Planet Ocean

2012 ,    »  -   43 Comments
1.5k
9.08
12345678910
Ratings: 9.08/10 from 274 users.
Storyline
Planet Ocean

An elegantly filmed documentary, Planet Ocean takes us on a beautiful adventure into the strangest domains of our planet - the oceans. Directed by Yann Arthus-Bertrand - the noted environmentalist, journalist, and photographer, whose previous environmental documentary work includes the Home Project - this award-winning documentary pivots around the relationship between the Earth's oceans and the entire planet's ecosystem.

Unlike other ocean documentaries, such as Deep Sea, Planet Ocean does not focus on specific ecosystems or pockets of life, but rather on the entire planet as an ecosystem. While the film does guide us through various series of events (sailfish relying on mackerel; mackerel relying on zooplankton; zooplankton relying on marine prairie) it is not simply to demonstrate the function of a food chain, but to illustrate the way in which all life is intrinsically interconnected. What happens to our oceans happens to our selves.

The oceans support us: not just through fishing (which sustains some 500-million people), but also with seaweed, which is used in medicines, cloth, fertilizer, and food. However, worldwide, 80 percent of commercial fish stocks have been declared over or fully exploited. Our fishing has reached a ceiling: the footprint of humanity is felt everywhere.

Planet Ocean features both the magnificence and the exposure of Earth's oceans. The dangers that threaten the whole planet also threaten us. The documentary asserts that the greatest threat to our oceans is humanity. Ironically, that means we're the greatest threat to ourselves, as well. As opposed to the more common omniscient viewpoint and narration which allows the viewer to remain a detached observer, uniquely, Planet Ocean employs first person narration to directly connect the audience to the subject matter.

There is no overt call-to-action directed at the individual in the film; however, it does impart the sense that conservation is a globally shared responsibility. Although the documentary warns that we must learn to live in harmony with our oceans - as it our duty to protect and respect our planet (as well as being in our own best interest) - Planet Ocean also points out that it is not too late. Humanity can redeem itself yet.

43 Comments / User Reviews

  1. James Hunt

    Brilliant documentary!...what a f*cked up race we are!

  2. McJoint

    What more need be presented,the facts are in.

  3. Too Many People

    Best line in the movie: "Nature doesn't tolerate excess". This documentary ignores the obvious problem, Earth can not sustain 7 billion humans. Their list of solutions near the end had no mention of curbing or reducing human population. Everything shown in this film is a symptom of overpopulation. The delicate balance of the planet will not be restored until that issue is resolved.

  4. User_1

    I'm sure this doc must of mentioned that our population is soon to be 10 billion and we're facing all these obsticlices. Basically we're F**ked!!!

  5. DigiWongaDude

    Yep it's that elephant in the room. It can't be mentioned or discussed... how do you discuss 'lowering' the population? For lower it must - if the global population stayed steady from now on (which it won't) would that be sufficient? Could we manage the existing resources? Could the planet cope? This is why it is not mentioned, not discussed.

    It's like Michael C Ruppert (R.I.P.) saying in the film Collapse (2009) : "800 million internal combustion vehicles on the planet; they all run on oil. It takes uncounted millions of barrels to make those cars and engines in the first place, and you can not plug any new technology into an internal combustion powered engine. With 7 gallons of oil in every tyre, nobody will ever make 800 million new internal combustion anything because there ain't gonna be enough oil."

    No-one's discussing that one either... bit of a pattern forming? The truth is, there isn't an elephant in the room after all, there are many! It makes no odds if you focus in on population growth, food supply, energy security or the greed of self interest - like pillars of the Parthenon, only one has to collapse and it's game over for all of us.

    But, be in no doubt about this: the planet will recover from the relative hiccup called humanity. Life will prevail. It's us who will not: we are the most endangered species on the planet, and if given the opportunity, we'll not go quietly.

    The irony though is that many in positions of power and influence understand this perfectly, yet they actively set us on a race to the bottom.

    Why are we, in the developed nations especially, on a race to the bottom? Could it be as horrifically, ignorantly simple as "because we can"...?

