The Tornado Hunters

[Mike Peregrine]

"anti-psychotic" ... good grief ... will have to go back and watch the entire program now - had to discontinue following the initial segment earlier due to work obligations.

 

[Mike Peregrine]

After finishing the program now - there were several annoyances from a chaser's perspective ... yes indeed. Unfortunately the final accuracy of any of these productions leaves a lot to be desired unless the editing process is overseen by chasers or meteorologists. Doesn't matter what science or news item is highlighted, seldom does a program accomplish what we would like or succeed in remaining unbiased and accurate in every respect.

The shake effect, included no doubt to add a sense of chaos, was definitely over-used. Additional thought should have gone into the editing process. Can't believe they didn't throw in a clip of this year's most recognized 'anti-psychotic' (HA) tornado from 5/29 at the conclusion.

Things I did like, however: Jon Davies' Hallam footage (just wish they would have extended that segment) ... Melanie and Peggy's balanced viewpoint of chasing ... getting to finally meet the crazy farmer face-to-face (and see that event from multiple angles), and the now familiar clips from multiple chasers and various events they chased.

 

[Max Slover]

I for one, newb that I am, thought it was a pretty decent hours worth of stuff. Course I haven't seen the last third of it (taped it but had to run this morning before finishing the tape). Of course the narration and the footage would definitely irritate some. It was done for effect and dramatization of the events. If this was strickly for chasers it would be a very differant program. Karen, I think you have to remember that these kinds of programs are focused towards the nonchaser and those with a passing curiousity or interest in severe weather events. It wasn't meant to be an extreme scientific documentary.

It was great to actually see in footage some of the people that I have seen here.

Max...

 

[Bobby Eddins]

This is meant as no offense to anybody who was featured in this documentary....

But the NGC is owned by FOX and it really showed in this production. For the entire hour this thing was on I was seasick from trying to watch the program through the haze of constant, jumbled-up, shaked-around video footage.

The narrator clearly had no meteorological knowledge whatsoever and, what is more disturbing, whoever wrote the script to be read also had little of said knowledge. This program was full of mispronunciation and, even scarier, factual innacuracies.

They showed the Hallam F4, and then proceeded to say that it "measured F4 on the Tornado Scale". They then proceeded to show the Fujita scale but its graphics were shaking so "atmospherically" I couldn't read it if I had wanted to.

They referred to an anticyclonic tornado as an antipsychotic tornado. I have yet to witness such a timid vortex.

They showed Jim Leonard chasing a quote "tornado-storm", and when his windshield was lost to hail, stated "the tornado pounds Jim with hail".
They also showed Mike Theiss' straight-line wind damage video from Fort Worth last summer (flimsy gas station roof flying apart beneath the setting sun and eternally high bases), and stated that is was an up-close shot of tornado destruction.

Sorry NGC, 1 out of 10. The only mildly interesting and informative part of this was the odd film clip of Fujita walking around some tornado damage paths. I think that section lasted 5 seconds.

This is yet another example of programming being created to appeal to the lowest common denominator. It is MTV-stylized and almost unwatchable. It provided next to no educational content and misleads the viewer on numerous occasions with incorrect or inaccurate facts.

What a horrid piece of work.

KR

Have to agree here. I didn't turn it on until it was about 25 minutes in and didn't make it to the end and had to turn it off before puking.

I think for my 2005 DVD production I'll start adding crappy lightning sound effects every time there's a flash too. Even when the lightning is out of the top of a storm 30 miles away or there's a flash produced when I turn on the neutral density filter. It's such a wonderful effect. :?

 

[J.B. Dixon]

Well, if you're going to compare poorly producted tornado shows, then I still say that this particular NGC production is head and shoulders above any Storm Stories production that I've seen.

The Twister Sisters segment I thought was well-done. Great footage, not too doctored up with all of the usual production "fillers" that we saw elsewhere.

