Talk:Planet Earth (2006 TV series)

Reused footage

Is anyone in a position to explain the series' reuse of footage? Some of the most impressive shots of the first series have been used again in the second. It's still amazing, but it does give the impression of a thrown-together expansion of the first series. I think one way to explain this is that the first time these shots were used were 'introductory' and were expanded upon when the series actually had an episode on that area. Example: the snow geese cloud in the first episode 'Pole to Pole' was used again in 'Great Plains'. --58.167.8.172 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

There is only one series, split into two parts. The first episode gives a general overview of the series as a whole and so features a few highlights from later programmes, but not very many. Most of its footage isn't repeated. Chris 42 22:42, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

Trailer music

Please can anyone tell the name of the composer and title of the song, to the theme tune of the preview of the next show (after the Planet Earth show on BBC 1 on Sunday). N.B i think this song is played in some of the adverts for the series.

Thank you. --Qwertymonsa--

It's given in the article under 'Trivia'. Chris 42 16:35, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Co-Production details

Does anyone know to what extent this was a co-production between the BBC, Discovery Channel, and NHK? Was the BBC's Natural History Unit responsible for the series, with only finance from these other companies, or did Discovery/NHK also have production and editorial control?

Cheers. --Stephend01 07:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Given that their credit is nowhere near as prominent as that of BBC Bristol, it's more than likely that their contribution was purely financial. As series producer, Alastair Fothergill had overall contol. Chris 42 11:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now added the co-production credit. Chris 42 11:47, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Episode summaries

In an effort to keep these consistent (and bearing in mind that there are still another six to go), I have expanded and edited the summaries where necessary to keep them to an approximate length of 200 words. Please don't add any more to Part One, as I believe I've covered most of the highlights within each programme. However, if anyone wants to add detail to any of Part Two's instalments upon transmission, then feel free. But please observe the 200-word limit, as it will give each programme equal coverage and ensure a nicely presented article. Thanks. Chris 42 10:07, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

As I've now finished the summaries for all of Attenborough's 'Life' series' episodes (74 of them, though those for Life in the Freezer required minimal work), I intend to revisit the ones in this article and make them equal in length to all the others. After I first did these I took delivery of a new computer with a larger screen, which is why the others each fill exactly eight full lines of a 1280 x 1024 monitor and these don't. This will mean expanding each one slightly by a line or two, which allows for a bit more content to be added to the article. Chris 42 13:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Re. the recent additions to "Ice Worlds", while I have no problem with anyone editing these, to give one episode more coverage than any other will lead to an unbalanced article. If someone wants to be the first to summarise an episode then fine, but please don't add blow-by-blow accounts of every scene. These are intended to be summaries that give a flavour of what each episode is about. This 'exact limit' approach has worked well on all the other David Attenborough articles — none have received any additions, just minor amendments for links or punctuation, etc. It ensures consistency and gives good presentation with no bias to any single episode. If someone feels strongly that a particular part of one programme has not been covered then please say so here. I for one would do my best to address it without it being to the detriment of the others. Chris 42 12:37, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Episode length

The Deserts episode is exactly 58 minutes long (inlcuding the diaries part). Are all episoded this length? I think the article should mention this, but I won't add it since I'm not sure if the length of all the episodes is the same. jacoplane 10:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Good point. I'll add something on the episode length, as it's not mentioned in the article. Thanks. Chris 42 10:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead section

My change got reverted. It was to move some of the stuff from "background" into the lead. The reason for this was twofold: first, certain things in the bit I moved (such as the fact that it is narrated by Attenborough) I think certainly should be in the lead. Secondly, I felt the lead was too short anyway. Four lines for an article this length to me is too short. What do others think? Batmanand | Talk 17:10, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I wrote most of the original opening, and it stayed that way throughout the transmission of Part One of the series. However, once "Deserts" had finished, I realised that it was way too long for an opening section and created the "Background" one instead, which now contains everything else that was previously 'up front'. In keeping with Wiki's MOS, I followed their guidelines to provide a single, succinct paragraph defining the article's subject. However, I take your point that DA is an important element of the series and have now incorporated this into the opening. :-) Chris 42 17:24, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I think what is there now is fine. (Yay consensus!) Batmanand | Talk 17:56, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

CGI?

