Frozen Planet complaints!

Splog

Splog

Suspended / Banned
Messages
6,257
Name
Steve
Edit My Images
No
Does it really matter how it was filmed? Some people huh? :shrug:

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

Frozen planet
 
its a joke
daily mirror report that it was filmed in a zoo
bbc already have a video online from november showing how it was filmed in a zoo

its a non story and daily mirror know it. But it was too late to pull the story.
 
Folk complain about Sir David Attenborough going to film on location due to his carbon footprint or disturbing animals in their natural habitat.

Then again other believe he propagates Climate Change and Natural Selection falsehoods.

It's probably the same folk that thrive on a diet of reality drivel such as XFactor etc etc

Some people :cuckoo:
 
A better news story would have been to track down those who complained and publicly humiliate them as the total prats they obviously are....... :D
 
Splog said:
A better news story would have been to track down those who complained and publicly humiliate them as the total prats they obviously are....... :D
Click to expand...

I'd rather fund the carbon offset and send them on a boat to supplement the polar bear diet :lol:
 
David Attenborough and the BBC got it right, they put the welfare of the animals first :clap:
If they had risked trying to film a birth in the wild it would have caused distress to the bear, does it really matter that it was captive, it's an experience that we are unlikely to see in life and magical however it was filmed.
 
AndyB1976 said:
Folk complain about Sir David Attenborough going to film on location due to his carbon footprint or disturbing animals in their natural habitat.

Then again other believe he propagates Climate Change and Natural Selection falsehoods.

It's probably the same folk that thrive on a diet of reality drivel such as XFactor etc etc

Some people :cuckoo:
Click to expand...

Think qualification for your first two groups would automatically exclude those in the third due to them not knowing what the first two mean:lol:
 
where does one click to complain???

Seriously do some people look for things to be outraged about and complain about? (That fellow TP's is a "potato" question)
 
Lynton said:
where does one click to complain???

Seriously do some people look for things to be outraged about and complain about? (That fellow TP's is a "potato" question)
Click to expand...

That would be daft wouldn't it, :bang:

However I do strongly OBJECT to your downright ASSUMPTION!! that all TPs know what a potato question is. :lol:
 
If the series was filmed in the wild and sections were filmed in a zoo then it should have been mentioned. It is mean to be a documentary so it is very misleading to be filming bits in a zoo and mixing them in with footage in the wild without making it clear that they had done so. If they had done so then people shouldn't be moaning.

Any other type of documentary has to be honest so why is it ok for a wildlife one not to be filming wildlife?? TV people already chop up and alter things to such an extent you have no idea what anything was originally. It is unacceptable, particularly from the BBC.
 
Gremlin said:
David Attenborough and the BBC got it right, they put the welfare of the animals first :clap:
If they had risked trying to film a birth in the wild it would have caused distress to the bear, does it really matter that it was captive, it's an experience that we are unlikely to see in life and magical however it was filmed.
Click to expand...

:agree:


Some people really do need to get a grip and be grateful and amazed that they have seen something they are unlikely to have ever seen on film before, never mind 'in the flesh'. Lets face it, there are scientists that have spent years studying polar bears and have never seen one giving birth. So they didn't mention it during the program, big deal, as Attenborough said, it would have ruined the storyline and flow of the piece, but the video explaining it has been available since early November on the website. Another classic piece of non-journalism from the red-tops :bonk:
 
Forbiddenbiker said:
That would be daft wouldn't it, :bang:

However I do strongly OBJECT to your downright ASSUMPTION!! that all TPs know what a potato question is. :lol:
Click to expand...


Blackadder: No, me; *I'm* the people who do all the work. I mean *look*
at this! [goes to a table at the side of the room and
picks up a small brown thing and holds it up] *What* is it?

Baldrick: Oh, I'm surprised you've forgotten, my lord.

Blackadder: I haven't forgotten; it's a rhetorical question.

Baldrick: No, it's a potato.
 
Yv said:
:agree:


Some people really do need to get a grip and be grateful and amazed that they have seen something they are unlikely to have ever seen on film before, never mind 'in the flesh'. Lets face it, there are scientists that have spent years studying polar bears and have never seen one giving birth. So they didn't mention it during the program, big deal, as Attenborough said, it would have ruined the storyline and flow of the piece, but the video explaining it has been available since early November on the website. Another classic piece of non-journalism from the red-tops :bonk:
Click to expand...

