Comments

  1. R. Schauer says

    Fascinating! Makes me wish I had water-jet locomotion so I too would need to eat only once a month.

  2. Brian English says

    Hi guys, stupid question. How does a Nautilus have a siphon? What I understand as a siphon is a tube or pipe that goes from a higher level of water over an incline to a lower level of water. In other words, gravity does the work, but indirectly. This seems a bit difficult for the cute head-foot.

  4. Brian English says

    I’m gay for his voice. I want an accent like him!

    There’s a reason it’s called the English language. This is not it. But still, beats strine or North American (which includes the defenders of liberty who finger-print everybody who enters their country because hey, they’re free to not enter the USA! and what do they have to fear if they’re innocent!) accents. Obviously it beats Saffi and Enzed accents. South Asian English accents are too cute to dismiss, still they’d not give you a hard on for science and crisp pronunciation like Sir David Attenborough.

  5. ZK says

    David Attenborough is something of a national treasure here in Albion.

    I believe he’s going to be at the Wetlands Centre in Barnes for their 10th anniversary.

    Amazing nautilus by the way, but I thought the camouflaged octopus was even more amazing.

  7. nonsensemachine says

    “It travels shell-first so it can’t exactly see where it’s going.” *thunk!*

  8. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    Amazing nautilus by the way, but I thought the camouflaged octopus was even more amazing.

    I agree. The octopus settling next to the rock and growing barnacles on its hide was impressive.

  9. Brian English says

    Thanks John Morales, but why not call it a tube or conduit? After all it leads with (conduire)? I guess the biological usages doesn’t coincide with the common usage. Sort of like the word science or in philosophy ‘substance’ which can mean something completely insubstantial when refering to the flesh of baby Jebus.

  10. Brian English says

    Actually, does it lead with (con-ducere) conduct or lead from (ab-ducere) abduct or lead to (ad-ducere) adduce or lead away from (de-ducere) deduce or lead into (in-ducere) induct or lead under (sub-ducere) subduct or is it just the leader dux? Or to Godwinn this post, is it the Fuehrer?

  11. daveau says

    Even if it can’t quite see where it is going, at least when it bonks into something, it hits shell first. (doohh!) Beautious.

  12. recovering catholic says

    I am always sad when I see a chambered nautilus shell as a decoration–such stunning, wondrous creatures!

  15. Sven DiMilo says

    I guess the biological usages doesn’t coincide with the common usage.

    They may well have entered the language independently. A lot of biological terminology comes from 19th Century German comparative anatomists who worked directly with Greek and Latin. According to John’s link above, the colloquial usage came via French. I guess the modern meaning of gravity-defying tube evolved from the noun originally simply meaning hose or tube, to the verb form of one of the things you can do with such a hose or tube, and then back to the more specific noun.

  17. Mbee says

    It is unfortunate that in the program ‘Life’ which debuts on Sunday on Discovery channel in the US, they decided to replace David’s voice with that of Oprah! Why?

    Having a scientist explain things in the way that Sir David does has to be better than Oprah. I’ll wait and see though.
    You can always buy the original through BBC America shops.

  19. Steve L says

    Not short clips, but definitely some interesting stuff among the three episodes that have aired so far:
    http://oneocean.cbc.ca/series/episodes
    The third one is focused on the deep ocean. Sorry, vertebrates included. (Narrator David Suzuki was a geneticist before he started doing this kind of stuff in the mid-70’s.)

  20. Free Lunch says

    There’s a reason it’s called the English language.

    But there have been Americans, such as Richard Kiley, who have been famously good at voice-over. Anyway, we win the descriptivist battle since there are more Americans speaking English on a routine basis than any other folks.

  21. Brian English says

    Sven de Milo:
    I guess the modern meaning of gravity-defying tube evolved from the noun originally simply meaning hose or tube, to the verb form of one of the things you can do with such a hose or tube, and then back to the more specific noun. How does that defy gravity when it’s gravity doing the work exactly?

    Free Lunch:
    I was joking, but your argumentem ad populum is noted. :P

  22. Brian English says

    Sorry, I forgot that it’s gravity that does the work, but capillary action and the strong polar forces in water molecules holding the shite together until it’s over the hump.

  23. Free Lunch says

    Brian, I’m taking this as seriously as you are.

    Imagine how rubbish the Harry Potter movies would be if all of the actors were Yanks.