Are the amazing shots from outer space real, or created by computer? They look amazing either way! DarkSideOfTheSpoon 00:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

There is no visual effects credit, just photography and graphic design. I therefore take that to mean that the opening and closing sequences are CGI, while the shots within each programme are real. However, some are so ambitious that it's difficult to see how they could have been accomplished without some trickery. Chris 42 11:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

DVD release

According to the article, the entire series is going to be released as a four-disc DVD box set. Presumably this isn't going to be high-definition, so are they going to release HD versions or not? Tyrhinis 16:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Well the DVD version won't be HD, but perhaps they'll release Blueray or HD-DVD version in the future. I don't think they've announced this yet though. jaco♫plane 16:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

My guess is that the BBC will wait to see which of the two competing formats (Blu-ray and HD-DVD) becomes dominant. Once this happens, it's a near-certainty that Planet Earth will be among the first releases. Chris 42 16:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thedvdforums.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?t=342314&goto=nextoldest

"2 Entertain who release BBC stuff in the UK have given their support for HD-DVD." "DVD Review says it will be released on High Definition in 2007." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 60.234.246.105 (talk) 21:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

It is being released on Blu-ray AND HDDVD in the us in april. Details here [1]. 2 Entertain may be issuing it on Blu-ray in the UK too, as I see their logo is on the side of the Blu-ray artwork on the US Amazon site [2] --Stephend01 10:32, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

The Planet Earth US Broadcast section mentions that the US DVD Release will feature narration by David Attenborough. But Amazon.com says that the DVD version features narration by Sigourney Weaver. Is this a mistake by Amazon or is Amazon.com in error? KYSoh 09:47, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I added a source from the Washington Post website (it was in the paper) that solves two things: 1) Discovery releases 99% of everything in DVD, HDDVD, and Blu-ray because they're awesome. Whether the BBC will do the same...I don't know. 2) The same article (alright, it's a movie review, but that stuff wouldn't get through and be wrong. If it is, write the Post so they'll print a correction) says that the DVD release will feature Attenborough as the narrator. Of course, Amazon.com calles it "Planet Earth - The Complete BBC Series by David Attenborough". I wouldn't trust Amazon.com yet though. --MPD ^{T / C} 03:17, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

U.S. Airdate?

I don't suppose anyone has any idea when this series is scheduled to be televised in the United States? Thanks. Arjuna 01:10, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, no news as yet, but I or someone will add it to the article as soon as it's announced. Alternatively you could try dropping the BBC a line by using the Feedback section of its website. Chris 42 11:35, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I sent them an e-mail myself and received this response: "I am unaware of any plans to show this programme in the USA, although for the latest BBC output in America you may be interested in visiting the BBC America website." So no news as yet. However, I've updated the article with an Overseas section. Chris 42 17:57, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

The good news - the first episode airs tonight. The bad news - no sign of David Attenborough narrating. Great. Now I have to ship a DVD over from England. :-/ SheffieldSteel 18:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

International Airdates?

A section on International Airdates could be added, perhaps after the U.S. Airdate. Singapore's Arts Central TV channel has started broadcasting it on Wednesday night at 10pm (local time) from 4th April 2007.

More info can be found at http://www.artscentral.sg/WhatShowing/Wednesday/index.htm

KYSoh 02:09, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Trailer Trivia

Just deleted the UK bit from the trivia points saying what song was used for the trailer, as it was also used in Australia and I assume with all of its other releases. Can anyone confirm this? DarkSideOfTheSpoon 01:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

So did it run alongside the Australian trailers featuring The Planets, as also stated in the Trivia section? If so, that item needs to have an "also" inserted. Chris 42 06:47, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Part 2 broadcast dates, and DVD release

The BBC site says Part 1 will be repeated 8 October- 5 November on BBC Four, and Part 2 will be broadcast in November. It seems logical that the repeats will lead up to Part 2 being broadcast, either starting the next week on 12 November, or later the same night (bearing in mind the BBC Four repeats are at 7pm). It seems certain that the show will still be shown once a week so I've put down "November and December" as broadcast dates for Part 2, I don't think this is too great an assumption, and the information will be chopped once the whole series has been shown anyway.

