Frozen Planet

No disrespect to the B.B.C.,the Frozen Planet or to Sir David, but would it have not been wise to clearly state to the viewers that the polar bear with cubs in the den scenes were filmed at a zoo, not in the wild as I am sure the viewers would have appreciated what Sir David has stated today, if they had put a camera inside the polar bear den there would be a strong chance that the mother bear could have killed the cubs or even the camera itself at the very least.
 
What foolishness.
This reeks of an attempt to generate controversy where there is none. Criticism from a minister with his own problems http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...e-i-am-not-too-close-to-murdochs-2315410.html
The BBC was clear on their website connected with the show, what more is needed?

Fake scenes would involve using voles painted white and claiming they were polar bears.

Perhaps this sort of disclaimer in the future:
"Mr. Attenborough was not really on the glacier for 4.5 hours, but rather went inside after 4.4 hours. Our apologies to our sad and lonely viewers who worry about such details."
 
Just saw this on Twitter:

"The BBC admits that 'Frozen Planet' was filmed on a green screen in the Barbados and the penguins were just Attenborough in a mo-cap suit."
 
The controversy in the US is over the fact that they are not showing the final episode dealing directly with global warming/climate change. Stoopid republicans.
 
Zooplantman said:
"The BBC admits that 'Frozen Planet' was filmed on a green screen in Barbados and the penguins were just Attenborough in a mo-cap suit."
Click to expand...

Brilliant!

I think it's a tough one to get exactly right, but I think the BBC did well to be so open about it. I can see the BBC's point of 'ruining the atmosphere' - which I agree with, but also understand where Tarzan's coming from, particularly as they often mention things like 'this is the first time anyone has filmed [this behaviour]'.

I'm going to a talk by Alastair Fothergill shortly, so I'll see how he mentions it.
 
Zooplantman said:
What foolishness.
This reeks of an attempt to generate controversy where there is none.
Click to expand...

Its always been accepted practise in Wildlife Filming to film such sequences, and indeed others that can't be obtained with wild subjects, using animals in zoos/wildlife parks/ other captive settings in big close up so that backgrounds can't be seen. These would normally be a few shots or a short sequence cut in among all the genuine wild footage, and only a minute percentage of the whole film.

Films including such sequences never normally advertised the fact or said that they did it. But now it seems in these days of 'political correctness' such a ploy may be frowned on or regarded as 'not authentic'- though I cannot see why, as DA said, it would be impossible to film it otherwise. Also, by their very nature, Wildlife documentaries, like any other films, are completely artificial creations anyway- things are made to 'happen' that may not have happened in reality, events created ,shots intersposed and sequences of events rearranged etc etc, so where does one draw the line about 'authenticity'?

It seems just the Daily Mirror trying to create an 'expose' about nothing.
 
Last edited:
Zooplantman said:
The BBC was clear on their website connected with the show, what more is needed?
Click to expand...
How many people who watched the programme will think of checking a website to ascertain how and where the footage was filmed? Whatever one's opinion, the general perception of a "wildlife" documentary is that it's shot in the wild.

Having worked in this field, I always find it ironic that instances like this occur from time to time but nobody ever mentions - or seemingly cares - that almost none of the audio is recorded on location, most of it is created in post or originates from audio libraries.
 
SMR said:
How many people who watched the programme will think of checking a website to ascertain how and where the footage was filmed? Whatever one's opinion, the general perception of a "wildlife" documentary is that it's shot in the wild.

Having worked in this field, I always find it ironic that instances like this occur from time to time but nobody ever mentions - or seemingly cares - that almost none of the audio is recorded on location, most of it is created in post or originates from audio libraries.
Click to expand...

I think it's complaining for complaining's sake.

1) Does it really matter.

2) Did the documentary ever say EXPLICITLY that it was wild? Technically they were never fibbing. How many other wildlife films/adverts use captive animals without explicitly saying - does anybody jump down their throats about it?

It's been pointed out before that the WWF's 'Adopt a Jaguar' advert shows the jaguar 'Coro' from Chester. Any complaints from media watchdogs and people who just enjoy complaining when it makes no odds either way :p
 
Last edited:
jbnbsn99 said:
The controversy in the US is over the fact that they are not showing the final episode dealing directly with global warming/climate change. Stoopid republicans.
Click to expand...