Honestly, I had not seen all of the Columbus NE 98 footage....that was my first time seeing the farmer's perspective as that beast was coming right at their farm! I don't think the narrator was too out of line when he called it some of the most dramatic tornado footage ever captured. I had goosebumps through that part of it!

Honestly, I'm like others (frustration!) when we talk about inaccuracies in these sorts of shows. But I think it's one of those subjects in science where everyone "thinks" for whatever reason, that they're experts, and start throwing out, or even make up terminology that most everyone in this forum knows is wrong. I suppose in the grand scheme, it's a lot of little things.

For instance (and I run the risk of getting SEVERELY hammered on this one), when the layperson hears an F-scale ranking, they assume it's simply some sort of "tornado scale". And honestly, that's about what it is.....again, for the layperson. Like I said, we on Stormtrack do, or at least should know the differences. John Q. Farmer really isn't going to be in the know about who Ted Fujita was, or his significance in tornado science. So, you run the risk with shows like this....producers feeling compelled to possibly "dumb things down" a tad. They could have headed the problem off by simply moving the F-Scale discussion up earlier in the show.

However, there's no excuse for the "anti-psychotic" reference, or the "tornado pelting him with baseball-sized hail". Somebody who's in the know at NG has to screen that and call those things out.

Frustrating to all of us? Absolutely. But I think the overall awareness of the general public this day and age has risen tremendously in the past decade. I took away some good things from the show last night. Like making a note to get my hands on that Columbus NE '98 footage!!

 

[rdale]

Something happened with my recording... The narrator told us Mike was "literally blown away" in the hurricane, but I watched Mike and his car remain in the same place as the gas station overhang was removed.

Maybe "literally" can sometimes be used as "figuratively" nowadays?

- Rob

 

[Carrie Halliday]

I ignored the fo pahs and enjoyed what Peggy and Mel had to offer (great job ladies!!), along with all the other footage. I am a sucker for any tornado show. If those were anti-psychotic, I can't wait for someone to film a full blown psycho 'nader! One with groovy colors twisting around...hold it, that is psychodelic! :lol: Sounds like a sweeps' week promotion in the making.... :roll: Sorry, I couldn't hold it back.

Just a thought. There are always so many mistakes and such with these weather documentaries...why don't they have a Met or chaser do the narration? I know there are some out there who would do excellent narration (I see some post here and know they would have the mindset and the personality)and get the terms right and fight for the correct diologue of the film (I hear ya rdale). Yo, Discovery and NG, you taking this down?

 

[Shane Adams]

Why chasers still expect their personal expectations to be met by television's version of chasing is beyond me :roll:

 

[Dave Gallaher]

Thank you, Karen.

Dave Gallaher

 

[Patrick Ware]

Why chasers still expect their personal expectations to be met by television's version of chasing is beyond me :roll:

The best comment in this whole thread!

 

[rdale]

You should expect that something from National Geographic would be able to pass a 4th grade science test...

Nobody is saying that watching TV is a one-to-one replacement for chasing.

 

[Shane Adams]

It's not about science anymore, it's about ratings. Producers don't sit around the long table discussing how to impress a small group of nerds and geeks on a message board, they worry about what the Smith family in Dungsville, SD will think is exciting. I agree that Nat'l Geo was head and shoulders better than the others, but this is 2005 and no one's safe from the lure of money and ratings. My suggestion to those who find today's tornado shows "puke-inducing" is to quit watching tornado shows.

I don't watch them anymore because they all suck - but I'm not at all surprised by it.

 

[Karen Politte]

Thank you, Karen.

Dave Gallaher

:lol:

Shucks......it was nothing.......jus' tellin' it like it is!

KR

 

[Karen Politte]

You should expect that something from National Geographic would be able to pass a 4th grade science test...

Nobody is saying that watching TV is a one-to-one replacement for chasing.

Amen.

I believe the program was made by another production company FOR NGTV. If I were Nat. Geo. - I would have been mortally embarrassed to put my name on it.

KR