mjmooney Posted December 13, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 13, 2011 Has it ever occurred to you that virtually 100% of the sound on any given nature documentary is studio-dubbed from library sources, and not location sound? Because it is. Deception? Or practical film making? Nothing is real. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCLaura Posted December 13, 2011 Author Share Posted December 13, 2011 That's all well and good, but would you really expect a camera crew to be able to get anywhere near an actual birth without getting turned into human rusks for the newborn? That's a bonkers reply. Of course not. As clearly mentioned in my previous post, if it is not possible to film something so dangerous - a reconstruction is perfect acceptable. I would just prefer to know I am watching a reconstruction and not led to believe it's the real thing. I don't personally think you can use arguments to suggest that viewers should know that these things happen in wildlife programs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 13, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 13, 2011 As said, complete non-story. Nature docs have always done this sort of thing. While it might have been preferale to inform the viewer what is and isn't 'real', as Attenborough notes todays nature documentaries all have elements of a narrative - they play out as little skits of story that the viewer is enthralled by, and to say 'this is actually filmed in a Dutch zoo, by the way' destroys that. Besides which, is a bear giving birth in an artificial environment it knows as it's home, all that different to one doing it in the wild? Does it matter?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b6bloke Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 That's all well and good, but would you really expect a camera crew to be able to get anywhere near an actual birth without getting turned into human rusks for the newborn? That's a bonkers reply. Of course not. As clearly mentioned in my previous post, if it is not possible to film something so dangerous - a reconstruction is perfect acceptable. I would just prefer to know I am watching a reconstruction and not led to believe it's the real thing. I don't personally think you can use arguments to suggest that viewers should know that these things happen in wildlife programs. Laura I accept what you are saying but these programmes send people into a place where they are wooed in amazement at not only the beauty but the sureal environment and filming of things a larger percentage of us never knew or will ever see in reality. The whole programme has you in awe from start to finish so maybe they thought that they did not want to disturb this by throwing in a disclaimer about "1" scene being filmed in a zoo because most of us really couldnt care when you compare it to everything else that has been filmed on location Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Does it matter?. Nope. But as usual, the British meeja and others need to have something to get their knickers in a twist over. We MUST be outraged!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MMFy Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 They've been bullshitting about just about everything in the news for years. Why worry now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GarethRDR Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 Personally, having watched the scene in question I thought the canned laughter was a dead giveaway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I'm waiting for the first journo to use the phrase 'cubgate' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCLaura Posted December 13, 2011 Author Share Posted December 13, 2011 Jon I think that comment is most unfair if you are referring to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genie Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 The only time Laura tallked about getting her knickers in a twist was in the 'walk of shame' thread.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 13, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 13, 2011 Not a problem. It's a documentary. It's not a "look at these 100% genuine pictures" show. If the footage paints a better picture of what goes on, then surely that's a good thing? This is like complaining about the computer animated bits in Wonders of the Universe because it's not reallly shot in space Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I agree, it's an amazing show regardless, but I feel slightly misled as a viewer. As far as I am concerned it's a wildlife show and as such if something is replicated in order to show the viewer something that would otherwise be impossible to film, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, but why not mention it? The annoying thing for me was that the BBC spokesperson made a point of saying that the commentary was given specifically so as not to misled. It was subtle and as such they've been clever and had offcom in mind when scripting it, which feels a touch manipulative IMO. When I watch something on a wildlife program, I believe it is a natural occurrence in a natural setting. Now knowing that in this instance that is not the case, I feel slightly sucked in and I don't like that feeling. It makes me wonder what else has been falsified when all they have to do is plan the language in order to not fall foul of any offcom rules with regards to the broadcast. Personally, I think the show is wonderful. I would just prefer the BBC to be upfront with viewers about certain aspects that may have been filmed somewhere other than in the wild when I am watching a wildlife program.Absolutely 100% this for me I really enjoyed the programme, and so did my kids