I don,t know if you watched Frozen Planet,but at the end there is a ten minute spot where they show and explain how the camera crew work and get some of the more difficult shots. This is when we should have been told how the scene was filmed. It wouldn,t have spoiled the scene when originally shown.
I must admit when I watched it I wondered how on earth they had taken the shots and was expecting to have it explained in the ten minute slot at the end.
A lot of people don,t seem to understand what the complaints are. It is not because the cubs were filmed in a controlled envirement,but that viewers were made to believe the shots were taken in the wild.
Anyhow it was a brilliant series and I wouldn,t have missed it for anything.
 
I just enjoyed watching it! Did cross my mind as to how they got in to where the polar bear cubs were but didn't worry about it and lose sleep or feel mislead now I seen this as to what was actually done!

Life's too short to worry or complain!

But i say feed them to the polar bears if they don't like it
 
I think we should put all the BBC documentary makers against the wall and shoot them in front of their families :rules:






;)
 
mrgubby said:
I think we should put all the BBC documentary makers against the wall and shoot them in front of their families :rules:






;)
Click to expand...

ha ha ha
 
mrgubby said:
I think we should put all the BBC documentary makers against the wall and shoot them in front of their families :rules:






;)
Click to expand...

:D

Before long, the papers will be telling us how the car crashes/stunts in Top Gear are Thunderbirds type models using the "Supermarionation" filming technique. :D
 
srichards said:
If the series was filmed in the wild and sections were filmed in a zoo then it should have been mentioned. It is mean to be a documentary so it is very misleading to be filming bits in a zoo and mixing them in with footage in the wild without making it clear that they had done so. If they had done so then people shouldn't be moaning.

Any other type of documentary has to be honest so why is it ok for a wildlife one not to be filming wildlife?? TV people already chop up and alter things to such an extent you have no idea what anything was originally. It is unacceptable, particularly from the BBC.
Click to expand...

:shake:

I just dont understand the mentallity of folk who bitch & complain over trivia.
I supprort public humiliation for the complainents. :D
 
I enjoyed watching the last 10 mins of the show, perhaps following all these whinges and complaints the BBC won't do them again and we will all lose out :(
 
I did wonder how anyone managed to film a wild polar bear and new born cubs in a snow den, without being killed, but this certainly doesn't spoil it for me.

I like David Attenborough. He's a good age and has an enormous amount of experience, but he has an infectious humour and his enthusiasm and sense of wonder still come through. For me, he has reached the level of an icon, although I imagine he would find that embarrassing!
 
Last edited:
srichards said:
If the series was filmed in the wild and sections were filmed in a zoo then it should have been mentioned. It is mean to be a documentary so it is very misleading to be filming bits in a zoo and mixing them in with footage in the wild without making it clear that they had done so. If they had done so then people shouldn't be moaning.

Any other type of documentary has to be honest so why is it ok for a wildlife one not to be filming wildlife?? TV people already chop up and alter things to such an extent you have no idea what anything was originally. It is unacceptable, particularly from the BBC.
Click to expand...

I get your point, but do you also object to Photoshop use without being told the image has been messed with?

I guess it's finding a level of acceptability. Retouched images of young people (particularly women) in magazines aimed at teenagers seems to be an issue with the general public. But a retouched landscape probably wouldn't be. Where do we draw the line inbetween?
 
Gary said:
its a joke
daily mirror report that it was filmed in a zoo
bbc already have a video online from november showing how it was filmed in a zoo

its a non story and daily mirror know it. But it was too late to pull the story.
Click to expand...

You need to take the wider picture into account with this story, because it's all about ethics.

The BBC (and Sky News moreso) have been branding press photographers at Leveson as paparazzi, whilst they themselves are actually doing most of the hounding of witnesses as they arrive and leave. Therefore it's a side swipe at the Beeb's own ethics.

Whilst the may be a non story, and the facts may appear on programme's website, by not highlighting that fact the birth took place in a zoo, Frozen Planet are actually in breach of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines; namely section 3.4.18 (Reconstructions):

Reconstructions

3.4.18

In factual programmes reconstructions should not over dramatise in a misleading or sensationalist way. Reconstructions are when events are quite explicitly re-staged. They should normally be based on a substantial and verifiable body of evidence. They should also be identifiable as reconstructions, for example by using verbal or visual labelling or visual or audio cues, such as slow motion or grading. It should also be obvious to the audience where a reconstruction begins and ends.