It does make me wonder whether the DVD release will be delayed from 27 November though, as the BBC never release shows on DVD before they are broadcast, and no matter when Part 2 starts, if it starts in November (as the site says) it won't finish until after the anticipated DVD release. Does anyone have any news regarding the DVD being delayed?Jimbow25 15:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Amazon still has the DVD release date as 27th November, which led me to think that the last episode would go out on Sunday 26th November. However, it's still anyone's guess at the moment. Chris 42 17:14, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I've bitten the bullet and assumed that the series will still be weekly after 5 November. To that end, I've added provisional dates for the rest of a part two (with a cautionary note). I've given Planet Earth: The Future its own section, as I believe each of these programmes should also be part of the article. Chris 42 16:14, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Merge Trivia section

I have redistributed the "Trivia" items to the rest of the article, most of them to the "Background" section. This is in a bid to minimise the bulleted sections and keep relevant information together. Chris 42 15:53, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

US Trailer Music

The music being used in Discovery's ad campaign: is it music from the show itself, or unrelated music? --Jeffrey O. Gustafson - Shazaam! - <*> 20:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

The US trailer and Opening theme is a song called The Time Has Come by Gabriel Shadid and Tobias Marberger My source? Gabriel said so herself on the Discovery channel forum [3] and according to Gabriel, you can buy the song on I-tunes only for now 65.7.211.170 02:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC) Oruko

British spelling

A polite request, as the programme has now begun transmission in the USA and the article has received one or two 'corrective' edits: please observe British spelling per Wikipedia's MoS. I'm always respectful of US spelling in American articles, so please do the same for British ones. Thanks. Chris 42 20:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Episode order

Please respect the episode order of the series' first transmission. The differences in the US episode order are reflected in the US broadcast section. Chris 42 11:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

British spelling part 2

I understand that Americans should be more mindful of how British people spell certain words. An example is their use of "Programme" instead of "Program". But the following sentence could have been constructed a little better:

"Each programme is of around 58 minutes' duration."

You might want to consider revising this sentence to sound less arrogant. My suggestion for this sentence would be:

"Each programme is approximately 58 minutes long"

Of course, being an American myself means two things:

First, I would have used the word "Program" in the aforementioned sentence, but I wanted to suggest a grammatical correction without stepping on any British toes.

And second, my suggestion will never be taken seriously because it may come off as lofty, and people will discount my attempt to mend a badly butchered sentence. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.153.32.226 (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2007 (UTC).

Could you please explain what is "arrogant" about it? The sentence has been in place virtually since the article was created over a year ago and nobody has corrected it. Why should they? It makes perfect sense as a statement of fact, but maybe "duration" is not a commonly used word in the U.S.? The expression "for the duration" meaning "for a long time" is not uncommon in British English [4] Chris 42 18:57, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how to comment, but to agree to some extent with the first statement, and correct the second, although "long" is typically used in the US to describe time, it is more correctly a measurement of length, or distance. So, duration is a more accurate term. Also, although the initial sentence is flawed, it is easily understood. In order to correct the grammar, the sentence could be mended so that one preposition is not directly following another (of around). The sentence could easily be fixed, "Each programme is of approximately 58 minutes duration," or "Each programme is of a duration araound 58 minutes." However, for this matter, I see no importance in such a miniscule error in grammar, as I have probably made several throughout this pathetic and meaningless rant.

Okay. Point taken. I've fixed it. :-) Chris 42 11:36, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

this point is probably moot now, but i think the problem with the original sentence was the "is of around" part... do people really say it that way in Great Britain? Thontor 12:52, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

How about this phrasing (which corrects the grammar, keeps the original British spelling, and excludes the American English unit of length "long"):

"Each programme has a running time of approximately 58 minutes"

Obviously the phrase "running time" is acceptable because it appears in the Infobox at the top right of the article.

The phrase "minutes' duration" to some extent personifies "minutes". My abovementioned correction eliminates that. Grammar should always be taken into consideration, however small the mistake may be.

I think what we have now is fine. :-) Chris 42 15:24, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

again, I do not know how to comment, but yes, the current sentence is fine

---

George Bernard Shaw said it best: "England and America are two countries divided by a common language." CiudadanoGlobal 04:47, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

---

How were some of these shots filmed?

