[cnbcwatcher]

Originally Posted by NitaJez

Yeah I am sure when I saw the Polar Bears going across the iceberg / ice flows with the mountains and the waterfall in the background... there was a german eating a sausage..

Is there a clip on Youtube?

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by cnbcwatcher

Is there a clip on Youtube?

There will be shortly after the Mail has finished creating one

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by d'@ve

It wasn't faked and they didn't lie. The "making of" clip that explained it truthfully and in full has been up on the BBC website for over a month!

And all of the usual suspects would do well to read that, and properly understand it.

[thms]

Originally Posted by Mystic Dave

Don't be a pillock - the scene relates to the birth of the polar bears. To have filmed it like that in the wild would have caused considerable distress to the mother, assuming you could find a mother bear under the snow at just the right moment.

If you look at the Daily Mirror, you will see above this non-story, a piece about Little Mix winning the X Factor. If you want to see faked and pointless TV every week, there it is.

ditto

[hendero]

Must have been a slow news day for the Mirror if that was the lead story. Somewhat ironic that a story about a misleading bit of Frozen Planet is given such a misleading headline. The good news is that the article drew attention to the clip showing how the baby polar bear segment was shot, which I found pretty interesting.

Should the producers have run a little blurb at the start or end of the episode, or the series, or when the bit in question was shown, explaining that it wasn't actually filmed in the wild? Perhaps. Did it give viewers the impression it was filmed in the wild? Probably. Does it matter? No. Certainly nothing like ITV showing "footage" of the IRA shooting down a helicopter which was really from a video game.

[TomM44]

Originally Posted by sn_22

Hope the BBC PR people are on the ball tomorrow. Cause I'm sure this'll soon be whipped into a civilisation-shaking scandal if they're not.

It turns out that the BBC Press Office were on the ball at 11.22 last night on Twitter:

@bbcpress
No scenes in Frozen Planet are faked but some can't be filmed in the wild. The way they're captured is shown here http://bbc.in/vtaHAg

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by hendero

Must have been a slow news day for the Mirror if that was the lead story. Somewhat ironic that a story about a misleading bit of Frozen Planet is given such a misleading headline. The good news is that the article drew attention to the clip showing how the baby polar bear segment was shot, which I found pretty interesting.

Should the producers have run a little blurb at the start or end of the episode, or the series, or when the bit in question was shown, explaining that it wasn't actually filmed in the wild? Perhaps. Did it give viewers the impression it was filmed in the wild? Probably. Does it matter? No. Certainly nothing like ITV showing "footage" of the IRA shooting down a helicopter which was really from a video game.

It doesn't happen very often, but I absolutely agree with every point that you make.

And yes, maybe there could have been a short announcement prior to the segment to emphasise that it was not filmed in the wild, but as you said, it doesn't really matter.

[mersey70]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

It doesn't happen very often, but I absolutely agree with every point that you make.

And yes, maybe there could have been a short announcement prior to the segment to emphasise that it was not filmed in the wild, but as you said, it doesn't really matter.

I suspect it might if another broadcaster did it.

In some quarters anyway. Personally I don't think it's a big thing though. It is a wonderful programme anyway.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by TomM44

It turns out that the BBC Press Office were on the ball at 11.22 last night on Twitter:

@bbcpress
No scenes in Frozen Planet are faked but some can't be filmed in the wild. The way they're captured is shown here http://bbc.in/vtaHAg

And it should be noted by the Daily Mirror that the clip was available on the website from November 7th!

The newest polar bear in the world

Duration: 04:16

Producer Kathryn Jeffs sets out to film the first moments in a Polar Bear cub’s life and captures some of the most endearing and revealing footage in the series.

Available since Mon 7 Nov 2011

[loz]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

It doesn't happen very often, but I absolutely agree with every point that you make.

And yes, maybe there could have been a short announcement prior to the segment to emphasise that it was not filmed in the wild, but as you said, it doesn't really matter.

As I pointed out earlier, just about every natural history programme is made in this way. God forbid the makers would now have to start putting announcements of that fact at the beginning of every programme. But its a sad reflection of the world that they may end up having to do so just to avoid false criticism like this.

What next, warnings at the start of soaps that this programme contains actors and is not portrayal of real events?

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by loz

As I pointed out earlier, just about every natural history programme is made in this way. God forbid the makers would now have to start putting announcements of that fact at the beginning of every programme. But its a sad reflection of the world that they may end up having to do so just to avoid false criticism like this.

What next, warnings at the start of soaps that this programme contains actors and is not portrayal of real events?

I do agree with you, it would be the thin end of a very big (and ultimately off-putting) wedge that would start to deflect attention away from the programme, its visuals, and the narrative.

[slow motion]

If it were mentioned or captioned as "like these pictured in a zoo" (or similar), then there would be no problem as far as I can see, but if it were just slipped into the show and portrayed as being in the wild, then I'd consider it an act of fakery.

But of course those who spend all their time defending the BBC, no matter what, will undoubtedly just attack the paper and anyone who supports such an assertion, rather than address this sort of activity.

Just as in a news item they make an effort to declare footage is from elsewhere when they show something not from the actual scene.

And no a programme like this is not a soap, and we should not expect this.

[loz]

I want to know why no one accused David Attenborough of faking the scenes in Flying with Dinasours.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by loz

I want to know why no one accused David Attenborough of faking the scenes in Flying with Dinasours.

