moonlight]

Well, I realized I hadn't said my piece about the film after actually seeing it, but I'll try to keep it short. I liked it, but after finding out it wasn't a Disney original production, that changed my view of it greatly. It seems the real important film to check out, for me, will be the next one, IF it's truly a Disney production. I'm disappointed that they kicked things off under the new "DisneyNature" name, a line that was supposed to be a throwback to the days of Disney's True-Life Adventure and animal focused films, with a film they didn't make. However, it was a good film. My complaints about it were that it was trying to cover too much to really be captivating. Not focusing long enough on any creature or group to have any kind of story, not enough Disney-feeling moments (but, of course, it's not Disney) like the Rainforest birds, the baby ducks, and the Polar Bear stuff in the very beginning (hope future Disney Nature films are more in that spirit, and focused to some degree on certain animals), and I felt they went overboard with the migration subject. I get it. Animals migrate. I felt like half that movie was seeing large groups of animals just migrating.... Don't get me wrong, it was a good film and had many beautiful visuals, but the further ones I hope will be much more Disney in style, though I don't mean overly cutesy or fictional. James Earl Jones was a good choice, though if they had already recorded Patrick Stewart, they could have used him (Americans love him well enough, I'd say). So, I didn't dislike it by any means, but so much could have been better about it.

[Calamity 23]

(I won't get into the global warming debate etc. When I was a student in the 80s, the fear was of a coming ice age - so it goes to show how much scientific opinions have changed!).

I think there's credible, compelling evidence that global warming has been taking place and that human activity has been a contributing factor. But I also recognize that there is still much we don't know or fully understand about the climate. And it's not uncommon for new findings to contradict conventional wisdom or expectation. There's no denying that some climate models have been wrong. This is another reason why I tend to focus on the conservation angle because it's a way to work on the climate issue (and other environmental challenges) without getting completely bogged down in the politics of the global warming debate.

There are those who understandably question news about global warming because they remember that the 1970s was a cold-ish decade in some regions, which apparently sparked a lot of hype & speculation about a coming Ice Age. And it's become common belief that this speculation was the scientific consensus at the time. Except it turns out it wasn't; the new Ice Age idea was more a product of popular culture than science. An analysis of the relevant scientific literature from 1965-1979 found 7 studies predicting the Earth was cooling, 19 neutral studies, and 42 studies predicting warming. This report was presented in January 2008 at a meeting of the American Meteorological Society and was published in the AMS' bulletin. This is a link to the analysis: http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf . I'm only bringing this up since the 1970s Ice Age argument is so frequently mentioned in the climate debate that someone might find this report interesting. I'm not disputing what anyone else may have been taught or heard. In fact, it wasn't until the late 1980s that I first heard about the greenhouse effect/global warming. Last year while going through a box of old school folders, I found a series of articles on the environment from a local newspaper in 1989 (global warming was mentioned). It was a bit disheartening to read those articles and see how little progress in two decades we've made in some areas.

Btw, there are those who say the Earth actually is in a global cooling mode, pointing to the lack of sunspot activity (we have been in a period of solar minimum but that isn't unheard of for the beginning of a new solar cycle). Maybe...I just think we need to keep in mind that isolated weather events and short term weather patterns aren't proof of climate trends and that goes for warming or cooling.

BTW, it doesn't seem to me that these days kids are exposed much to animals/nature shows...When I was a kid...the big shows we watched were Daktari, Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom, and Jacques Cousteau,...The Wonderful World of Disney").

It's true, so many kids today suffer from a nature deficit. They don't get to play outside like previous generations did. Someone lamented that too many Western children are replacing outdoor, actual experiences with indoor, virtual experiences. Earlier this year I read a report that the Oxford Junior Dictionary has been dropping many "nature" words - names of birds and flowers and animals, etc. - because they weren't considered as relevant to kids' lives anymore. As someone said - can you love and value something if you don't know it exists?

That said, today's kids do have so many ways to learn more about the world. And there are entire tv channels devoted to science and nature, not just individual programs. But I almost think the sheer amount of programming and information now available can be overwhelming. And with so many more entertainment options, people don't watch things together the way they used to (had to, lol). Also with cable channels, cheap home video, and online content, my little niece and nephew don't think of shows as "special" anymore because they can watch them anytime. We used to look forward all week, sometimes all year, to certain shows. For them, it's just put the DVD in or log onto YouTube (I can't believe a four year-old can find YouTube!). What we've gained in satisfaction from immediate gratification, we seem to have lost in the excitement of anticipation. Not that I plan to give up my Walt Disney Treasures or True-Life Adventures sets!


P.S. Someone mentioned Venus a while back - the latest issue of Scientific American has a story about whether Earth's escaping atmosphere will eventually make Earth look like Venus: http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... tmospheres . Thought that might be of interest to you.

[a-net-fan]

Instead of complaining that Earth is too similar to Planet Earth, why not be glad that the film is being viewed by a new audience and gaining greater appreciation in a different form.

GREAT POINT. I havent seen the movie but I know if I was able to see the movie I would just to see that beautiful footage on the BIG SCREEN!

[jrboy]

Earth, the first film released under Disney's new environmentally conscious "Disneynature" label, will be released on Blu-ray Disc and DVD September 1.

Earth explores our planet's environmental challenges through the experiences of animal families and under the narration of Darth Vader himself, James Earl Jones. It rocked the box office beginning on its Earth Day release with a worldwide gross of over $100 million.

Disneynature's Earth on Blu-ray will be presented in 1.78:1 1080p video and 5.1 DTS-HD Master Audio 48kHz/24-bit.

The Blu-ray version will contain a scant two bonus features, one of which is exclusive to the format.

* Earth Diaries: The Making of Earth the Movie
* Filmmaker Annotations (BD exclusive)

http://www.thehdroom.com/news/Disneynat ... u-ray/4987

[JDCB1986]

have been wondering when this would be released.
looks like they aren't taking the environmentally aware approach to the packaging.
it would have been nice if all the disneynature films came in a earth friendly case.
looking forward to this on blu-ray though !

[zackisthewalrus]

I missed this in theaters, but I will definitely pick this one up! Thanks for the update!