There's a LOT of aerial shots, some above animals that seem completely undisturbed. So there's no way they were using helicopters. I'm just as interested to find out how they filmed everything as I am about the program itself. --Joeblack982 06:54, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

They did use a helicopter, but it was fitted with a gyro-stabilised camera underneath, equipped with a very powerful zoom lens. This meant that they could get close-ups from a great distance without disturbing the animals. It's shown in the 'Making of' at the end of the first episode. Chris 42 11:40, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Narration

I'm in the U.S. so I've seen the broadcast with Sigourney Weaver's narration. So far I think it's been fine, but apparently a lot of people prefer David Attenborough's original narration. Are there any clips or something that I could compare? I think it's probably just a cultural issue, but I'd like to hear them "side by side" if possible and decide for myself. I've only seen a couple of episodes but I am ready to purchase the set right now. I just want to make sure I don't miss out on a better narration. Luke727 01:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Here's a clip of the snow leopards, narrated by Attenborough. Chris 42 11:36, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why, exactly, but I think I prefer Weaver's narration. Attenborough definately sounds more enthusiastic and is more credible, but there is something intangible about Weaver's voice that just sounds better to me for some reason. Luke727 02:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm an American, but have the Attenborough narrations. I've only seen one Weaver episode. I personally prefer Attenborough, but that may just be because I started the series with him and got used to it. One other thing I would note is that there are probably a few subtle differences between the two. There are a couple of times (and I'm afraid I can't cite to specific examples of this) where Attenborough is talking about "home," referring to Great Britain. I haven't seen how they changed this in the American version, however I'm nearly certain they would. So, you may want to consider that when deciding which set to purchase. CharacterZero | Speak 17:30, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

I find it astonishing that they decided to make a version narrated by someone other than Attenborough. Not only is his voice a wonderful element of the series, but his long history of involvement with nature videography makes him a highly suitable choice personally. --Ilnyckyj (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I absolutely agree! I found Attenborough's narration really extraordinary, especially in several scenes, when dramatic events had been described. I remember the episode when the salmon returned beeing simultaneously attacked by sharks, cormorans and I think penguines. The music became so dramatic and so did David's narration. This was real art - "big cinema" as we call it in germany.

Content differences

What kinds of differences are there between the scripts used for the narration by David Attenborough and Sigourney Weaver? CiudadanoGlobal 04:40, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

There's a discussion of some of the differences here. I've also seen a more detailed comparison that was constructed by someone trying (in my opinion successfully) to demonstrate that the US narration had been altered to pacify the creationists. But I can't find that page now. Davorg 09:24, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand that another significant difference is that the original narration uses international standard units, whereas the American version uses the US customary units. CiudadanoGlobal (talk) 00:30, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Amur leopard

I will appreciate it if you consider correcting an inaccuracy in episode 1 through the summary. Regarding the Amur Leopard and it's dangerously low population of 40, the cause is referred to as hunting and habitat loss, which you repeat. I respectfully request you change the description of cause in the summary (as it it too late for the episode) to habitat loss and poaching. The Amur leopard lost 80% of it's habitat over a very short 13 years to non-sustainable timber harvest, conversion of land to agriculture and uncontrolled fire. That, as you can imagine, is the prime issue (and if one is going to explain the matter in a breath, the only one worth mentioning). Poaching by locals is an issue, primarily through impact on prey species but also for illegal trade and by locals valuing local domesticated heards over the leopard --- but the point is that referring to poaching as hunting is inflamatory toward the conservationist groups that provide significant funding for anti-poaching and research programs aimed at saving the leopard. Thanks for your consideration of this item.

I've amended the summary: I hope it now reflects this. Chris 42 15:46, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Infobox colo[u]rs

Please see Template talk:Television colour, which seems to say that there should be no color except for certain series. Perhaps there should be a moratorium on changing the color until there's a bit of conensus here.--NapoliRoma 20:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Might as well keep the background colour as nothing, if that is how it should be. I think lightsteelblue looks good, but having no colour is fine too. I have changed it back to no colour. Chris_huh^talk 10:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Really we should just have it blue because we are the blue planet and it dosnt look bad.(Sparrowman980)

Scenic Pans

A technique is often used to slowly rotate the camera, or to slowly move the camera from left to right, while focused on one scene. But the duration of the shot is over two or three climate seasons. So this produces a change in foliage and / or ground cover while the camera is slowly moving. Fascinating. How was this done? Tonyhop 17:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

This was also one of the most fascinating techniques in the show for me. I believe it is digital? That is, the same camera movement is completed in a very short time span (seconds, minutes) several different times / during different seasons. As the pan is shown a directional digital fade sweeps across the frame, transiting between the two. At least, this is my guess. It is most evident in landscape shots. Those with e.g. flowers opening could use the same idea, clearly the process is over more than one day yet there is no day/night transitions - one extremely slow pan seems unlikely. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.43.96 (talk) 08:45, August 24, 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Planetearthalbumartwork.JPG

