The Right Formula

April 2008

What do you think of when you hear the words “science documentary”? Old men in white coats trying to explain obscure concepts? Amateurish diagrams of orbiting spheres and geological layers? Saturday morning TV?

Think again. Those old stereotypes have gone the way of the dodo (itself the subject of many a science show), replaced by prime-time specials or series focusing on questions often no less urgent than the ultimate survival of mankind, hosted by a new breed of scientist turned professional TV host.

The replacement of the scientists by a younger crop of savvy on-air presenters is only one element marking the transformation of science docs and raising their popularity. Others include the growing use of sophisticated graphics, computer-generated imagery (CGI) and newsworthy subject matter that audiences find compelling enough to view during prime time.

“Broadcasters are seeking science programming that is immersive and challenging,” says John Ford, the president and general manager of Discovery Channel. “[They want] shows that take the viewer inside science through innovative storytelling and cutting-edge CGI.”

So, gone is the medium shot of the lecturing scientist. Gone is the background droning of an authoritative off-screen voice explaining the visuals. They’ve been replaced by dynamic personalities who are passionate about their discipline and can communicate their feelings to the viewer.

In reinventing the genre, producers of science docs first removed the academics entirely. “We went through a period where we tried to keep out the scientists,” says Kristina Hollstein, the director of international co-production and development for documentaries at ZDF Enterprises. “Just a couple of years ago you might have had scientific information in the commentary, but you wouldn’t have seen the scientists. But now scientists are back on the air, and they are a very important element.”

SAVVY SCIENTISTS

Take Dr. Phil Manning. He is a lecturer in paleontology and a research fellow at the University of Manchester in Great Britain, who has appeared on and hosted numerous science docs on BBC, Discovery Channel and NHK. One of his latest gigs is a star appearance on National Geographic’s Dino Autopsy—an hour-long special co-produced by National Geographic Television (NGT) with ZDF and Channel 4—that examines the rare find of a mummified dinosaur (as opposed to just the creature’s fossilized skeletal remains). In typical showbiz style, Manning says, “It makes every other dinosaur we’ve seen look like roadkill.”

That’s the kind of attention-grabbing scripting that has helped create popular demand for shows that were once deemed too “educational” for a mass audience.

“Science is hot,” says Michael Rosenfeld, the president of NGT, National Geographic’s in-house production company. “The trend started three or four years ago and is continuing strong. When you set out to make a science film, you’re always looking for the scientist who will make a human connection with the audience and make difficult ideas understandable. Phil Manning has a knack for conveying his own excitement.”

Of course, like all talent, science talent comes at a cost. “We use real scientists who are brilliant on camera,” says Carl Hall, the chief executive of Parthenon Entertainment. “Years ago, the standard was scientists with glasses and a monotone voice who were only interested in getting their papers out. But today they have agents, or major universities that represent them. Instead of them doing you a favor in return for a small contribution to the university, now you’ve got to really look after them. They’re entertainment scientists, and they expect a lot, including input into the program.”

“Finding prominent scientists who are great hosts is the holy grail for science producers,” says Clare Birks, the chief executive of Oxford Scientific Films (OSF), a division of Southern Star Entertainment. “We were very fortunate to find Jim Al-Khalili, a professor of physics at the University of Surrey, to host Atom,” a series of one hours about the basic structure of matter that OSF produced for BBC Four. “Jim is a natural in front of the camera and a great communicator, but it’s a hard combination to find.”

In addition to Atom, OSF has just delivered a series about the history and science of weapons to National Geographic Channels International called The Perfect Weapon and is in preproduction on another series, Science and Islam, for the BBC. The company also produced a documentary about stem-cell technology called Supercells for National Geographic.

PRIME-TIME BUDGETS

High entertainment value, of course, often takes a program to a prime-time slot, which is why, in the view of Parthenon’s Hall, more science docs are running during peak viewing times. This entertainment value is not limited to the use of superstar scientists. It extends into the way scientific matters are presented to modern audiences.

“Many of these shows have an investigative element to them, almost like the murder mysteries on CSI, but with animals,” Hall notes. “And they cross over into history genres, like recovering a plane that crashed long ago and figuring out why it fell. Science finds its way into everything.”

In addition to having higher entertainment value, prime-time programming usually commands higher budgets and, in some cases, includes content related to current events or findings that capture the public’s imagination. “Event programs tend to carry higher budgets because they’re worth more to broadcasters,” says NGT’s Rosenfeld. “Broadcasters figure they’re going to get news value and higher ratings, so they’re often willing to put more money and marketing behind them.”

Science docs appeal to broadcasters for other reasons as well. The genre tends to attract two highly coveted groups of viewers: upscale audiences and males. “We are seeing a steady demand from the usual customers for science programming because it tends to draw an up-market audience,” says OSF’s Birks. And science programs, especially those focusing on technology, tend to be male-skewing.

The big budgets of the new breed of prime-time science docs have led to a flurry of co-production activity in recent years, “motivated by the higher level of funding these deals can achieve,” says NGT’s Rosenfeld. “Also, if you’re a co-producer, you can expect to have a stronger voice in the way a film is made and see to it that your own needs are looked after. For example, if you’re a German broadcaster, and there’s a German scientist in the program, you would want that scientist interviewed in German for your territory.”