Good point

[loz]

Originally Posted by slow motion

If it were mentioned or captioned as "like these pictured in a zoo" (or similar), then there would be no problem as far as I can see, but if it were just slipped into the show and portrayed as being in the wild, then I'd consider it an act of fakery.

But of course those who spend all their time defending the BBC, no matter what, will undoubtedly just attack the paper and anyone who supports such an assertion, rather than address this sort of activity.

Well I will defend the BBC in this case.

[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by slow motion

If it were mentioned or captioned as "like these pictured in a zoo" (or similar), then there would be no problem as far as I can see, but if it were just slipped into the show and portrayed as being in the wild, then I'd consider it an act of fakery.

But of course those who spend all their time defending the BBC, no matter what, will undoubtedly just attack the paper and anyone who supports such an assertion, rather than address this sort of activity.

Please read post 34, and some of the other posts

But why am I not surprised at your stance, even in the light of those posts ......

[Marti S]

I stopped watching it after I noticed they were using the same footage, off a previous episode, again.

The whole of the series has seemed disjointed and badly put together.

[stewieguy]

Should they also announce that "the following footsteps which sound like snow were actually created in a studio by Maude using some polystyrene"? Let's just litter documentaries with warnings to illustrate that what appears on tv is actually a bit different from real life, that would just about suck all the magic out of it (which after all is what critics of the BBC want, they are pissed off that the Beeb managed to create the highest rated documentary in almost a decade so are now looking at anything they can do to p%#+ on their parade!)

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by slow motion

If it were mentioned or captioned as "like these pictured in a zoo" (or similar), then there would be no problem as far as I can see, but if it were just slipped into the show and portrayed as being in the wild, then I'd consider it an act of fakery.

Seems I'm not alone in this opinion...

But John Whittingdale, chairman of the Commons culture, media and sport committee, told the Daily Mirror: “My view has always been that broadcasters should not seek to give viewers a false impression and it is much better if they are entirely open.

“If this was not filmed in the wild it would have been much better to have made that clear in the commentary. It’s questionable how many people would visit the website and find the video clip which explained the circumstances of the filming.”

Frozen Planet: BBC 'faked' polar bear birth - The Telegraph

"broadcasters should not seek to give viewers a false impression" - Who can disagree with that!!

[mossy2103]

But did they seek to give viewers a false impression, especially when the scene was explained at the end?

Indeed, many wildlife shots could be accused of giving a false impression when you see how the shots were set up, and see that they were not filmed in the wild but in a shed, booth or some other room.

[loz]

This isn't the first time

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news...-1111115259402

AS David Attenborough approaches a deadly Mozambique spitting cobra lying on a desert rock, he appears to be encroaching dangerously upon its territory.

It is no surprise when the reptile defends itself by spattering his protective face visor with venom. But the dramatic scene, which is to be screened as part of Life in Cold Blood, BBC1's new natural history series about reptiles and amphibians, is not entirely as it seems.

The BBC admitted yesterday that the snake was a captive animal taken from a snake farm and carefully placed on the rock in the South African desert so Sir David could agitate it into spitting for the cameras. Out of shot the animal's handler and safety experts were standing by

.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...ers-again.html

As the fox shakes water from its fur, the picture seems a stolen glimpse of a wild creature enjoying the elements.

The reality of this captivating image from the BBC's acclaimed new wildlife series, however, is rather less romantic, the showers caused not by storm clouds but by a man holding a hosepipe over tame animals in a fenced enclosure at a wildlife reserve.

However, perhaps its just me, but I understood that was how many natural history programmes are made.

Are the public really that gullible?

The issue seems to be should they be telling you this during the programme, or is some online explanation sufficient?

For example

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/south_west/8340035.stm

They were underwater pictures which enthralled millions of viewers.

But extreme close-ups of baby clownfish shown on the BBC One wildlife series Life were shot not in an exotic natural location - but at Swansea University.

I would be happy with the later.

[PeterB]

Originally Posted by loz

As I pointed out earlier, just about every natural history programme is made in this way. God forbid the makers would now have to start putting announcements of that fact at the beginning of every programme. But its a sad reflection of the world that they may end up having to do so just to avoid false criticism like this.

What next, warnings at the start of soaps that this programme contains actors and is not portrayal of real events?

So not worth me going to look at Walford next time I am in London?

[stewieguy]

The wolf v bison fight was edited and seemed to happen much more quickly than was explained in the making of segment, presumably that was misleading.

Also combining shots from summer 2008 with similar ones from summer 2009 is misleading as it all looks like the same season to the viewer.

Tv misleads because it has to condense reality into something that looks compelling when shown on a glass rectangle in someone's home. If they had shot the polar bear footage in the wild would it have looked very different, or was it an accurate representation of that aspect of their behaviour? If the answer to that is yes then they were not misleading the viewer in any substantial respect.

[droogiefret]

Bring back Bear Grylls

[loz]

Originally Posted by stewieguy

The wolf v bison fight was edited and seemed to happen much more quickly than was explained in the making of segment, presumably that was misleading.

And it wouldn't be too uncommon for a scene like that to combine footage from several different shoots and make it seem like one.

e.g. in one shot you see a wolf set off on a chase. The next it brings down an animal. Except it was two entirely different bits of footage, hours, day, if not months apart.