News programmes should not normally stage reconstructions of current events because of the risk of confusing the audience. But reconstructions staged by others may be reported.
Click to expand...
 
well it was filmed in the uk probably in winter so doing it for frozen planet probably isnt telling any fibs
 
It's a re-staging which is, by their own wording, pretty much the same thing.
 
DemiLion said:
It's a re-staging which is, by their own wording, pretty much the same thing.
Click to expand...

Did they get the polar bear pregnant just so they could film it? That would be a re-staging.

A re-staging is taking a real event and using actors to make it happen again so it can be filmed.

All the BBC did was film a natural event and not say where it was filmed.

Very different imo. :)
 
Re-stage also means to reproduce, having nothing to do with actors at all.

We are arguing semantics. They lead people to believe that they'd filmed a wild polar bear birth, which they hadn't. There should have been a disclaimer either at the start or end of the programme in the credits - or better yet it could have been inserted in the 'making of' section at the end.

Yup it would have ruined the flow of the programme to mention it during playback, but there were plenty of other opportunites to do so.
 
Joe T said:
Did they get the polar bear pregnant just so they could film it? That would be a re-staging.

A re-staging is taking a real event and using actors to make it happen again so it can be filmed.

All the BBC did was film a natural event and not say where it was filmed.

Very different imo. :)
Click to expand...

I have to say I agree with you Joe, unless every birth of every animal is considered a 'reconstruction' or 're-staging' of a previous one, then you you would struggle to classify it as such. It was a natural event, filmed as naturally as possible in the circumstances, not a mock up of a bank robbery.
 
A big fuss over nothing in my opinion.

If this story had not come out in the press 80% of people would of been none the wiser. The fact that the producers put in extra effort to film such a scene in my opinion only adds to thier credit. It would of been quite easy for them to turn round and say "its too dangerous, we won't bother." But they didn't and gave us a scene of what it would look like inside the den. The fact that they didn't say where it was filmed during the programme makes no difference to me.
 
As this is a photography forum, my opinion is............get a grip:shake:

If we had warnings before, during or even after every television programme where items are 'staged' or 're-staged' it'd never be off the box.

More relevant, IMO, is the superb photography and insight into one of the most natural events in life itself with one of the most endearing wild creatures most of us will never see in their natural habitat. Who cares if it's in a zoo? It's not even relevant.

More relevant is the decline of the animals environment and the decline of the species.
 
..are we collectively worse off with the inclusion of that scene?

What about the younger generations viewing it? Should we leave them to learn total truths such as Noah and his Ark instead :p:lol:
 
I really don't see the reason behind the complaints. I'd understand entirely if that particular shot was up for a prize of most amazing wildlife footage, just the same as a photograph in a wildlife competition shouldn't feature captive or domesticated animals, but as a simple documentary sequence of the birthing process it's perfectly fit for purpose and not, in my opinion, in any way deceptive.

It's also definitely not counted as being re-staged or a reconstruction.
 
I think the clue is more in some of the comments in todays press and what Mark said earlier - only 31 people complained as I recall, yet somehow it made a national newspaper....one of the same national papers that are a tad pee'd off with the BBC's coverage of the Leveson enquiry....I doubt any other TV program or advert that had received only 31 complaints has had such coverage, ergo methinks the involved parties are indulging in a bit of a journalistic tit for tat ;)

mind you, I still think the 31 people that complained might want to consider a change in their life direction
 
DemiLion said:
You need to take the wider picture into account with this story, because it's all about ethics.

The BBC (and Sky News moreso) have been branding press photographers at Leveson as paparazzi, whilst they themselves are actually doing most of the hounding of witnesses as they arrive and leave. Therefore it's a side swipe at the Beeb's own ethics.

Whilst the may be a non story, and the facts may appear on programme's website, by not highlighting that fact the birth took place in a zoo, Frozen Planet are actually in breach of the BBC's Editorial Guidelines; namely section 3.4.18 (Reconstructions):
Click to expand...

I don't see how filming a birth in a zoo could be classed as a reconstruction , it was an actual birth
 
srichards said:
If the series was filmed in the wild and sections were filmed in a zoo then it should have been mentioned. It is mean to be a documentary so it is very misleading to be filming bits in a zoo and mixing them in with footage in the wild without making it clear that they had done so. If they had done so then people shouldn't be moaning.
.
Click to expand...

Gary said:
bbc already have a video online from november showing how it was filmed in a zoo.
Click to expand...

Hmmm
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top