It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

BBC's Frozen Planet Crew Fakes Polar Bear Scene In a Zoo

page: 4
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:51 AM
link   
The fact that all UK residents have to pay for a TV licence £145.50 a year $ 227 , the BBC is taxpayer funded corporation and for that reason they should be 100% transparent in the information they give to the viewing public at all times , simple as that. David Attenborough used to be the boss of BBC 2 years back, the guy has imppeccable credentials , but regarding this matter , he was left wanting , should have known better , everything regarding the BBC is scrutinised by bodies like the Tax Payers Alliance , They Work For You etc , so no, he took his eye off the ball , age is no excuse , he is on a bloody good salary , cannot be touched for his massive contribution to wildlife programming over the decades , the BBC as a tax payer funded institution has no recourse regarding being made accountable , NONE.




posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:53 AM
link   
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


They did actually show people how it was done on the BBC website connected to the program, so for those really interested could see for themselves how it was done. Did they really want to ruin the whole program by showing you the filming of the zoo afterwards? I don't feel like you should feel you have been conned by the BBC. These things have always happened in nature documentaries. At the end of the day they are educational , but most importantly entertainment.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
On the OP.

Good God, there is an industry in complaining. I think that it is common practice in nature programmes to use props to “tell the story”. The viewer is usually aware of this and they do not need to be “warned” as that just takes the magic out of what they are seeing.

There are people who just spend their life whining on. It’s really sad.

Regards


Frozen Planet is a documentary series. Documentaries by definition are supposed to document reality.

I'm not sure why you or anyone else would expect the BBC to falsely present their programming and mislead. Or how you can somehow make out that people like myself are unnecessarily whining or outright thick, for expecting a documentary to be founded on truth, as opposed to deception and charade.

It's poor form on behalf of the BBC.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by Droidinvoid
 


It's an entertainment program for gods sake, it's meant to keep you from watching the other channels. They showed how they did it on the website that you also pay for and if you were that interested in finding out the nitty gritty of how they filmed it , you could have gone to that website.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by PhoenixOD
 


They did actually show people how it was done on the BBC website connected to the program, so for those really interested could see for themselves how it was done. Did they really want to ruin the whole program by showing you the filming of the zoo afterwards? I don't feel like you should feel you have been conned by the BBC. These things have always happened in nature documentaries. At the end of the day they are educational , but most importantly entertainment.


So you'd have to jump through hoops to discover that the BBC were pulling the wool over your eyes? I suppose you also then support the Daily Mail when they tell blatant lies and deceive their readers, because they issue apologies somewhere hidden deep in their website, where nobody will see the correction.

Basically you're promoting lying. You're saying the BBC should have a right to deceive if not lie to their viewers, because making the truth clear would devalue the documentary.

I want to watch a real documentary, of real nature, that's why I'm watching that and not something else, if some scenes are too dangerous then don't include them. The documentary wouldn't have been any worse for not having 1 shot.

Would you be happy if you bought a non-fiction only to discover after reading hundreds of pages that one of the chapters was complete fantasy, added to "improve" the book?

It's also unfair to a number of people. What's to say someone big on animal rights hasn't bought a few BBC documentaries, only to discover the BBC are supporting zoos - Something many take serious issue with.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:14 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by Droidinvoid
 


It's an entertainment program for gods sake, it's meant to keep you from watching the other channels. They showed how they did it on the website that you also pay for and if you were that interested in finding out the nitty gritty of how they filmed it , you could have gone to that website.



It's not an "entertainment program", it's a documentary. Documentaries are supposed to be factual. There's nothing factual about tricking viewers into thinking they're watching wild animals, going about their business in the wild.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


The british public all of a sudden seem to be getting an appetite for TRUTH , simple as that , while I understand your relaxed take on the whole thing , other people are not of the same opinion , and rightly so , just tell it like it is, remember the Blue Peter farce with the member of staff on the phone pretending to be a genuine caller who had won the [ name the studio cat competition ] they rely on people who take a care free approach to life , I for one digest everything that shows on my visual and audio radar......... the coming months , more and more people / sheeple will wake up to the big dupe.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


ok .. question to you and everyone else bothered by this.

stephen hawkin presented a 'documentary/entertainment/scientific' programme on black holes and related subject material.
now the question is, did you react to the fact that when cgi was used to depict a black hole, it was deception because a real one wasn't furnished or did you accept that the difficulties of actual footage excused this representation of one?
regards fakedirt



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by fakedirt
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


ok .. question to you and everyone else bothered by this.

stephen hawkin presented a 'documentary/entertainment/scientific' programme on black holes and related subject material.
now the question is, did you react to the fact that when cgi was used to depict a black hole, it was deception because a real one wasn't furnished or did you accept that the difficulties of actual footage excused this representation of one?
regards fakedirt


I haven't sen the documentary so how can I comment? For it to be deceptive it would have to have been shown with the intention to trick people - I can't say whether that was or wasn't the case as I haven't seen this documentary you mention



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:29 PM
link   
reply to post by fakedirt
 


Thats an unfair comparison..what we call a strawman argument.

But Hawkins never pretended that the CGI was real.

edit on 13-12-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:34 PM
link   
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


OK having read the article,( I guess you should always do that first), I am going to back track a little here. I guess they should not have given the illusion the same bear they were filming in the Arctic was the same bear in the cave with the cubs. But it would have been impossible to film that. So I guess it's a case of how entertaining you want your documentaries to be. If the information was provided on the website about how they did it, then it doesn't seem like the BBC was keeping a secret.

I can now understand how people feel they have beed duped, I guess, but, I always thought stuff like this always went on in nature documentaries, to get the otherwise impossible footage.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
@jessopjessopjessop. ok allow it to deflate (the question that is), it doesn't really
accomplish anything.


