How natural are nature documentaries?

People define things like 'nature' and 'documentary' differently. Some people assume something is a 'documentary' genre even if there is no verbiage to suggest it. Fortunately it's not that tough to research which documentaries are legitimate and have a good reputation if you really care that much.

Narrative techniques and emphasis on 'the interesting stuff' is to be expected on TV. If you're trying to learn by watching docs airing on TV you're taking the wrong approach anyway IMO. I haven't had cable in years but I don't mind 'nature' footage in the background at all.

as a sidenote - I like the 'documentary' Koyaanisqatsi - to those who have not seen it, there's no spoken words, just a soundtrack. It's an interesting juxtoposition of scenery ranging from untouched by civilization to the heights of scientific achievement.

Haha, good catch and revelations in this article. It's funny, I find myself explaining to my daughter whenever she watches any form of video footage while we're out and about during our day that "they're only actors". I remember once watching some old Kurosawa movies and he did this one take bit or some other really long scene that moved so slowly, I found myself getting edgy and bored. And then it struck me, "wait, this guy is like letting parts of the film unfold at real life pace". And that's the crux, when filmed things transpire at the pace of real life they seem slow and dull. Most produced and edited material adds a great deal of effect and storytelling, but it's funny to see that apply to something you'd think was completely unadulterated natural footage. Good oxymoronic effect.

I was recently disappointed to see loads of computer-generate shots in documentaries. I feel cheated by it I guess? Stuff like Shark Week being half fake http://www.oregonlive.com/movies/index.ssf/2014/08/anger_bui...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/12/nature-documentary-...