  24. fishnguy says

    Mr. Attenborough is by far one of the best when it comes to this type of narration. I was dismayed when they dubbed Sigorney Weaver over him on the “Planet Earth” series, and am horrified that the new documentary “Life” is using Oprah Winfrey as a narrator, man what a letdown.

  25. Athena says

    If it can’t see where it’s going and bumps into things and has suction…it must be the precursor to a Roomba.

  27. Disturbingly Openminded says

    Watching the octopus blend right in in a matter of seconds was amazing. I replayed that part about 5 times.

  28. Phledge says

    @mo: word. I think I could listen to that man read the ingredients of shampoo and be totally mesmerized.

  29. Perplexed says

    Seriously they remove Attenborough’s narration?

    That is just criminal, he and the excellent camera work are what make this BBC series so great.

  30. Sven DiMilo says

    Well, if anything could truly defy gravity, it would have to be gravity itself, wouldn’t it? QED

  31. Uncephalized says

    @Perplexed

    The American version is with Sigourney Weaver (who doesn’t do a bad job; she’s just not Sir Attenborough). But both versions are available in the US, and I have the good one. :)

  32. ArabianStallion says

    I’m glad to report that ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ isn’t banned in the united arab emirates. I got my copy today and am already thrilled with what I’ve read so far!

  33. ArabianStallion says

    I’m glad to report that ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ isn’t banned in the united arab emirates. I got my copy today and am already thrilled with what I’ve read so far!

  34. ArabianStallion says

    I’m glad to report that ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ isn’t banned in the united arab emirates. I got my copy today and am already thrilled with what I’ve read so far!

  35. Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM says

    Life is being shown on the Discovery Channel in the US this Sunday. According to the ads I have seen, for the american showing, the woo master general, Oprah, is narrating. Yeah, I feel frigging insulted by that. I will wait for the DVD to come out and have Attenborough’s narration.

  36. Caine, Fleur du mal says

    Janine:

    I will wait for the DVD to come out and have Attenborough’s narration.

    Same here. I’ve really come to despise the “dumbing down” Discovery has done, including the idea that no one will want to watch something like Life without a chat show host attached to it.

  38. Tankred says

    I wish I could use my water jet for locomotion. Right now its only good for lovin’ and waste disposal.

    … And marking my territory if I’m drunk enough.

  39. chuckgoecke says

    The Chambered Nautilus is one of the last two remaining coiled shelled cephalopods. During the Cretaceous and prior times, critters similar to these, but much more diverse and cool, dominated the seas. They were killed by the Chicxulub event, like the dinosaurs. Some were huge, 2 meters or more across. They often had highly ornamented shells, and the sepal walls that separate the chambers were intricately interwoven in an almost fractal-like pattern, which is visible in the fossils under the mother of pearl shell material, when it is eroded or dissolved away. More

  40. greensoul says

    My kidlet has a crush on David Attenborough. I can often woo her into picking a nature documentary for her weekly tv fix by telling her he’s in it.

    sidenote: I really must fix my login in stuff. Not being properly PennyBright is quite un-nerving to me.

  41. Perplexed says

    @Uncephalized

    I suppose it would be naïve of me to assume that nobody else could do the same job as Sir Attenborough. However after enjoying the countless wonderful shows he has been a part of and having learnt more about the world through the words of this one man than from any other single source it would seem wrong, to me at least, to hear it any other way.

    Since you have heard both version, Is it simply a case of redoing the same words with a different accent or do they change the script as well?

  42. Walton says

    I suppose it would be naïve of me to assume that nobody else could do the same job as Sir Attenborough.

    [my emphasis]

    Argh. I can’t believe you actually typed that without a hint of irony.

    As everyone knows on this side of the pond, a knight is described as “Sir [first name]” or as “Sir [first name] [last name]”. So you may refer to David Attenborough as “Sir David” or as “Sir David Attenborough”. If you don’t like titles, you may also refer to him simply as “David Attenborough”. But “Sir Attenborough” is simply wrong.

    For this damnable abuse of the true English language, you receive a slap around the head with Burke’s Peerage and Baronetage.* :-)

    (*Disclaimer for the Intersection: This is a joke. In no way am I advocating the use of violence, nor the abuse of aristocratic tomes as offensive weapons.)

  43. Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM says

    Walton, you do realize you are setting yourself up for more teasing. You cannot force people who have no respect for aristocracy to give a wet plop about about titles. Besides, his achievements are much more meaningful then a title.

  44. Bride of Shrek OM says

    I’m going to asssume Walton’s making a funny here. Given the flack he’s got in recent times over his reverance for ths correct usage of titles I think he’s just pointing it out here to take the piss.

    ..I hope.

  45. Walton says

    Walton, you do realize you are setting yourself up for more teasing. You cannot force people who have no respect for aristocracy to give a wet plop about about titles. Besides, his achievements are much more meaningful then a title.

    Knighthoods are not aristocratic titles. A knighthood is not inherited, and knighthoods are, in general, conferred in recognition of substantial achievements and contribution to the life of the nation – which is why Sir David Attenborough received his title. In American terms, it could be compared to receiving a presidential commendation, or perhaps an honorary doctorate from a university.

    So while I can understand why you wouldn’t give a “wet plop”, as you put it, about hereditary titles, I don’t see why you should apply the same disdain to knighthoods. They’re nothing to do with aristocracy or heredity, and their holders are not part of the peerage. Rather, they’re national awards conferred on citizens in recognition of great achievement; every country, including all republics, has a similar national awards and honours system of some kind.

  46. Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM says

    Funny, (No Longer A)Bride, I was thinking of you when I wrote that. I am assuming that Walton had his tongue in the right place. While he claims to to have no sense of humor, he has shown stealth snark.

  47. Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM says

    I don’t see why you should apply the same disdain to knighthoods.

    Because they are given by those who have those hereditary titles. I am not about to give second hand respect.

    ‘raspberry’

  48. Walton says

    By analogy: wouldn’t you correct me if I were to refer incorrectly to Stephen Colbert, say, as an “honorary Doctor of Philosophy” instead of an “honorary Doctor of Fine Arts”?

  50. Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM says

    Why would I care? That statement is meant as a joke.

  51. Janine, Mistress Of Foul Mouth Abuse, OM says

    Jcmartz, there is an open thread for these things.

  52. Ring Tailed Lemurian says

    …having learnt more about the world through the words of this one man than from any other single source…

    Sir David Attenborough OM, CH, CVO, CBE, FRS, FZS, FSA (happy, Walton?) is probably the greatest mass educator in modern British history.

    Not just a pretty voice, he’s made beautiful natural history films for over 50 years, redefined the TV documentary (commissioning series such as Civilisation and The Ascent Of Man)

    and he gave us The Old Grey Whistle Test

  53. Cath the Canberra Cook says

    Free Lunch, if you count the total number of English speakers, then I think India wins over the US, oh my goodness yes, very musical it is. Or at least it’s a very close call.

  54. maxamillion says

    @Brian English
    There’s a reason it’s called the English language. This is not it. But still, beats strine or North American

    While attempting to watch a National Geographic documentary recently, I realised why I find them so offensive and difficult to endure. National Geographic invariably use a narrator with one of those whiney North American voices and it makes me feel unwashed.

    David Attenborough’s voice on the other hand sounds authoritative and re-assuring.

    Perhaps it’s because David Attenborough understands the subject?

  55. david.utidjian says

    I would have used the term “jet” instead of “siphon” but Attenborough does use the term “… jet of water squirting from a siphon…”(about :45) and later he says “… use its water jet…” (and even later “…puff its way…”). I have no quibbles with any of Attenborough’s use of the words. Technically the tube that the water jet comes out of is a siphon. Sounds better than “exhaust pipe.”

    -DU-

  56. 'Tis Himself, OM says

    National Geographic invariably use a narrator with one of those whiney North American voices and it makes me feel unwashed.

    An American organization uses an American narrator. The cads! Hanging’s too good for them.

    BTW, maxamillion, do me a favo(u)r and fuck off.

  57. maxamillion says

    @Mbee #17
    It is unfortunate that in the program ‘Life’ which debuts on Sunday on Discovery channel in the US, they decided to replace David’s voice with that of Oprah! Why?

    How amusing, not content to impose cultural imperialism on the rest of the world, the networks impose it on there own.

  58. John Morales says

    maxamillion,

    David Attenborough’s voice on the other hand sounds authoritative and re-assuring.

    Why do you find reassurance on how a voice sounds, rather than on what it expresses? It seems particularly shallow.

    Perhaps it’s because David Attenborough understands the subject?

    The script’s credibility is independent on the narrator.

    If he personally wrote the script, then perhaps it’s credible due to his erudition; if, however, he’s just reading a script, then its credibility is independent of his understanding.

    Do you know which is the case?

  60. Brownian, OM says

    every country, including all republics, has a similar national awards and honours system of some kind.

