[mossy2103]

Originally Posted by slow motion

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

It has supposedly irked "a lot" of people then, from what I can see it has only drew negative comment from a small number on online forums & the like.

Even Ofcom has received few complaints:

Media regulator Ofcom said they have received "fewer than a handful" of complaints about Frozen Planet.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-16137704




Oh hang on though, the bandwagon has only just started a-rolling, so maybe in a week's time Ofcom will have received a few thousand more ....

[mikw]

Originally Posted by mossy2103

Oh hang on though, the bandwagon has only just started a-rolling, so maybe in a week's time Ofcom will have received a few thousand more ....

Certainly if the "news" papers have anything to do with it!

[njp]

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!

Well, I wouldn't. And I doubt even the people lacking TV literacy would be happy. They'd have to find some other way of exercising their finely honed ability to be outraged by things they don't understand (and may not even have seen).

Education is the key. Either that or a world where nodding interviewers must always be accompanied by captions explaining that they are faking their responses to the interviewee, unless a two camera set-up was employed.

Once, during a narrow boat holiday that included a stretch on the River Severn, we stopped for lunch at a riverside pub. Shortly after we'd arrived, another narrow boat moored alongside ours and a TV film crew disembarked. The full horror of what was about to unfold became clear when a member of our party was approached and asked if we were the Morris dancers.

But I digress...

The main point is that when the programme finally aired, it bore very little resemblance to what we'd watched being filmed. For example, the presenter was seen entering the pub from the street, where a full blown carnival was going on. In reality, this had taken place a few weeks earlier. The Morris dancing scenes were also shown out-of-sequence.

I was able to resist the urge to be outraged.

[solenoid]

It would have been better for the BBC to notify the viewer using a caption. Was that really so difficult to do?

[Pizzatheaction]

Spectacular own goal for one of Trinity Mirror's range of ailing newspaper titles.

[msim]

Originally Posted by solenoid

It would have been better for the BBC to notify the viewer using a caption. Was that really so difficult to do?

Well yes, because, frankly, that would look shit on screen…

And, as Attenborough said this morning, shall we go to the extreme and point out that one colony of penguins was filmed in 2008, and a second was shot in 2009 and the two mixed together? Captions all over the screen and citations littering the narration. Ridiculous!

I noticed ITV News were airing this tonight - did they run a story when ITV was sanctioned by OfCom for including video game footage in a documentary and said it was the IRA? I don't think they did...

[fastest finger]

And those sound effects you hear? Most of the time they aren't real. They are added afterwards.

Because sometimes it's just the way it needs to be.

Total non-story.

[allafix]

Originally Posted by slow motion

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

When I watch such scenes my first thought is how on earth did they manage to film that. Common sense tells you it should not be possible. Then I remember the various "how it was filmed" clips which have shown the BBC using similar techniques to get such pictures. Sometimes shot in a studio. The point was to give people the idea of what a polar bear den is like. The alternative would be some kind of animation. The idea that the BBC was trying to fool viewers is ludicrous. Wildlife films tell a story, and sometimes you need to film in different locations to achieve this.

If subtitles were used to indicate footage which was shot in a different location, or not in the sequence shown, or where shots of several animals have been used for a single individual the screen would always have such a disclaimer on view.

All viewers need is a little common sense. Not to mention a sense of perspective.

[allafix]

Originally Posted by Pizzatheaction

Spectacular own goal for one of Trinity Mirror's range of ailing newspaper titles.

ITV News went overboard with it tonight too. Not inter channel rivalry, surely.

[Pizzatheaction]

Originally Posted by allafix

ITV News went overboard with it tonight too. Not inter channel rivalry, surely.

I haven't liked it since it got Dacre'd.

[loz]

Originally Posted by allafix

All viewers need is a little common sense. Not to mention a sense of perspective.

And in this case, AFAIK, viewers have. No viewer has complained have they? Only journalists.

[msim]

Originally Posted by allafix

All viewers need is a little common sense. Not to mention a sense of perspective.

Such things are in short supply by tabloid hacks who lie, mislead and deceive their readers daily. They are in no position to judge and lecture anyone. I expect the Mirror (and all other 'news'papers that copy-pasted this will be apologising to their readers for misleading them that the zoo was in Germany when in fact it was in Holland - you couldn't make up the hypocrisy could you!