    If so, Obama's second term for office should've been "No we can't". But hey, maybe that's why I'm no friggin politician.

  6. Lydia Bloodymarvellous Ivey

    Totally Agree x

  7. stefan

    In the documentary it stated how disease was there in order to maintain population, if the bacteria and plankton get to plentiful they get a disease and die down a bit... We've found cures for all the disease's......

  8. stefan

    One of the best documentaries i have ever seen but humans need to die.... and that's coming from a human. We are the cancer of this earth.

  9. terencegalland

    Dominion without respect over the worlds creatures shows utter ignorance not worthy of an advanced species of being, that of the human!

  10. Iggsy

    Great comments. I just think we are our own desease. Life will prevail but not the way we know it.

  11. UBK

    "Intelligence contains the seed of its own destruction." Isaac Asimov.
    If only it is intelligent enough to see its own mistakes, learns to discard its myths and fallacies and to cooperate, use self control - instead of striving to control others and accept solutions to the problems of its own making, no matter how unpalatable they may seem.
    For every problem there is a solution, it all depends on accepting the solution without seeking an easy way out. Self discipline, constraint and education the prime requirements. Mankind must stop the wishful thinking of placing 'faith' in Gods of any kind, and discover faith in him/herself if your offspring are to survive. The ultimate commonsense of the common man worldwide is the one hope for survival of the species. Faith comes with action.

  12. Jimbo1672

    Beautiful film. Disturbing but necessary message.

    Personally, I don't share the materialist, atheist perspective of the filmmakers, but I do share their concern for the future of our planet.

    However, the 'solutions' offered at the end seem utterly inadequate to the problem. Most of them are too confined to those activities directly affecting the oceans, when really, everything is connected to everything else. To me, the problem is capitalism, which demands endless growth on a finite planet. Nobody has described a credible way in which the planet can support endless economic growth.

    But actually, the deeper problem is probably the mistaken belief that life is a meaningless accident, and living things are just machines. This leads to a devaluation of nature that in turn supports the absurdity that is capitalism.

    I also take issue with the idea that the problem is the total human population. Certainly, a large population makes solving our problems tougher, but the real problem is the lifestyle of those in the wealthy countries, where populations aren't growing much. The population explosion is occurring in poor countries where people use a tiny, tiny fraction of the resources we in rich countries use (especially considering all that happens out of sight - when we buy a product, there is a huge amount of material, energy and waste behind it that doesn't come in the package). One researcher compared the climate impact of a couple in the U.S. deciding to have another child versus that of a Bangladeshi couple, and found that the former had an impact 130 times that of the latter. So, we should be careful about blaming 'people in Asia or Africa pumping out babies.' They're not the problem. We are.

  13. Cosmo

    "But actually, the deeper problem is probably the mistaken belief that life is a meaningless accident, and living things are just machines. This leads to a devaluation of nature that in turn supports the absurdity that is capitalism."

    Do you have any proof or source for your claims? Or did magical man in the sky tell you this? Yes, dust-man and rib-women who had only sons, that inbreed from there to spread genocide, rape, plagues and revenge sounds like the real plan.

  14. Jimbo1672

    Boy, what is it with atheists that they are so sure of themselves, and so angry with anyone who disagrees?

    Just because I believe there is an intelligence at the root of creation doesn't mean I think there's a "magical man in the sky." Certainly, great wrongs have been committed in the name of "God" and religion. I'm not religious, and I don't trust the bible as a source of inerrant truth. Stop cramming everyone into comfortable little boxes.

    If you have a shred of open-mindedness, I suggest checking out Rupert Sheldrake's "The Science Delusion," Dean Radin's "The Conscious Universe," or Charles Tart's "The End of Materialism." If not, continue enjoying your beliefs, which I happen to believe are incorrect. Sorry.

    Certainly, if we are going to save this planet, we are going to have to work together with many others of differing beliefs. It would be a shame if we failed because of discord over such beliefs.

    Peace

  15. a_no_n

    It's not so much anger as it is irritation at the sheer stupidity of the arguments theists present.