    Indeed. Céline Dion has been made an Officer of the Order of Canada for her outstanding contributions to the cultures of both Las Vegas and top 40’s soundtrack-playing radio. From now on, any mention of her as “that caterwauling stick-beast freak” must be punctuated with a snappy salute.

    It’s just how civilised countries do things.

  61. Caine, Fleur du mal says

    Brownian, OM:

    From now on, any mention of her as “that caterwauling stick-beast freak” must be punctuated with a snappy salute.

    Okay, as long as I can use a certain finger configuration in the salute.

  62. maxamillion says

    @John Morales #58
    David Attenborough’s voice on the other hand sounds authoritative and re-assuring.

    Why do you find reassurance on how a voice sounds, rather than on what it expresses? It seems particularly shallow.

    Perhaps it is shallow, as you put it. Part of the enjoyment of watching a documentary is the hearing of the words. Advertisers know this well and choose the tone of the script and the spruiker for these reasons. Why include background music in a documentary? after all it does not add to the drama. Does it? Or is that not shallow in some way?

    Perhaps it’s because David Attenborough understands the subject?

    The script’s credibility is independent on the narrator.

    Fine, but the narrators credibility is not independent of the script!

    Would PZ be happy with doing a narration of a script on a science subject that he had no knowledge of?

    Banana man surely would have been better off if he had some knowledge of Bananas.

    If he personally wrote the script, then perhaps it’s credible due to his erudition; if, however, he’s just reading a script, then its credibility is independent of his understanding.

    Would you really be prepared promulgate falsehoods based on ignorance of a subject?

    Do you know which is the case?

    No and that is not the point I am making.

  63. sandiseattle says

    I’ve really come to despise the “dumbing down” Discovery has done

    Not the only company that does that, the first HP movie was used “Sorcerers Stone” in the US and “Philosophers Stone” in the UK. I’m not sure if it was because the producers thought americans were dumb or what, but it seened like it.

  64. Ichthyic says

    Do you know which is the case?

    it’s typical that Attenborough visits the locations and does indeed show interest in what’s really going on within any given nature documentary he narrates, and he HAS been all over the globe, twice even.

    that said, no, he really is just mostly reading a script.

    why is his voice important….

    did you know that the BBC trains news anchors to speak in a certain cadence and rhythm?

    now why would they do that, you suppose?

    http://www.voicemaster.co.uk/corporate/Journalists_&_Celebrities.html

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/5224994.stm

  65. Circe of the Godless says

    The words “Oprah” and “science” do not make sense in a sentence together.

  66. Brownian, OM says

    Many of you are failing to see the potentially immense benefit of having Oprah do the American narration: she’s likely to bring more than a few of her fans, many of whom wouldn’t otherwise watch the show.

    You see, Pharyngulites are so fond of the subject matter that you’ll actually seek out an alternative format with a professor-type Englishman narrating just to enhance the experience.

    Many of Oprah’s fans have no idea who Sir David Attenborough is, and couldn’t care less about the critters on Life. But they just might decide to tune in if Oprah’s zazzing it up. And isn’t that exactly what we want?

    Don’t get me wrong; I’m all about the eggheads. But I’m not part of the North American demographic that more than nearly anything needs a good injection of science. As long as they don’t dumb down the script, I think every mind Oprah ‘opens’ to biology is a win for our side. The side of science.

    And who knows? Maybe even Oprah’ll learn something about the subject.

  67. Ichthyic says

    Many of you are failing to see the potentially immense benefit of having Oprah do the American narration: she’s likely to bring more than a few of her fans, many of whom wouldn’t otherwise watch the show.

    that is an interesting point.

    I wonder if anyone is keeping track to see if there is something to that?

  68. John Morales says

    maxamillion,

    Perhaps it is shallow, as you put it. Part of the enjoyment of watching a documentary is the hearing of the words.

    No quibble there. But, in the comment to which I responded, you were speaking of authoritativeness and reassurance (i.e. doubt-assuagement), not of enjoyment.

    The script’s credibility is independent on the narrator.

    Fine, but the narrators credibility is not independent of the script!

    Non-sequitur. The subject was the authoritativeness and reassurance-level you assign to a documentary based on the narrator, not its converse.

    Would you really be prepared promulgate falsehoods based on ignorance of a subject?

    No, but I would depending on the net benefit to me of my so doing.

    No [I don’t know whether Attenborough had input into the script] and that is not the point I am making.

