[mossy2103]

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.

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.

A very sensible take on things.

And in truth, as pointed out earlier, would the makes have got footage in the wild without disturbing the bears, and without putting the cameramen who were setting up the kit in grave danger (I believe that polar bears can kill, and that mothers generally are very protective of their young).

Of course, this will be dismissed as the usual BBC supporters using any excuse to mitigate the "fakery", whereas in truth it's a little bit of a reality check

[Rorschach]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

Bring back Bear Grylls

I heard that Rupert is in fact a CGI creation made in a computer shop in Croydon.

[Rorschach]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

(I believe that polar bears can kill, and that mothers generally are very protective of their young).

There's no "I believe" about it.

Polar bears are the largest land carnivore on the planet and can, and have, killed humans on many occassions. The last well publicised instance was only a few months ago when it attached a school trip in Norway.

[bobcar]

Originally Posted by sn_22

Here's the website clip that explains how it's made:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00m21s4

Not exactly a secret cover-up, is it?

And the commentary didn't suggest it was filmed in the Arctic, either. They might have spelled it out, but I don't think there was really any need to for the programme's sake. But it was perhaps naive not to guard against this sort of gotcha journalism.

Really high level investigative journalism here. The BBC faked shots of polar bears: how do we know? Our highly skilled and dedicated team of reporters watched the BBC programme explaining this.

[njp]

Originally Posted by bobcar

Really high level investigative journalism here. The BBC faked shots of polar bears: how do we know? Our highly skilled and dedicated team of reporters watched the BBC programme explaining this.

Yes, but the Mirror hack assures us that the clip was "hard to find". He must have had to selflessly watch several other clips in the comfort of his office before finding one he could use to fabricate his non-story.

[commseng]

There is no point putting somebody's life at risk to get substandard footage for a programme like this if there is a sensible way of obtaining it otherwise.

It seems as if it was all explained afterwards, and a caption or explanation at the time may well have got in the way of the narrative.

Sounds like a storm in a tea cup.

I'm more surprised that the papers aren't reporting anything about the explosion in the Bristol hospital I saw on Casualty on Saturday night. Looked horrendous, and I'm amazed they had a live crew inside at the time.

[mikw]

Originally Posted by slow motion

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

The whole of the industry......

[exlordlucan]

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 then you would, as far as the BBC goes that is

Originally Posted by slow motion

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.

The only use for a red top paper is bog roll and I'm surprised you even read them.

Originally Posted by slow motion

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.

Live with it slowmo, it's nothing new and as Attenborough said this morning, if they'd told you that the part in question was filmed in a zoo beforehand then the whole atmosphere would have been ruined, also the reason for filming it there was for the safety of the cub because had it been filmed in the wild the mother would have killed it due to the presence of cameras and also the cameraman would have likely to have been attacked himself.

[zz9]

Originally Posted by njp

Yes, but the Mirror hack assures us that the clip was "hard to find". He must have had to selflessly watch several other clips in the comfort of his office before finding one he could use to fabricate his non-story.

It was probably "hard to find" because Daily Mirror reporters don't know how to use computers and just bash the keyboard with their fists or head until something comes up on screen....

[Batch]

Its TV, its not really a stretch of the imagination to think some of the footage is "fake" is it?

Who really cares.

[msim]

And in other news the BBC found a tiny cocooned caterpillar, set up a camera (alongside some form of power for it) then filmed it hibernating and doing nothing for 14 yrs just so that a decade later it could be used in this series

Thick stupid people and tabloid hacks in not understanding how TV is made shocker!

[Turnbull2000]

Jesus, what an utter-non story. I though this was common knowledge? In fact, didn't the BBC themselves explain why they do this on the behind-the-scenes of their Life series?

[rionia]

I remember a few years ago hearing a talk by Mark Strickson (wildlife documentary producer) who told us how they spent ages once waiting for some crocodile eggs to hatch and were running out of time so decided to help them along with some KY jelly (which apparently when put on the eggs mimicks so sort of natural element). he said he had to go into a shop in the back of beyond, and ask for rubber gloves and KY jelly! (true story).

If anyone thinks making wildlife documenatries is all trickery and/or easy studio camerawork, then think again. Poor Mark had had all sorts of illnesses (malaria, parasytic infections, pneumonia, etc). I met him again at a Doctor Who signing last year (he was an actor in DW in the 80s, one of the companions) and he had injured his shoulder falling down a cliff. It's a tough life being a wildlife documentary producer!

