She is walking over to the travelling box.

[tijay1]

Is it natural to use the present simple in comments like these:

In comments (here on a TV film about Chi-Chi, the giant panda, who returns home after her stay in the Moscow Zoo):
"Chi-Chi is in the pen. She walks over to the travelling box. Chi-Chi climbs on the rock. The crowd moves closer to Chi-Chi."

Is it possible to use the present progressive:
"Chi-Chi is in the pen. She is walking over to the travelling box. Chi-Chi is climbing on the rock. The crowd is moving closer to Chi-Chi."
What's the difference?

 

[Tarheel]

It seems more natural to use the present progressive.

If it's televised why does it need to be described?

 

[Skrej]

The simple present is often used for things like providing commentary, telling stories, and summarizing things. The progressive tense isn't wrong in the panda example, but I'd say the present sounds more natural.

If you listen to sports commentary such as this, you might notice that they do slip into other tenses, but primarily use the simple present.

 

[BobK]

What sports commentators do with the present doesn't bear thinking about! This post (about 10 years old) considers a sort of conditional that they use - not immediately relevant, but quite fun (though I would say that, wouldn't I?)

 

[jutfrank]

I don't get it. Who would make commentary on a TV film? Why?

Is this someone watching the film? Or someone's voice recorded on the film? Or something else?

 

[tijay1]

I don't get it. Who would make commentary on a TV film? Why?

Is this someone watching the film? Or someone's voice recorded on the film? Or something else?

I don't know the details. This is an example from a textbook and it is given in this form without any further information. Let's assume these are the reporter's comments.
As far as I know, in order for the simple form to be correct, each of the actions had to be completed before the moment of its description. Is that right?

 

[Rover_KE]

If it's televised why does it need to be described?

Who would make commentary on a TV film? Why?

Many TV dramas, besides having subtitles for the hard of hearing, also have audio description (AD) for blind or visually-impaired people, which is always in the present tense.

 

[jutfrank]

Many TV dramas, besides having subtitles for the hard of hearing,also have audio description (AD) for blind or visually-impaired people, which is always in the present tense.

Yes, that's the only thing I can think of, but I don't think it's the case here. If it is, then it would be present simple, yes, not present continuous.

I don't know the details. This is an example from a textbook and it is given in this form without any further information. Let's assume these are the reporter's comments.

What do you mean? What reporter? Is it a Russian textbook? What's the heading of the section this is in?

As far as I know, in order for the simple form to be correct, each of the actions had to be completed before the moment of its description. Is that right?

No. To give you a very general rule, commentaries are done in the present simple. You shouldn't use the present continuous.

 

[tijay1]

I'm walking down the street with my English friend and he invites me to play a game.
John: Describe in English what you can see in the street right now.
Me: A woman runs?? down the street; Mr Harris walks?? his dog ...
Is it a normal kind of description in English? I don't think so. (By the way, in principle is it possible? If yes, in what kind of context?)
And what's the difference between my last example and the example from the textbook?

 

[jutfrank]

I'm walking down the street with my English friend and he invites me to play a game.
John: Describe in English what you can see in the street right now.
Me: A woman runs?? down the street; Mr Harris walks?? his dog ...
Is it a normal kind of description in English?

No. You'd do that with a combination of existential 'there-be' and the continuous aspect, like this:

There's a woman running down the street.
I can see Mr Harris walking his dog.
The sun's just coming out.

And what's the difference between my last example and the example from the textbook?

In this latter example you're saying what exists as well as what is happening. It's similar to how you'd use present continuous to describe what's happening in a photograph or a painting.

I don't understand what the point of the commentary in your textbook is. Who would do that? Why? Is it as Rover_KE suggests an audio description for blind people? Tell us what the textbook says.