    Indeed. It is the point I was making, and which forms a determinant as to whether your earlier opinion [regarding his narrative credibility being based on his understanding of the subject matter] is meritorious. Didn’t you mention something about opinions based on ignorance?

  69. Brownian, OM says

    Oh, and Caine, Fleur du mal,

    I’m looking through the photos on your site, linked through your name. Beautiful stuff!

  70. Brownian, OM says

    I wonder if anyone is keeping track to see if there is something to that?

    Nielsen Media Research?

  72. Ring Tailed Lemurian says

    quoteMany of Oprah’s fans have no idea who Sir David Attenborough is, and couldn’t care less about the critters on Life. But they just might decide to tune in if Oprah’s zazzing it up.

    Do you get the original BBC scripts in the US? Or does Oprah do her own thing and remove all the frequent mentions of “evolution”, and you get “miracles of nature” and “Mummy Bear and Baby Bear” instead?

  73. maxamillion says

    @John Morales #68
    No quibble there. But, in the comment to which I responded, you were speaking of authoritativeness and reassurance (i.e. doubt-assuagement), not of enjoyment

    OK I am following you know, I think @##$$

    What Is said was that his voice sounds authoritative and re-assuring. Please do not take this as equivocation but an attempt to understand why the sound and timbre of some voices add to the credibility of documentaries. This is quite apart from the script which of itself needs to be also credible.

    Non-sequitur. The subject was the authoritativeness and reassurance-level you assign to a documentary based on the narrator, not its converse.

    You are talking about this not I. But since you bought up the subject. why do networks redo the Narration if it is not important?

    Would you really be prepared promulgate falsehoods based on ignorance of a subject?

    No, but I would depending on the net benefit to me of my so doing.

    So you’re available to the highest bidder then?

    Indeed. It is the point I was making, and which forms a determinant as to whether your earlier opinion [regarding his narrative credibility being based on his understanding of the subject matter] is meritorious.

    Actually I asked the question

    Perhaps it’s because David Attenborough understands the subject?

    This is not Fox News.

    I didn’t say

    Attenborough understands the subject

    Didn’t you mention something about opinions based on ignorance?

    Where?

  74. Brownian, OM says

    is that data available publicly now?

    Limited data appear to be available at the Nielson site. I don’t know how one would go about getting more detailed information, though I suspect researchers might be able to purchase it. Station programmers as well as advertisers of course have an interest in knowing who’s watching what shows at any given time.

    I was more generally pointing out that in the service of increasing exposure to science, Oprah is a good choice for American audiences. Wikipedia lists her show’s viewership at around 7 million daily, and claims she’s “especially popular among women, Democrats, political moderates, Baby Boomers, Generation X, Southern Americans and East Coast Americans”. Many of those are the very people we’d like to see have a greater understanding of and appreciation for science, and if they decide to tune in because their favourite TV personality is hosting, so much the better. To what degree that actually happens remains to be seen, but she’s unlikely to reduce science popularity among those so already into the subject matter that they’re going to buy the version narrated by Sir–just for you, Walton–David on DVD.

  76. Ring Tailed Lemurian says

    BTW DA writes all the scripts for all the big themed series he produces, such as all the “Life” ones. He often narrates other peoples’ films, but doesn’t write those scripts.

  77. Caine, Fleur du mal says

    Brownian, OM:

    Many of Oprah’s fans have no idea who Sir David Attenborough is, and couldn’t care less about the critters on Life. But they just might decide to tune in if Oprah’s zazzing it up. And isn’t that exactly what we want?

    As much as I dislike Oprah, I have to admit you have a very good point here. I hadn’t considered that at all. Even so, I’ll wait until I get the one narrated by David Attenborough.

  78. Brownian, OM says

    Do you get the original BBC scripts in the US? Or does Oprah do her own thing and remove all the frequent mentions of “evolution”, and you get “miracles of nature” and “Mummy Bear and Baby Bear” instead?

    I don’t know about the US, but the Canadian Discovery Channel uses polysyllabic words on occasion. Of course, like most North American media there’s a growing tendency for explosions over explication, but you know kids today, eh?

    I’d be surprised if the script weren’t dumbed down a little but as long as they’re still getting the science right…

    Yeah. Anyway, there’s could be some real potential for good there. I just wonder how she’s going to be able to stop in the middle of an episode and tell each member of the home audience to look underneath their couches and find their very own grasscutter ant nest!

  79. John Morales says

    maxamillion,

    OK I am following you know, I think @##$$

    :)

    I am a disputatious, pedantic blowfly.
    (but, see postscript below.)

    why do networks redo the Narration if it is not important?