    You also confuse facts with beliefs. Science is not a belief system because science provides EVIDENCE for it's claims, religions do not.

    Rupert Sheldrake is a parapsychologist, that's a bit like being a nutritionist in that anyone can do it and there are no qualifications or regulating bodies watching over it. He dropped out of real science to persue his interests in every kind of nonsense you care to mention.

    you may believe that science is incorrect, but unfortunatly science has actual measurable evidence supporting it, you and your beliefs do not.

    Radin is exactly the same, a researcher in a field that has no credibility whatsoever, and a man who made a complete fool of himself when he expressed his belief in clearly fraudulent mediums (they are of course ALL fraudulent), including the infamous Fox sisters who openly confessed to being frauds.

    If you're going to quote sources, they have to at least have some sort of credibility, yours don't have a shred of it between them.

    The planet won't be 'saved' until we get rid of all the bronze age philosophies that we've been using as an excuse to slaughter one another en masse for the last 10,000 years.

  16. Jimbo1672

    You allegations about parapsychology (which is a formally recognized scientific discipline), Sheldrake and Radin are completely false. You can in no way know that all mediums are frauds. Psi phenomena have been proven beyond any shadow of a reasonable doubt. To cite just one example, here is what Jessica Utts wrote in her review of government-sponsored remote-viewing experiments: "It is clear to this author that anomalous cognition is possible and has been demonstrated. This conclusion is not based on belief, but rather on commonly accepted scientific criteria. The phenomenon has been replicated in a number of forms across laboratories and cultures... I believe that it would be wasteful of valuable resources to continue to look for proof. No one who has examined all of the data across laboratories, taken as a collective whole, has been able to suggest methodological or statistical problems to explain the ever-increasing and consistent results to date." To cite another, a published metastudy by J.G. Pratt of all ESP card tests reported between 1882 and 1939, in 186 different publications, it was found that ESP was demonstrated with odds against chance of more than a billion trillion to one.

    You simply don't know whereof you speak, and you should be careful about libeling public figures, especially when you are so ignorant of the topic at hand. Dredging up propaganda from skeptic websites doesn't qualify as due diligence.

    The planet won't be saved by angry, closed-minded people who don't work well with others.

    Good luck to you. I'm done with you.

  17. a_no_n

    it's not libel if it's true!

    No it is not a massive undertaking, for decades James Randi has offered thousands of cranks and quacks the opportunity to prove their "special abilities" under scientific conditions.
    (meaning that they couldn't cheat.)
    nobody has ever won it. and everyone he tests helps design the actual test they will take!

    Mediums are either frauds, deluded, or mentally ill. until one of them proves otherwise and upturns the massive body of information supporting this, it is fact.

    "Nobody knows what gravity is."

    wow...seriously? did you just get here in a time machine from the seventies or something?
    We know exactly what it is and how it works...if you GOOGLE it, you'll find out it's all about mass and perfectly understood.

    THIS is the problem, you are completely scientifically illiterate, but you're posteuring like you're not, like you're some kind of authority when even the basic principles escape you! You're about fifty years behind the rest of us,

    I've already explained why Dean Raidin is not a reliable or trustworthy source, i'm not repeating myself again.

    Carl Segan lived in the seventies, a full fourty years ago! a lot has happened since then...like for example the complete debunking of ESP.

    let me answer all of your questions about ESP for you:
    (1) no it can't that's called Pareidolia.
    (2) No they can't, again Pareidolia.
    (3) Children make stuff up all the time, it's called play and imagination...Who are these children? who found this out, because i'm guessing that's either not true, or misquoted.

  18. Jimbo1672

    It seems that my original reply was tossed.

    Let's simplify things by taking one issue at a time.

    On the question of proof, we should be able to agree that a human ability, or any natural phenomenon for that matter, can be demonstrated conclusively even though we don't understand how it works. Do you agree?

    As an example, imagine that the thesis I'm testing is that human beings are capable of throwing an American football 90 yards in the air. To prove my thesis, I need only find one schmuck who can do this under suitable "laboratory" conditions. Right? And I don't need to know how he managed this feat, except that he wasn't cheating. Right?