[ShaunW]

I had a proper laugh this morning when this headline was aired on Sky News.

Psst do you wanna buy some fake photo's of the The Queen's Lancashire Regiment abusing Iraqi prisoners.

[spiney2]

Daily Mirror is a fake newspaper!

Whenever I've seen it in past 20 years, I've never found any news in it.

[d'@ve]

Yes, what the producers did was normal documentary practice to help the flow and improve enjoyment of the programme. The Mirror story is ridiculous.

The only mild criticism I have is that it should have been mentioned briefly during "Freeze Frame" at the end (when too much time was spent on the foxes and bison) - or in the credits at the end.

That's of minor significance though because what they did is normal practice in the industry and is a practice that I think most people are in general terms aware of and don't mind.

[loz]

my wife just reminded me of the documentary she watched of the great wildebeest migration which followed the life of a calf from being born to successfully completing the migration.

She said it was obvious if you looked that it was assembled from footage of half a dozen different calfs. Yet at no point did they mention this anywhere. But neither did it detract from the great story it told.

[cnbcwatcher]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

There will be shortly after the Mail has finished creating one

haha

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by droogiefret

Bring back Bear Grylls

Ah, yes abandoned in the wild, but reportedly stayed in a hotel!

This is what the acceptance of fakery as one of those things in the biz gets you.

But I'm sure that was totally accceptable to many people too! Also voice changing in talent shows, fake phone-ins, fake guests etc. etc.

as I said earlier, I have no problem staging shots, so long as you tell people at the time to some extent, and not expect them to find out themselves via a separate website.

Adverts have to be above board, so should TV.

Otherwise, the message is you can't trust anything on TV.

And that would be worrying.

[skp20040]

Originally Posted by sn_22

I don't think it's anything as crafty as that. I suspect the issue is the short scene that came from within the Polar Bear's den, where the mother nurtured her newborn cubs.

I guess you couldn't physically obtain those shots in the wild - because you can't safely send a camera man barging into a snowy cocoon alongside a Polar Bear half way up a mountain! Looking back, all the other shots of the animal could come from a safe distance in the Arctic itself - but that one couldn't cause you needed a window into the den. Hence those close up pictures were filmed in a zoo.

Not sure, but I'm expecting that's what it'll be. Some truth, furnished by a nice healthy dollop of hyperbole that makes it sound a little more dramatic. I notice rent-a-quote John Wittingdale makes it into the article so we can make reasonable assumptions on the tone…

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.

EDIT: Yes, turns out it's exactly this and there's a "making of" explaining it all on Frozen Planet's own website!

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/top-sto...5875-23628713/

Sir David Attenboroiugh confirmed exactly what you said on an interview on This Morning, today. he said that if they had done it in the wild the cameraman would have been at risk and the polar bear may have killed her cubs,

Perhaps if the Mirror feels they could do better they should send one of their journalists to get in to a den !

[lundavra]

I heard a rumour that Mirror is going to expose the BBC for using faked footage in Planet Dinosaur.

[Tiger Rose]

Originally Posted by skp20040

Sir David Attenboroiugh confirmed exactly what you said on an interview on This Morning, today. he said that if they had done it in the wild the cameraman would have been at risk and the polar bear may have killed her cubs,

Perhaps if the Mirror feels they could do better they should send one of their journalists to get in to a den !

If the Polar bear cubs or a cameraman had been killed doing this you could then imagine the press being up in arms about BBC putting lives in danger to get sensational pictures.

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by Tiger Rose

If the Polar bear cubs or a cameraman had been killed doing this you could then imagine the press being up in arms about BBC putting lives in danger to get sensational pictures.

Much easier to just mention (or caption on screen) those shots were from a zoo, then everyone would be happy!

[allafix]

Originally Posted by slow motion

Much easier to just mention (or caption on screen) those shots were from a zoo, then everyone would be happy!

Having that kind of thing pop up all the time would be terribly distracting and ruin the best part of such programmes, which is the beautiful images. Maybe a notice in the credits would be more appropriate.

[slow motion]

Originally Posted by allafix

Having that kind of thing pop up all the time would be terribly distracting and ruin the best part of such programmes, which is the beautiful images. Maybe a notice in the credits would be more appropriate.

possibly a solution, certainly this has irked a lot of people, while it seems many others aren't bothered about it.