Apparently that was only a consideration by the Discovery channel, it will now be broadcast along with the rest of the series.

We were told that it was a brave move from the BBC to put the environmental episode in the same primetime slot as the rest of the series, but reviews and ratings (7m viewers - same as the first episode in the series) showed that it went down well. Apart from the 'controversial' topic, another US consideration was the unfamiliarity of Sir David Attenborough (the narrator) to American audiences. However, having seen the success of the episode in the UK, it will now certainly be shown in the US.
 
As I watched that polar bear sequence I realised that it must have been shot in a zoo (or 'wildlife park' as the BBC announced rather coyly). I suspect that one or two other sequences were shot under controlled conditions, for examples the voles feeding under the snow. This is common practice of course, as is the construction of the soundtrack that SMR mentioned.
Part of the problem is that the BBC has set such high standards for shooting in the wild that people automatically assume that everything is shot on location. I dare say that some people may think the shots of the globe with ice advancing and receding at the poles are specially commissioned satellite photos rather than computer graphics.
I think the editor should have used a couple of minutes in one of those final add-on 'freeze frames' to show how that bear cub sequence was shot, because that would have been more honest and would have made an interesting comparison with daring-do of the killer whale and emperor penguin sequences.

Alan
 
I agree with Gentle Lemur about possibly featuring the filming of the cubs in the freeze frame section of the show. I personally do not feel misled as I was aware this is often the case in these kinds of documentaries.

The thing that annoys me with all the fuss is that some people feel cheated! Would they prefer that the TV crew risked their own lives and the lives of wild polar bears to capture the required shot?

Also if they were trying to mislead the viewers would they openly and freely add the footage about filming the scene, onto the website? If I was trying to mislead someone I would probably not spread it over the internet for the world to see!
 
SMR said:
Having worked in this field, I always find it ironic that instances like this occur from time to time but nobody ever mentions - or seemingly cares - that almost none of the audio is recorded on location, most of it is created in post or originates from audio libraries.
Click to expand...

Or in the same vein, how many people realise that a sequence of, say, a Lion stalking and hunting an antelope is made of many shots, and can be composed from several hunting attempts at different times or places. No less artificial to me than close-ups like the bear cubs shot in a captive situation. Any wildlife film is an artificial creation.

If the one part is wrong, then why not the whole lot?
 
Last edited:
Javan Rhino said:
How many other wildlife films/adverts use captive animals without explicitly saying - does anybody jump down their throats about it?
Click to expand...

As I said above, its commonplace (or used to be), while films often comprise at least some footage that isn't necessarily used/edited in anything like the same order it was filmed, or sometimes not from the same place, the same time or even by the same people/company! As shown by this, even the BBC with its high standards and massive production budgets can't avoid doing this occassionally- its the name of the game.

But nobody is normally any the wiser with the finished product. Only a situation like this where the press have flagged it up does it become an issue.
 
SMR said:
Having worked in this field, I always find it ironic that instances like this occur from time to time but nobody ever mentions - or seemingly cares - that almost none of the audio is recorded on location, most of it is created in post or originates from audio libraries.
Click to expand...

Apparently over 80% of the audio for this series was recorded on location, with the rest mostly being provided by sound editors.
 
devilfish said:
Apparently over 80% of the audio for this series was recorded on location, with the rest mostly being provided by sound editors.
Click to expand...

That doesn't always mean it was recorded at the same time as the flimed action.

Personally I dont care that much where the action is flimed or how or where the sound is recorded/created. As long as the the programme (aims to) gives a truthful account of the species/locations involved. If accurate sounds of splashing water or crunching snow are added later this only adds to the viewers immersion into the amazing film shot. Just the same as adding footage from controlled situations such as the polar bears giving birth adds to viewers appreciation of the overall situation.
 
mark77 said:
That doesn't always mean it was recorded at the same time as the flimed action.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I should have been clearer; I think that little sound used in the series would have been recorded simultaneously with the filmed action. My point was that the vast majority of sounds are not artificial sound effects, nor irrelevant noises recorded elsewhere. I agree with your point about viewer immersion though.
 
devilfish said:
Apparently over 80% of the audio for this series was recorded on location, with the rest mostly being provided by sound editors.
Click to expand...
On location maybe, but not at the same time as the live action, it's just not practical (or possible) to do so in many instances. That other 20% is probably foley.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top