ZDF’s Hollstein confirms that while her company does produce some original material of the science genre, it works mostly with international co-production partners. “We have a good working relationship with National Geographic and Discovery in the U.S.,” she says. Programs yielded by the connection with Discovery include the highly popular science docs Update: The World in 50 Years and Armageddon/ The Longest Night.

Big budgets, naturally, can cover higher costs. But there’s always pressure because, like many genres, science docs are caught in a squeeze be-tween production reality and buyer expectations.

“It may sound like a contradiction, but there’s downward pressure as well as upward pressure on costs,” says NGT’s Rosenfeld. “As TV markets mature and you get broad penetration, there’s often downward pressure on license fees. On the other hand, when you have a really big and important story, the marketplace takes over and there are pressures that raise the budget because there are very high expectations.”

THE COST OF QUALITY

“Broadcasters don’t expect their budgets to get any bigger, but the quality criteria jump all the time,” says Parthenon’s Hall. “If it’s a great story, you want to interpret it using great graphics rather than talking heads. CGI has helped open up this genre, but the CGI houses are the most squeezed of all. Fortunately for us, what cost us millions a few years ago now only costs in the tens of thousands.”

Indeed, techniques like CGI, animated recreations and high-definition (HD) production are major contributors to the rising costs of production—and are trends that cannot be reversed. Then again, rising costs are worth it if they can help push programs into prime-time slots.

For example, Parthenon’s Fight Science series uses CGI intercut with demos of fight masters from different disciplines to showcase the physics, physiology and styles of the martial arts. Produced by BASE Productions, which has its headquarters in Washington D.C., the five-part series of hour-long programs combines CGI, HD and motion-capture techniques. “You see the fighters doing their stuff, fighting with swords, punching each other, as we examine what is actually happening to their bodies,” says Hall. “Five of the top martial-arts experts in the world punch this crash-test dummy and we work out what it’s like to be hit in the face with the equivalent force of two sledgehammers. It’s visually brilliant, prime-time stuff.”

“CGI is a great way of illustrating complex ideas, and the bar is constantly getting higher,” says OSF’s Birks. “We’re seeing a move away from dramatic re-creations—a device which feels like it’s been overdone.” For that reason, OSF made a “conscious decision” not to use such re-creations in Atom. Birks believes that while old-style pure science programs may now be difficult to commission, a show with sophisticated visuals like Atom “demonstrates that audiences will come to these difficult subjects if we’re brave enough to trust the material.”

Indeed, the quality of the material should be the most important consideration. Even though CGI “is an increasingly important component, we all need to be careful to balance the gee-whiz pull of special effects with pacing, scripts and editing,” says Discovery’s Ford.

That being said, Ford maintains that “production technology has caught up with what once might have been seen as program-maker’s wide-eyed visions. If you build the science show that delivers the knowledge and wow factor, the viewers will come.”

As examples, Ford cites programming such as Discovery’s Human Body: Pushing the Limits. “It features a unique blend of CGI and actual CT and MRI scans to create a startlingly real human body to explore and study,” he says. In addition, Discovery’s special series in honor of NASA’s 50th anniversary, When We Left Earth: The NASA Missions, which will premiere in July, uses “never-before-seen footage shot by the astronauts themselves and now up-converted to HD for air.”

NGT’s Rosenfeld agrees that dazzling visuals can grab and hold viewers. “Eye-popping 3-D graphics can do two things,” he says. “First, they pull you into a world. In a dinosaur film, for example, they can make a lost world an immersive experience, the way people get immersed in a video game. The other thing they do is help explain stuff that would otherwise just be an abstraction.”

And while high-end animation and CGI add to production costs, they also attract fresh audiences. “Content needs to be visualized in new ways to attract new viewers, especially younger viewers,” says ZDF’s Hollstein. “For this group, it’s especially important that you have a fresh look. They’re used to a certain type of look from their own habits of media consumption, from the Internet. They appreciate computer animation.”

MAKING HEADLINES

The prospect of a prime-time ratings success has been a major catalyst for the co-production partnerships behind many of the newest science docs. Some of the most successful of these shows, says NGT’s Rosenfeld, are “event programs” because they can generate newspaper headlines through their “exploration of discoveries that have direct relevance to people.

“The bigger the story, the more likely you are to forge a co-production and get broadcasters to participate,” he adds. “Some science shows are science events—shows that focus on significant discov-eries that make the front pages [of newspapers]. Dino Autopsy is a good example. We had a strong hunch it would be front-page news, and that’s what our co-production partners were responding to.”

What kinds of science shows will continue to resonate with audiences around the world as producers look to future collaborations? “One topic is space,” Rosenfeld continues. “As our knowledge of the cosmos grows, people will always want to understand what’s out there.”

He also cites conservation science as an increasingly popular topic—spurred by growing awareness of environmental issues. “People are interested in issues like global warming and habitat loss,” Rosenfeld says. “They want to know what’s really happening. Just open the newspaper and every day there’s a story about some aspect of global warming, or problems in the ocean, and so on. Viewers want programming that can put the pieces together and help them make sense of what’s going on.”