who were amazed at the thing and for them to watch anything else other than Jake and the Neverland pirates is pretty amazing let me tell you So to now hear that there was fakery is pretty disappointing. Watching these programmes always intrigues me how they manage to be in the right place at the right time and now I just feel let down as I will always be feeling there is fakery. May be a non story to some but to those of us who watch these programmes with respect and amazement it is a let down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 13, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 13, 2011 I watched much of the series with respect and amazement and am completely non-plussed. What difference does it make, really? You saw an amazing thing either way, something few eyes would ever normally see. Is it undermined so much by it not being in the Arctic wastes? Would you rather have not seen it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCLaura Posted December 13, 2011 Author Share Posted December 13, 2011 It's a documentary. It's not a "look at these 100% genuine pictures" show. OK. Lets look up the definition of the word documentary... Noun. A movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report. And I at least expect to be informed when something is staged. The general attitude here is "Oh...stop being such a spoil sport!" Which doesn't refute the point I'm making. It just deflects it. I've made it clear that I love the show. I just like to know if what I am watching is a documentary or not, which by the very definition; it is not. All arguments of supposedly relevant examples are not at all comparable, just attempting to ridicule the point being made. Which doesn't make anyone but the poster look silly, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 I watched much of the series with respect and amazement and am completely non-plussed. What difference does it make, really? You saw an amazing thing either way, something few eyes would ever normally see. Is it undermined so much by it not being in the Arctic wastes? Would you rather have not seen it?As Laura says it is not the event as such ut the lack of honesty by the broadcaster that is the main gripe for me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 13, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 13, 2011 It's a documentary. It's not a "look at these 100% genuine pictures" show. OK. Lets look up the definition of the word documentary... Noun. A movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report. Which it absolutely did. As long as, I assume, the fake pictures were an accurate representation of what actually happens, and would have resembled the real pictures if they were able to shoot them. I agree that they should have just been up front about it. But I still think it's a massive non-story. And that's not ridiculing the point being made, just because I don't agree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMilnereatsnails Posted December 13, 2011 Share Posted December 13, 2011 But it wasn't staged was it? The Polar Bear was nursing a cub as it would do if it were anywhere else, Arctic, Zoo, my back garden or wherever. The fact that the scene in question occurred in a different place than the BBC would have you believe is irrellevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVFCLaura Posted December 13, 2011 Author Share Posted December 13, 2011 It's a documentary. It's not a "look at these 100% genuine pictures" show. OK. Lets look up the definition of the word documentary... Noun. A movie or a television or radio program that provides a factual record or report. Which it absolutely did. As long as, I assume, the fake pictures were an accurate representation of what actually happens, and would have resembled the real pictures if they were able to shoot them. I agree that they should have just been up front about it. But I still think it's a massive non-story. And that's not ridiculing the point being made, just because I don't agree. I think that's a fair point regarding the documentary definition. It's just about something being sold as one thing, when it is another. If you agree that they should have been up front about it, then you agree with my original point. It comes purely down to informing the viewer. The facade was blatant. And I can't see why anyone would disagree with an objection to it. I have said how much I enjoy the show otherwise. This 'non-story' has generated a 3 page thread on a forum which is dead on it's arse during the day, so I happily invite other people to post 'non-stories' and get this forum moving a little. 8) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chindie Posted December 13, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 13, 2011 Indeed. It wasn't staged. It wasn't really 'faked' either, they simply used a more practical (if not only) way to portray a spectacular event to create the narrative they intended to show. I'm slightly bewildered people appear to have gotten so rankled by this to be honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stevo985 Posted December 13, 2011 VT Supporter Share Posted December 13, 2011 But it wasn't staged was it? The Polar Bear was nursing a cub as it would do if it were anywhere else, Arctic, Zoo, my back garden or wherever. The fact that the scene in question occurred in a different place than the BBC would have you believe is irrellevant. I wouldn't say it's irrelevant. I would agree with laura that they should be up front about it. But yes, as long as that's what polar bears do, and it was an attempt to recreate that, then it's fine. If it showed them doing something they wouldn't do, then that would be a different issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts