BBC's Frozen Planet uses footage filmed in a zoo

antijoke · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:46

Sir David Attenborough has defended using footage in his Frozen Planet series of a polar bear tending her newborn cubs that was shot in a zoo.

The footage, narrated by Sir David, was made in a German zoo and was mixed with real wild scenes.

The BBC has denied misleading viewers over the footage and said the way it had been captured was "clearly explained" in the programme website.

Whilst not entirely surprising (as I did wonder how mad it was that they managed to film such scenes in the wild) I would've thought they could have used the end segment to explain the fact they filmed it in a zoo and explain why.

I can see why people are annoyed with this, I mean how many people do you think would check the website and watch the video to realise they filmed it in a zoo.

Overall it doesn't spoil the enjoyment from watching such a magnificent series.

So not bothered? or Irrate and going to right to Points of View? Waste of licence fee? Glad this is why you don't waste your money on the TV tax?

Article from the Indepenent

nydryl · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:48

Not bothered. Ultimately it's entertainment, and such scenes enhance the programme.

Gilly · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:48

Not even slightly bothered. It's not like it's anamatronics.

bledd · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:49

It's probably a good thing that they didn't film the ones in the wild up close like that, the less they have disturbing them, the better. Penguins on the other hand, there's about 10000000 of them, so getting up close seems a lot safer for all involved

Third Opinion · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:50

To be honest I glad they did it this way. It would have been very distressing for a wild animal to have a camera crew around it when it was in a very vulnerable situation.

Pighardia · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:50

Not really bothered but can see why some people might feel misled i suppose.

If it was dubbed over with something like "we captured this scene of **** running in the wild" i would be annoyed, but it wasn't.

Cosimo · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:51

Not bothered at all and his explanation makes sense:

He told ITV1's This Morning: "If you had tried to put a camera in the wild in a polar bear den, she would either have killed the cub or she would have killed the cameraman, one or the other."

A case of making a mountain out of a molehill.

Skillmister · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:52

Good, better than disturbing the animals.

gropingmantis · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:54

Not bothered. What simulatorman said. Attenborough has explained why it was necessary and I agree with him. The only reason anyone could have for being bothered by this is because they wanted to see a BBC camera crew mauled by a bear.

Darg · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:54

I think anyone that complains about this must be a Daily Mail reading retard. Of course it's not filmed in the wild how on earth could they have done that?

Quite a lot of the up close shots in these documentaries are done in controlled conditions because it leads to more dramatic and explanatory results. Sometimes they talk about this in the ending segment other times there are more interesting things to talk about.

The show is fantastic, why do people feel the need to complain about such a non-issue as this? Are their lives really so dull?

Freefaller · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:55

Skillmister said:
Good, better than disturbing the animals.

gropingmantis said:
Not bothered. What simulatorman said. Attenborough has explained why it was necessary and I agree with him. The only reason anyone could have for being bothered by this is because they wanted to see a BBC camera crew mauled by a bear.

Agreed.

Why cause a fuss over such a non issue? :/

Bennie-Mac · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:56

Not at all bothered. Ive watched a programme about the cameramen who filmed the "Life" documentary, and the amount of effort they went through to get the perfect shot every time was unreal. 3 weeks hanging from trees with massively complex camera rigging systems just to capture a 15 second clip of a swarm of butterflies mid flight for example.

Im sure if they had been able to get the footage of the polar bear with her cub in the wild they would have. They decided it was impossible, therefore in my eyes, it was.

marc1024 · 12 Dec 2011 at 14:59

At least it wasn't 3d animated.

Columbo · 12 Dec 2011 at 15:01

Don't care, if that's what they needed to do then so be it.

Its quite obvious from the rest of the series that not one single nature program can get anywhere near close to the quality of something like Frozen Planet so I'm happy to trust that they used zoo footage because there was no alternative.

[DOD]Asprilla · 12 Dec 2011 at 15:04

anticonscience said:
Overall it doesn't spoil the enjoyment from watching such a magnificent series.[/URL]

Important bit.

wordy · 12 Dec 2011 at 15:08

They did the same for Blue Planet, it didn't bother me then and it doesn't bother me now.

Skeeter · 12 Dec 2011 at 15:10

This the bit where it showed the baby cubs where they were quite obviously covered in something like fake snow or sawdust?

Figured that was filmed in captivity right away, and immediately didn't care and carried on enjoying the program.

Edit: This bit?

gjrc · 12 Dec 2011 at 15:12

fantastic series again.

what a load of fuss about a non issue.

if the only sequence they had captured for the entire series was the one on one struggle between the wolf and the bison then the cost / effort would have been worth it.

perhaps the most compelling / moving piece of wildlife footage i have ever seen.

Tummy · 12 Dec 2011 at 15:14

Non issue.

Skeeter · 12 Dec 2011 at 15:15

Unfortunately, I think the industry is heavily regulated against 'missleading' viewers, so while it may seem like a complete non issue to us lot, it might get some of the Frozen Planet team into hot water.