    The same should hold for the various varieties of psi phenomena. Of course, it would have to be replicable. Right? Yes or no?

  19. Dave Bliss

    A whole bunch of innaccurate data and junk science as usual. Tuna selling for 500,000 dollars for 300Kg. WTF! There was one case I saw in Japan of record blue fin tuna that sold for 1.7 million dollars, in 2012 but today same quality fish was 23,000 dollars. Alarmist crap at best, global warming caused by manmade CO2 yawn ... same old bogus science and lies... Good photography but poor data. Watch with a large bag of salt.

  20. rawnet

    wrong. throwing a football a certain distance is quantifiable. proving a direct connection between a *psychic's* mind and a sequence of events is synchronicity at best, unless a sequence of correct predictions can be made at better than guesswork.

  21. Jimbo1672

    Wow. So you don't accept that showing a phenomenon exists and knowing how it works are two different things, unless one can see a direct connection? Supposing psi phenomena are real, how then, would you go about demonstrating them, if simply showing their reality isn't enough? It seems you've set an impossible, and absurd, level of proof. The fact is, hundreds, probably thousands, of replicated studies have shown apparent psi effects way beyond chance (at least billions to one, on a meta basis). Thus, there is no guesswork as to the reality of these phenomena, only their mode of operation.

  22. rawnet

    that's funny, I thought I did make it plainly clear. if the statistics showed that predictions were better than chance, then there would be some precedent. for the benefit of this discussion, can you provide some links to the hundreds if not thousands of studies showing that psychic predictions are better than guesswork? please ensure the results are from independent sources and not from entities with an interest in skewed results. I'd be very happy to have my mind changed.

  23. Jimbo1672

    The problem with links is that this website deletes comments that have links.

    If you are truly open-minded, I suggest finding a copy of one or more of the following heavily footnoted books: Dean Radin’s “The Conscious Universe,” Charles Tart’s “The End of Materialism,” and Rupert Sheldrake’s “The Science Delusion.”

    If you go to Dean Radin’s website or Rupert Sheldrake’s website, you will find pages that have many links to psi studies. Radin is secure and fair enough to include some studies that don’t show effects beyond the 5%-inside-chance standard.

    It should be noted that psi effects tend to be subtle and while many studies show effects beyond the 5% standard, many show positive but lesser effects. The upshot is that meta-studies are probably the best way to evaluate psi phenomena. One such study (“Future Telling: A Meta-analysis of Forced-Choice Precognition Experiments,” Journal of Parapsychology, 1989), by Charles Honorton and Diane Ferrari, examined all multiple-choice style precognition studies (309 of them) published in the scientific literature over a 33 year period, and found cumulative odds against chance of 10 septillion to 1. A similar study, carried out by Ferrari and Dean Radin (“Effects of Consciousness on the Fall of Dice: A Meta-Analysis,” Journal of Scientific Exploration, 1991), looked at all PK experiments over 53 year period in which subjects tried to mentally influence thrown dice. 148 experiments, involving a collective 2.6 million attempts (plus 150,000 control throws where no influence was attempted and none was observed), combined to demonstrate positive results against chance of a trillion to 1. Also noteworthy is Rupert Sheldrake and Pamela Smart’s videotaped telephone telepathy (knowing who’s calling before answering the phone) experiment (“Videotaped Experiments on Telephone Telepathy,” Journal of Parapsychology, June 2003), in which subjects familiar with the 4 possible callers achieved a collective 61% success rate, with odds against chance of 10 trillion to 1. The latter is available for free on Sheldrake’s website.

    It should also be noted that while the psi field is beset with accusations of shoddy methods, psi researchers, precisely because their work is subjected to a much higher level of scrutiny, actually tend to apply much more rigorous controls against fraud or other biasing effects than do researchers in other fields. Charles Honorton demonstrates in his paper “Rhetoric Over Substance: The Impoverished State of Skepticism,” how all, or virtually all, the skeptics’ criticisms about psi studies have been successfully addressed in recent years by meticulous and innovative psi researchers. The Free Library has a copy.

