Question about a Movie (filmed, documentary, best, coming)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the movie, "Earth" did the film makers let the polar bear die? I thought throw him some meant morons. I was wondering if they let the bear die because they wanted to be PC. If they did then I would say it was their fault for filming him and nothing else.
Their filming didn't cause the polar bear to die. The bear would have died if the camera crew wasn't there.
Considering it was a documentary, the point is to show nature at its best and worst. A good documentary shows truth in nature. They could have given it some meat, but its not really their place to do so.
Well then it's not their place to bug the bear by filming it. On the credits it shows the bear coming up to their shelter sniffing around so yes the bear knew they were there.
The bear was suppose to get to the ice shelf before it melted but he didn't make it so he couldn't catch any food. Then he walks many more miles to some sea lions and was so weak it couldn't catch any of them. Then he just died and they filmed it.
I say if they let him die they were responsible and wanted to be PC. They wanted to show polar bears dying but they could have saved him by leaving him alone or giving him some meat.
Don't feed the bears. But seriously how is this any different than the journalists who film kids with protruding stomachs in africa. You know they could hand them a bowl of rice if they really wanted to.
The job of documentary filmmakers and photographers is to document reality. They're there to show what's happening, not change it. Making their images public is what changes things. It's a slippery slope, because they can't save everyone and everything who needs help.
Don't feed the bears. But seriously how is this any different than the journalists who film kids with protruding stomachs in africa. You know they could hand them a bowl of rice if they really wanted to.
If hundreds of kids are around and you have only one bowl you do not give it to one kid. The others will mob you and it's dangerous.
They had one bear---a polar bear. Why not feed it? The only reason I can see not to do it is to show polar bears not being able to eat because of global warmnig, so let it die. Too much PC if you ask me and it leaves a bad image of the film.
The job of documentary filmmakers and photographers is to document reality. They're there to show what's happening, not change it. Making their images public is what changes things. It's a slippery slope, because they can't save everyone and everything who needs help.
That is not what is happening naturally if the film makers made it happen.
I have never seen any nature documentary where the filmmaker intervenes, NEVER. That is not the point of the documentary, to change the natural course of the natural world. I know you want to believe that this was done so people believe in global warming, but I'm here to tell you that you're wrong. Ask any filmmaker, any documentarian & they will tell you that they make every effort to blend in w/the surroundings & not intervene in any way that would alter the reality of what they are filming.
You can't observe something without changing it, however, you can keep that change to a minimum. Maybe that bear wouldn't have died if it wasn't futzing around the filmmaker's camp and maybe it would have.
It DEFINITELY is not the job of the documentarians to try to save it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.