Image:Planetearthalbumartwork.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 22:15, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Rationale now added. Chris 42 (talk) 10:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Programme vs. Episode

This topic may seem trite, but I feel it deserves some amount of discussion. I believe a "programme" would be the overall series "Planet Earth", and that each segment would be called an "episode" or "part" (i.e. Part I, Part II, Part III, etc.). In British colloquy, are these words interchangeable? Or does "programme" always mean "segment" or "part of the whole"? I'm not losing sleep over this, I just want to make sure that articles are universally correct in terms of grammar (whether they are British articles or American articles). Any input?

In British broadcast terminology, the words are interchangeable (as long as the series is episodic in nature) and when writing the episode descriptions, I used both within the article to avoid repetition. 'Programme' is more often used to describe a single broadcast (or episode) and 'series' is used for a group of episodes as a whole. The BBC often uses 'programme' rather than 'episode' when referring to documentary series. For example: Programme One, Programme Two, etc. If the subject was a news/magazine-style programme or a chat show, then 'edition' is equally valid. Chris 42 (talk) 00:10, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Board Game

Maybe some mention of the Planet Earth DVD Board Game might be appropriate (in the DVD/Books section?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by SnOrfys (talk • contribs) 20:45, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Now mentioned in second paragraph of Merchandise section. Baguala (talk) 23:44, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

Special Cameras

Wasn't some kind of special camera used to film the periodical cicadas? I can't remember the details but some kind of super low light camera. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.174.6.93 (talk) 15:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

HD resolution?

This page is stating that the Blu-ray box set is in 1080p resolution, but my region B box (bought from Britain) claims that it is, in fact, 1080i. Can somebody clarify on this? Zaha (talk) 07:35, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

My region 1 Blu-ray box states 1080p indeed.72.85.18.201 (talk) 00:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The version they are selling in America (Region 1) has 1080i on the back.--64.21.235.198 (talk) 04:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I bought the Discovery HD version (narrated by Sigourney Weaver) from Discovery.com's store, it says 1080i on the back cover.--SmilingRob (talk) 09:13, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

"Planet Earth was filmed entirely in high definition" -Either it was shot on film and transfered to high definition, or it was shot on high definition. There no such thing as "filmed on high definition" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.33.200.35 (talk) 01:20, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

Ambiguous Name

There was another TV series produced in Pittsburgh in 1986 called "Planet Earth" as well. How should it be disambiguated from this article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cuddly donut (talk • contribs) 10:35, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Budget

It would probably be worth adding the quoted production budget of $2m per episode - USA-Today -- Solipsist (talk) 13:08, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Production length?

How long did it take to produce the series? What was the start and the finish dates? Evolross (talk) 20:24, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Filming took place from early 2002 until December 2005. I've added this to the article. Chris 42 (talk) 00:27, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

What are those worms in the begining of "Caves?"

Because I don't see them in the article.Superjustinbros. (talk) 21:51, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Production Information

In general, this article lacks details about the production of Planet Earth. I think it would be nice to have information on the history of the project, funding, people working on the project, methods/technology/innovations used to get the footage, etc. Rm999 (talk) 20:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I've been making a few changes to the article recently and it's on my list of things to add, along with expanding the Reception section. But if anyone else wants to have a crack at it first, go for it! Baguala (talk) 21:29, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Here are some sources for technical and production information: http://www.nealromanek.com/articles/Planet%20Earth.html, http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/18/arts/television/18slen.html?ref=science, http://www.tvtechnology.com/article/12848 Rm999 (talk) 08:38, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Episode list

Shouldn't the episode list use the episode list template? Chris the Paleontologist (talk • contribs) 21:45, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Gulf of Gabes

I've figured out that the location seen in the opening sequence of each episode is the Gulf of Gabes, off Tunisia. I don't have a cite for this fact so I won't add it to the main page, but if anyone can find a good cite this might be an interesting fact to add. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.131.0 (talk) 04:29, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Planet Earth (1986 series) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 12:32, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Series or Miniseries?

The article refers to it as a series, while other places call it a miniseries. Which is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Newhiggins2 (talk • contribs) 16:31, 8 May 2020 (UTC)