  24. rawnet

    thanks for that, i'll take a look at this wealth of info when I have some spare time and re-evaluate.

  25. Hoender

    eh these videos are always so depresing :( . makes me wana stop eating fish and become a vegetarian but with eggs and cheese on the menu.

  26. Andreas

    They are pointing towards capitalism as the problem, why do you think they name big corporations getting by without paying taxes and they said of the worlds wealth 2% rich owns 50% of all wealth and also say 80% of the worlds resources is harvested by 20% of the people on this planet. Things like that is caused by capitalism. They even show footage of poor people gathering food from garbage, what more do you need as proof of them wanting to get rid of this s*itty system :P

    How are they having an materialist perspective? They are talking for the "soul" of the earth, they don't earn money on stuff like this. They have no real greedy agenda. It's just that they want a better world or a world at all that humans live to see for future generations and for the world itself and for the people including themselves. A resource-based world would be something imo... I would actually be happy to work FOR FREE just to help in a world like that, in a world like this everything is about money and individual success and fame and the money we have is just paper with things written on them(No real worth) which makes getting rich as f*** for some few people pretty easy and in capitalist society money is power. Often also takes money to earn money. So the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. I felt this a little extra when i had no home and lived in a tent in a forest few years ago. No job would accept me looking like that, all tired, skinny and on the verge of an emotional outbreak.

    Life is obviously not an accident, earth is aware and takes action on other actions. Thinking that it is all just a chemical randomness must indeed be very negative. If it is then why don't we have our genitals on our face and breath through our arse? that would be very random... not very fun either

  27. Jimbo1672

    You are mistaking two different meanings of 'materialism.' What I am referring to is the following: "the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies."

  28. bfleisch

    Well - let's face it, this documentary well disguised as a pleasant "nature/science" treat supports what we all need to face. That is that there are human created forces in motion currently that are unlikely to be stopped in time for any meaningful recovery or sustaining of our current civilization (i.e., over the coming hundreds to thousands of years). You and I will most likely be long gone during the primary period of this global transition. Humans are crafty organisms however, and I would expect significant survival rates and recovery. What happens after that - who knows? Very difficult to predict. Of course, there is always the possibility of some other global "killer" or otherwise catastrophic event that may occur (e.g., asteroid collision or viral epidemic) between now and then. What I am sure of, is that there is a momentum of human over-development and over-utilization of resources that is unstoppable at this point. Population is secondary and not significant. If anything there will continue to be a significant decline in the population of most of the developed world. This is life and death on a grand scale. It is inevitable. Science vs. paranormal vs. spiritual vs. religious vs. existentialism vs. what ever fantasy you believe in is irrelevant. It is cold, cruel, chaotic, space-time reality. Having said that, there is always hope :)

  29. Anna

    Love this film, everybody should see it. In order to save this world we have to go also vegan!

  30. Anna

    Good thinking, but better go vegan, that is the only best way for u, the planet and of course the poor suffering animals.

  31. scribblegenie

    I loved this documentary.

    And, while it is alarmist, maybe it should be. I don't see how anyone can ignore the scenes of millions of enormous storage bins being transported by ocean every day. I don't see how one can watch this documentary without seeing the drastic effects it's having on our oceans. Or maybe, it's an out of sight out of mind thing for you. So then, if you don't like the message, turn off the sound, but watch how we are turning our pristine planet into the garbage dump of the solar system.

    Many, many years from now we'll be looked on as the self-destructive, self-centered slobs in this corner of the galaxy. Which reminds me of a very famous quote, "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through life..." It fits us perfectly and I can practically hear it being shouted at us on Judgment Day.

  32. scribblegenie

    Maybe they were using yen instead of the usd. Enjoy your salt.

  33. Le Blanc

    Do you have links to the research which shows man made climate change is 'bogus science' and while you're at it; why would so much scientific effort be put into a massive lie? Who would benefit most? On the other hand; who would benefit, financially at least, from dismissing the plethora of peer reviewed studies which suggest we are about to push ourselves on the endangered species list?