@phoenixod. fair enough, strawman agrument it is. i really don't understand how this is a
big issue. i suppose people feel this way through realising they have been duped in some form.
i have no issue with this as i was aware of limitations in capturing footage around big hairy
beasts with nasty teeth and claws.
regards fakedirt.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 12:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by woodwardjnr
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


OK having read the article,( I guess you should always do that first), I am going to back track a little here. I guess they should not have given the illusion the same bear they were filming in the Arctic was the same bear in the cave with the cubs. But it would have been impossible to film that. So I guess it's a case of how entertaining you want your documentaries to be. If the information was provided on the website about how they did it, then it doesn't seem like the BBC was keeping a secret.

I can now understand how people feel they have beed duped, I guess, but, I always thought stuff like this always went on in nature documentaries, to get the otherwise impossible footage.


I just find it to be a p/ss take, and although some people will question my intelligence for believing the scene was real, I think trying to fool people into think it is, equally, is an insult to the intelligence.

I don't see firstly why the scene need to be created, would the documentary have been crap without it? I don't think so. But if they felt it so important to fake it, telling viewers it's just a recreation taking place in a zoo, what would be so catastrophic in that?

I'm not some Jersey Shore, X-Factor watching nut. I'm not going to boycot or avoid a documentary or dislike a documentary because they wanted to show how polar bears go about their business in a cave and they recreated what it would be like in nature by filming in a zoo.

Personally, I can't speak for everyone, but I don't care if some scenes are shot in zoos under controlled circumstance. I'd simply like to know if that is the case, rather than the BBC trying to fool me into thinking a scene is something it isn't. Let me know if something is filmed in a zoo to educate me on animal behaviour - I can handle it.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:29 PM
link   
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


It is a documentary which for some of us can also be entertaining and thus also deemed entertainment.

It was representative of how the cubs would have looked if by some miracle pictures could have been taken of the mother polar bear's den without disturbing it and her cubs and without the probable loss of the camera man's life if he had attenpted it.

How the shots were obtained were in the public domain well in advance of this storm in a teacup.

Surely it's no bigee in the grand scheme of things....it's not as if they told some sort of deliberate ridiculous lie like the mother polar bear built itself a lovely log cabin and spent all winter drooling over repeats of Flipper whilst the cubs frollicked playfully in front of the open fire.

Some things should be put in perspective.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:41 PM
link   
Oh for God's sake stop with the 'holier than thou' attitude, will you?

Have any of you ever been out in the wild places on this planet earth of ours? Its REALLY friggin dangerous and one of the most dangerous animals ever to have evolved, is the Polar Bear.

If you are so bloody upset that Sir David Attenbrough cheated when he made the Frozen Planet series, why don't YOU grab your mobile phone and film a clip of a mother bear and her cubs? Let's see how long YOU last in the high arctic!

On the other hand, perhaps the BBC faked Clarkson and May driving to the North Pole. Perhaps they fell through the ice sheet and drowned then froze.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:51 PM
link   
reply to post by luxbaclos1
 


yabba to that. i remembered posting something similar not too long ago. it reminds me of wise words i heard off a long gone friend, ' the only way to truth is to come face to face with it.'

i might eventually post some pics of walkabouts i've been on. i suppose any potential backpackers/climbers out there may appreciate locations and local setups/what not to say!
regards fakedirt.



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 01:59 PM
link   
Come on guys This is the BBC

When amazing things happen on the BBC
You never have to miss them

edit on 13-12-2011 by SSimon because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by SSimon
Come on guys This is the BBC

When amazing things happen on the BBC
You never have to miss them

edit on 13-12-2011 by SSimon because: (no reason given)


Those shots dont look real to me. But maybe they were just made up for entertainment like people have suggested in this thread.


When amazing things happen on the BBC
You never have to miss them


You can only watch BBC online legally if you have paid for a UK TV license.


edit on 13-12-2011 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 13 2011 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by Freeborn
reply to post by JessopJessopJessop
 


It is a documentary which for some of us can also be entertaining and thus also deemed entertainment.

It was representative of how the cubs would have looked if by some miracle pictures could have been taken of the mother polar bear's den without disturbing it and her cubs and without the probable loss of the camera man's life if he had attenpted it.

How the shots were obtained were in the public domain well in advance of this storm in a teacup.

Surely it's no bigee in the grand scheme of things....it's not as if they told some sort of deliberate ridiculous lie like the mother polar bear built itself a lovely log cabin and spent all winter drooling over repeats of Flipper whilst the cubs frollicked playfully in front of the open fire.

Some things should be put in perspective.


Being in the public domain doesn't cut it though. Plenty of things are in the public domain but out of the way and unseen by most people.

The BBC should have made clear that it's a representation, the world wouldn't implode if they told people that. But they didn't, instead they tried to make it seem as if the footage they were presenting was taken in the wild, rather than in controlled circumstances in a European zoo.

It's trivial but it's the principle. It's not right, however trivial it might be, to take something and present it as if it were something else. It's something I would expect from ITV or Fox News. The BBC I expect to treat my like an intelligent adult and not try to fool me for the sake of "entertainment". The documentary is entertaining enough without that sort of thing, don't you agree?



posted on Dec, 14 2011 @ 03:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Droidinvoid
 


So you would have them, go film a Polar bear having its cub and it either attacking the camera man, or killing its own cub.

Would you have preferred either of the above?

As I have previously stated the 34 who complained have nothing better to do with their life's,

As far as I am concerned those who are complaining are jealous over the prestige that the program-me receives.
edit on 14-12-2011 by Laurauk because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
13
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join