A couple of weeks ago Eden was showing the series Life from 2009. At the end of the episode regarding plants there was a brief edited 'making of' film (which I presume was 10 mins in length on the original BBC One airing). In it they showed that in order to show the movement of a falling sycamore-like seed rotating to earth, they had set up a studio with a fixed camera and shot such seeds falling in front of a green screen. This tracking shot was then composited onto a shot taken in the wild and slowed down to show the movement. Did I feel deceived? No. Was a citation required? No. Did it require Attenborough to say 'here are some seeds falling to the ground, but this one on the foreground was actually filmed in a studio and pasted in. Of course not!

As I said before, only thick people and tabloids wanting their next blood meal are bothered about this.

[fizzycat]

I watched the whole series and loved it. When the polar bear birth scene was screened I wondered how they'd shot it but it was the footage that mattered, not where it happened. I still saw something beautiful and miraculous whether it happened in the Arctic, Holland or anywhere else.

I don't feel cheated or lied to. Non-story for the sake of trying to muck-rake.

[Aaron_Scotland]

Originally Posted by solenoid

It would have been better for the BBC to notify the viewer using a caption. Was that really so difficult to do?

Best solution, have one before the program starts 'Some parts of this program have been filmed in safe locations for our crew and the animals' or something like that.

To say 'Oh it was on the website..' is the worst excuse ever.

[OnexOne]

wait a minute folks, yeh i feel a bit cheated, but what about these reality programs like only way is essex etc etc etc ! all conn artists to the full! and much much worse

[PeterB]

How do they move the teams in University Challenge from above and below to side by side so quickly? Must make them feel sick.

[njp]

Originally Posted by loz

And in this case, AFAIK, viewers have. No viewer has complained have they? Only journalists.

And an idiot MP, eager for a slice of the action.

[groovesection]

I am not the biggest fan of the BBC but this supposed story is utter BS and rather pathetic

[cegueira]

Originally Posted by slow motion

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

From the looks of it only hacks and people with an axe to grind have a problem with this. An industry-wide practice that helps tell a story.

Quite funny given what ITV were able to get away with recently. From what I've seen here, some would be baying for blood if the BBC had made the same mistake.

Do we need an onscreen popup when a presenter is shown going into a house and saying hello when there's already a camera in the house?

EDIT: must remember it's a mistake for other broadcasters and fakery when it's normal practice but the BBC does it.

[mikw]

You know, i find it funny how a number of posters on this thread have nothing good to say about Frozen Planet, but WILL seize upon anything to diss it!

The filming statistics for the Frozen Planet series are remarkable: 2,356 days in the field, 1.5 years at sea and 6 months on sea ice.

The above is from Yahoo News.

Funny how the "Usual suspects" ignore all those days in the field, and the all the wonderful things in this benchmark series, to only focus on one thing.......

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by solenoid

It would have been better for the BBC to notify the viewer using a caption. Was that really so difficult to do?

Do you think they should put up a caption every time they use green screen?

Most of the news studios are now virtual studios, should there be a caption to inform viewers that?

Perhaps the Mirror can set an example by labelling any pictures with their source and date, if there is a picture accompanying a story about Fred Bloggs then it is quite likely taken at a completely different time so we should be informed about that. The newspaper all steal stories from each all the time, that should be acknowled. Most of them now steal things from certain bloggers without credits so we should be told. And of course there are those political stories leaked to them, we should be told who leaked it.

[lundavra]

Originally Posted by Aaron_Scotland

Best solution, have one before the program starts 'Some parts of this program have been filmed in safe locations for our crew and the animals' or something like that.

To say 'Oh it was on the website..' is the worst excuse ever.

I think most of David Attenborough's series have had follow up programmes about how they made the programmes as well as plenty of articles about them and how they were made.

[Turnbull2000]

Mirror running it on the front page again tomorrow. Idiots.

[msim]

Daily Mirror bosses: "We fake it all the time"

Did apologising for that insignificant little bit of fakery that destroyed a mans life get the front page treatment by the mirror I wonder?...

[Regis Magnae]

I consider this a fuss over nothing, it helped describe the life of the animal.

If the "fakery" implied or portrayed something not true to the nature of the animal, then that would have been far more concerning.