    IMO, their motive is profit, not truth; to do that, they need eyeballs, and thus they pander to their demographic targets.

    So you’re available to the highest bidder then?

    No, not the highest bidder, but yes a bidder who’d meet my conditions and offered sufficient incentive.
    So, in principle, yes, I’d certainly bullshit for money. In a heartbeat.
    (NB: I’m not cheap or easy; I’d want at least enough to set me up in comfort for life, for anything of significance, and I’d not do so it it compromised my principles too much.)

    —

    PS I don’t consider your last couple of points are not worth responding to.

  80. Peter H says

    Consider the great and enthralling ranges of inflections deftly plied by skilled speakers of English, and not all of them blitish. Gregory Peck. Ingrid Bergman. Someone’s already mentioned David Suzuki of the CBC. The deep and resonant (yet wondrously intimate) Morgan Freeman’s narration of March of the Penguins. This is no time nor place to go all provincial & uppity; this is a chance to celebrate the finest practitioners of the vocal craft. Caste, class & country are meaningless here.

    Oprah? Pfaugh! May as well be Nancy Grace or Glen Beck. Hucksters & shysters! Rush? Don’t get me going!

  81. Brownian, OM says

    This is no time nor place to go all provincial & uppity; this is a chance to celebrate the finest practitioners of the vocal craft.

    I remember Lorne Greene and Marlon Perkins well.

  82. maxamillion says

    @Peter H Author #80

    Consider the great and enthralling ranges of inflections deftly plied by skilled speakers of English, .. Gregory Peck, Ingrid Bergman, David Suzuki … Morgan Freeman’s

    Now Morgan Freeman has a voice I could listen to all day.

    Neil deGrasse Tyson has a wonderfully infectious voice full of enthusiasm.

    Oprah? Pfaugh! May as well be Nancy Grace or Glen Beck. Hucksters & shysters! Rush? Don’t get me going!

    Slightly OT, I had the opportunity to watch a little of Glen Beck on Friday night. It all looked like very good satire to me.

  83. daveau says

    Thank Dog that Oprah has found a job. That poor woman…

    I ran afoul of the euphamism week requirements, as I thought that it only lasted a week. Silly me.

  87. Day says

    Wait, so squids and octopuses once had shells? Well not modern octopuses, but it sounded like octopuses and squids branched off from the linage which the nautilus is part of.

  90. Sven DiMilo says

    the first HP movie was used “Sorcerers Stone” in the US and “Philosophers Stone” in the UK

    Even the original book was so altered. It pissed me off. A “Philosopher’s Stone” is an actual object of alchemical desire; I had heard of it. “The Sorceror’s stone” is some guy’s pet rock.

    Yes, I think that they did it because American test audiences hear “philosopher” and think Greek-dude-in-a-dress.

  91. Peter H says

    “…American test audiences hear “philosopher” and think Greek-dude-in-a-dress.”

    I Kant imagine why you should think that.

  92. llewelly says

    ArabianStallion | March 20, 2010 3:23 PM:

    I’m glad to report that ‘The Greatest Show on Earth’ isn’t banned in the united arab emirates. I got my copy today and am already thrilled with what I’ve read so far!

    That’s very good news. Such good news I had to read it three times …

  93. Alan B says

    #2 Brian English

    It may be too late but note the different spelling:

    Syphon: what you described
    Siphon: what is meant on the video.

    Unfortunately, 2 different words with the same sound i.e. homophones. Hence, you need the context to know which is meant.
    (Not homonyms, because homonyms are two words which have the same pronunciation and spelling but differ in meaning.)

  94. Kel, OM says

    Many of you are failing to see the potentially immense benefit of having Oprah do the American narration: she’s likely to bring more than a few of her fans, many of whom wouldn’t otherwise watch the show.

    That may be, but a nature documentary is not a nature documentary unless David Attenborough is narrating.

  95. Mbee says

    OK – I watched parts 1 and 2 and no Oprah does not cut it.
    Bring back Sir David.

    The only comment I can agree with here is at best a long shot, but the only logical explanation for why they chose Oprah – was to bring in some of her followers and get them to watch the program.
    Did it succeed? I don’t know how you can tell.

    I also would be interested to know if some of the words were changed. Did they replace words like evolution as someone suggested?

    If they did then I’m buying the Brit version to get the real story! and better quality on DVD or Blue Ray from the overly compressed satellite transmissions.