  34. david

    Higher ups dont want to admit that humans are adding to the global warming problem & speeding it up bcuz they will lose out on billions of dollars which is what they really care about if they can make it rich while destroying the planet without thinking about the consequences then thats what they are gonna do

  35. AlexanDr Moskalenko

    Homo sapiens is a part of Nature, so his super-predatory way of life must be in natural order of things as well. Sure it leads to depletion of resources and extinction, so that must be the choice for species: hundred millions years of existence in your niche or couple thousand years of aggressive predatory civilization. But there's no need to pretend to be gods: we're mere one of the species of the world, and Nature will take care of things

  36. Michael

    Humanity is to involved with the notion that symbolism of a selfie is more of an involvement for now is more important that a reality of earths now to want to give a (like) care. When tomorrow is to late, then those will care (like). Stupidity had taken over society!

  37. Alin

    It's ok people, no need to panic, abrupt climate change (triggered by us, of course) will reset life on this planet (...if we don't go venus of course, then... even though life is quite persistent... it might not be able to keep up). Some scientist say it can happen even in a few years (and you must admit... we are trying our hardest to bring our extinction as fast as possible), so we don't necessarily have to wait for the end of the century, but... we'll see how it turns out...

  38. BC

    did they just completely mis-discripted hammer head sharks? they mostly hunt bottom sand stuff man. and how decease are there to control population? what BS is that? nothing is there for a "purpose". They are there because of natural selections

  39. JS

    People who think the earth is too overpopulated are ignorant to the truth. This documentary doesn't address the issue of overpopulation and it doesn't need to, because there is no overpopulation of the earth. The problem is not overpopulation, it is over-killing of every species of life on the planet both in and out of the oceans, as well as uneven distribution of food and resources. The rich corporations stripping mass areas of resources to feed a few. How many houses and cars to people need? How many cell phones do they need? Do they need to replace these things every year? How many different types of perfectly shaped and colored fruits do you need in your supermarket isles to satisfy your greed? How about perfectly sized chickens, and eggs? The list goes on.

    The problem is NOT overpopulation, the problem is greed and selfishness, pure and simple. Currently with a world population of 7 billion, we produce enough food to feed 10 billion. What happens to the excess food? It gets thrown away. Governments (actually tax-payers) all around the world spend billions and billions of dollars each year to throw food away. Think about how much McDonalds, Burger King, KFC, and all the other fast food and non-fast food restaurants throw away in food every day all around the world. We are talking tonnes of food, each day.

    Overpopulation is an excuse to shift the blame from the corporations that rape and pillage our planet on a daily basis, legally and without restriction all for the dollar and nothing else matters. The average person (90% of the population) really don't care, because right now they can go to a supermarket or a restaurant or a fast food chain and happily select whatever they want to eat from ample menus and not have to think about where the food came from, what and who suffered to allow them so much choice. No one really gives a s#"& because that is human nature, if it doesn't effect 'me' and 'I' can benefit from it with minimal effort, then bring it on right!

    Here's a few fun facts;

    Plankton make up 3 times more biomass than all 7 billion poeple combined

    Every man, woman, and child on earth could each have 5 acres of land each

    Everyone in the world could stand shoulder-to-shoulder on the island of Zanzibar.

    Every person on the planet could live in the state of Texas alone (that is just one state of the country of America) and the population density would be little more than what New York city currently is. Add in Oregon, California and Nevada and the population density of the entire planet would be less than half of New York City. And we still haven't even left the United States. Imagine how little the population density is when you add in Australia, Russia, China, India, all of Europe and Africa.

    To say the planet is over-populated is ignorant at best. Man, humankind, needs to stop over-killing and start distributing and sharing the resources that are amply available.

  40. deborah

    this is so important everyone should see this it should be seen by every child in school so they can learn that we need to stop this. all the suits in the world should see this. (suits)means the higher ups. the people who run this world.

  41. Josh

    Absolute sh*te! The doco got to being a descendant of stramatelites I had to turn it off lol. Load of cr*p.

  42. Jeff Steeber

    There should be turtles in this movie.

  43. Jeff Steeber

    more turtles*

Leave a comment / review: