BBC 'fakes wildlife shots all the time'

[claig]

When I read this, af first I couldn't Adam and Eve it.

If they do that, what else are they doing?

And of course, what about 'climate catastrophe'?

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2450381/BBC-fakes-wildlife-shots-time-Veteran-cameraman-claims-species-smaller-rabbits-filmed-custom-built-sets.html

Do they win awards for some of this stuff?

As the nan used to say in that classic comic sketch

"What a f*ing liberty!"

I've always assumed that they did. Many of the shots they get seem impossible to have got in the wild.

If you film an animal doing what an animal does in a controlled environment that gives you better access with less distress to the animal I don't really see that as faking, just making fantastic educational tv.

If however they filmed rabbits dressed in tutus dancing gangnam style and claimed that is what happens in the wild - then I'd have an issue!

I don't know why this os suddenly a story, thought everyone knew? Had a student job aeons ago in a wildlife centre and beeb were often there filming the "wild" wildlife, just the tricky bits- births, hibernation etc.

'The sequence showed the new-born polar bears mewling and nuzzling their mother in a cave. Eight million viewers were led to believe the footage was captured by BBC cameramen in harsh sub-zero temperatures.

However, it emerged it was actually shot in a Dutch zoo, using fake snow.'

I think it would be better if they said that the next clip was filmed in a zoo with the kind permission of the Dutch zoo rather than giving the impression that it was filmed in the wild.

'The footage was defended at the time by the veteran naturalist, who compared nature documentaries to ‘making movies’.

What next? CGI (computer generated imagery)?

Slow day at the Daily Mail then is it or are you just reading old news. This 'story' is about 2 years old at least and I for one didn't see it as much of a tory at the time. Seems obvious to me that all wildlife documentaries use a mixture of shots from the wild and from zoos/wildlife parks etc. Causes less stress and intrusion to the wild animals that way.

It is in today's Daily mail, but Daily Mail readers have said like you that apparently it is old news. Daily Mail readers seem to think it is OK.

I find nothing wrong with it as long as they make clear to people how they have filmed it during the actual film. I think they should be more open about it because there are lots of children and others who may realise what has been done.

may not realise what has been done

It happens all the time in nature documentaries. not just the bbc and hardly earth shaking news. The DM going all up its own arse again.

I thought this only became a "story" when Attenborough made a documentary showing how they actually got the footage for his films anyway? It was really interesting to see them set it all up, and wait for whatever it was to happen, sometimes for days.

So clever I thought!

I think if the had to announce that a shot was done in a zoo it would ruin the narrative flow and break the spell of 'being there'. I watch these docs for entertainment as well as to be informed, so story and flow are also important (and part of that the BBC do so brilliantly).

CGI you say :-O

And I thought 'Walking with Dinosaurs' was real

Could they not put a message at the start of the programme that what you are about to see is not necessarily the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, but that portions of it have been filmed with fake snow?

Don't they usually have a bit of extra stuff at the end telling people how they did the filming? I'm sure I've seen that on BBC wildlife programmes I've seen.

I know about this in the late eighties when I met a wildlife documentary maker in the tropics. His studio had a miniature cave (a very tiny thing) and also kept wild animals in a large enclosures for more wild life shots. Any other way and it would have been impossible to document some of the things at the time.

The animals he kept became the start of the Belize Zoo. He unceremoniously wanted to rid of the animals (by euthanasia if necessary) when he was done with filming. The woman he hired as animal manager didn't want to do that and she took them over and started charging people to see them in order for them to be fed.

That I think is a more interesting story. What is the provenance and future of some of the animals that end up in documentaries.

'Don't they usually have a bit of extra stuff at the end telling people how they did the filming?'

But by that time, people are putting the kettle on.
I think it would just be a little more ethical to say it upfront as people are settling down to watch it.

The people ho are interested in how it's made wouldn't go before that bit, only the people who aren't fussed. I'm far more likely to miss the very start of a programme than the end, am I odd?

*who

Genuine question, because it is very possible that I am missing the point, but if the behaviour of the animal is the same and the look of the habitat is the same and they are using it to show you what actually does happen in the wild, does it matter if it is in a zoo or one of those micro habitats they create? If what you are seeing is what would happen in the wild, does it matter that in the actual programme, it is not happening in the wild?

The often do it at the end, with all the camera set ups, etc. It's a really interesting part of the BBC documentaries, and a proper part of the actual programme. Not BBC's fault if people can't be bothered to watch the whole programme though is it?

I just belive in "keeping it real".
I think they should have a caption up saying this bit was filmed at the zoo.

It's a bit like having a travel programme where they film the Taj Mahal, but it later turns out that it was actually a mock-up of the Taj Mahal built on a set at Elstree Studios.

I'm watching Waybuloo at the moment with my DD. Do you mean to tell me those pipkin things that float around in the sky aren't real ?

Well, they never said anywhere!

You'll be telling me there's no such thing as a spaghetti tree next!

See, I wouldn't care about that either.

I'd care if I paid for a holiday to india and they flew me to a mock up at Elstree studios, but if I'm in my living room either way, it wouldn't bother me.

I wonder if they do put it in the credits - thanks to X zoo, etc etc

I'm sure they do put it in the credits, but most people don't read them, just like they don't read the small print on contracts.

Imagine if you paid good money to go to a cinema programme of Jacques Cousteau's work or someone similar, only to find out that it had actually been filmed in a swimming pool rather than in the Pacific Ocean. You might feel a bit cheated and want your money back. As long as they tell you upfront then it is fine because you know what you are getting.