Just when you thought the BBC couldn't stoop any lower

LETHAL LADY

I've searched for the Jimmy Saville thread, but couldn't find it. Today, I watched the "Abused: The Untold Story" and saw this badly thought out CGI of the victims. What do you think?
I think it's a fecking disgrace and also shows a total lack of sensitivity towards the victims tbh. Just goes to show you how out of touch the toffs at the BBC really are. Apologies for the Daily Mail link.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3536318/BBC-accused-creeping-nation-using-CGI-disguise-Jimmy-Savile-sex-abuse-victims-chilling-documentary.html

biko

So essentially you're not happy with the CGI?
Would you have preferred another solution? Blurred?

Tbh, I don't think it's creepy. It's quite lifelike and better than blurred.

I saw daily mail in the url and didn't click it, what did i not miss

LETHAL LADY

biko wrote: »

So essentially you're not happy with the CGI?
Would you have preferred another solution? Blurred?

Tbh, I don't think it's creepy. It's quite lifelike and better than blurred.

Did you watch the documentary Biko?

Gatling

Quite clever actually

biko

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Did you watch the documentary Biko?

Just the clips in the linked article.

Perhaps it's because it's new? You're not used to it yet?

Stacker Pentecost

I don't get how it's a disgrace. It does look crap though.

biko

Apparently lowest stoop yet.

Stacker Pentecost

^I suppose it is if you're just looking to be outraged.

One eyed Jack

I think it's the first time a Daily Mail headline didn't even have to be misleading:

BBC is accused of 'creeping out the nation' after using CGI to disguise Jimmy Savile sex abuse victims in chilling documentary

It certainly does raise the question, what manner of idiots in the BBC actually approved of this going out on air?

It completely distracted from the victims stories being told. The whole idea of a human interest piece is that it by definition uses actual human beings, not... whatever the hell that idea was supposed to be!

LETHAL LADY

biko wrote: »

Just the clips in the linked article.

Perhaps it's because it's new? You're not used to it yet?

Alrighty then! An organisation that covered up and dismissed the abuse of his victims until pushed made a gesture documentary to cover their arses. I find it deplorable anyway:mad:

LETHAL LADY

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I think it's the first time a Daily Mail headline didn't even have to be misleading:

BBC is accused of 'creeping out the nation' after using CGI to disguise Jimmy Savile sex abuse victims in chilling documentary

It certainly does raise the question, what manner of idiots in the BBC actually approved of this going out on air?

It completely distracted from the victims stories being told. The whole idea of a human interest piece is that it by definition uses actual human beings, not... whatever the hell that idea was supposed to be!

Arsemageddon

Fvcked up though that CGI is, it's still better than having a Tweenies version of Jimmy Saville...

timthumbni

Jaysus. At least you lot don't pay for the BBC in the form of that ridiculous license fee. I wouldn't care if I never saw another BBC programme again.

But don't youse pay to watch the even worse rte brigade. Why in 2016 are we forced to watch tv.?

Arsemageddon

timthumbni wrote: »

I wouldn't care if I never saw another BBC programme again.

I thought ye all watched Nolan Live up there.

Tim my my boy, I think you're going to have to surrender your nordie card to the relevant authorities.

DEFTLEFTHAND

BBC are left wing to the core. I'm not sure why you're apologising for using a Daily Mail link. The Left don't usually report on their own faults do they?

timthumbni

Arsemageddon wrote: »

I thought ye all watched Nolan Live up there.

Tim my my boy, I think you're going to have to surrender your nordie card to the relevant authorities.

The Nolan show is the jerry springer show of Northern Ireland. Though Nolan s even worse for playing devils advocate. Very low rent show. In saying that he hasn't done a show titled "I married my horse"......

Though it's only a matter of time.

Arsemageddon

timthumbni wrote: »

The Nolan show is the jerry springer show of Northern Ireland. Though Nolan s even worse for playing devils advocate. Very low rent show. In saying that he hasn't done a show titled "I married my horse"......

Though it's only a matter of time.

True enough, but the horse show Nolan Live will only get made if it's 'I'm a republican marrying a loyalist horse' or 'I'm a loyalist marrying a republican horse'

It'll be like Romeo & Juliet, but with a lot more beastiality.

recylingbin

I never associated the been with stooping.

kneemos

The Daily Mail using it to get punters on its site seems like a much lower stoop.

ceadaoin.

I read about the documentary but didn't know they did that. It is a bit weird.

The BBC were very culpable in covering up his abuse, and that of others. Did they mention that?

Chain Smoker

Stacker Pentecost wrote: »

I don't get how it's a disgrace. It does look crap though.

Yep, and I think there's a fair argument for something like this (if it didn't look like ****), in that it might help, in a small way, to reduce the shame other victims may feel (if every account you hear of similar experiences comes from some shadowy figure, how else are you going to feel?).

It does look like **** though, my issues with it are a lot more to do with that and how distracting it is to be confronted with a new approach regarding such a delicate matter. Was worth experimenting with, but not worth actually broadcasting.

Cienciano

Deleted User wrote: »

I saw daily mail in the url and didn't click it, what did i not miss

Fake outrage

LETHAL LADY

ceadaoin. wrote: »

I read about the documentary but didn't know they did that. It is a bit weird.

The BBC were very culpable in covering up his abuse, and that of others. Did they mention that?

They did, but in the way where they tried to absolve themselves of their cover up imo. You have to watch it.

RWCNT

DEFTLEFTHAND wrote: »

BBC are left wing to the core. I'm not sure why you're apologising for using a Daily Mail link. The Left don't usually report on their own faults do they?

People do often comment on threads with links to the DM with remarks to the tune of "Daily mail, no thanks" which is a bit silly since the same stories are printed in every other major paper. Obviously the politics of the publication will effect the way the story is presented but anyone should be able to filter that out and get the key information. I suppose there's a case to be made for not wanting to give their site traffic if you consider it to be a force for evil. I love rage reading though. Therapeutic.

fryup

LETHAL LADY wrote: »

Today, I watched the "Abused: The Untold Story" and saw this badly thought out CGI of the victims. What do you think?
I think it's a fecking disgrace and also shows a total lack of sensitivity towards the victims tbh.

well in fairness i'm sure they were consulted beforehand about it, but i agree it was a mistake it looked terrible and distracting, if the subject matter wasn't so serious it would be laughable

why couldn't they just use silhouettes??

btw - the first guy looked like singer sam smith

CFlat

I was flicking through the channels the night it was on and when I came across it I thought it was about burn victims because the faces were so badly distorted! I found it very distracting but I wouldn't have thought it was offensive in any way.

IMO BBC is quite a bit ahead of RTE when it comes to programming so I don't get the dissing of it by some people.

failinis

I think it gives an "uncanny valley" effect - human but not quite 100% normal so makes some people get creeped out.
A disgrace? No. A distraction from their stories? Yes.
No harm in trying out new methods instead a black shadow and voice actors but this may not have worked.

Sir Osis of Liver.

When I came across it I thought it was one of those sh1te "When Cosmetic Surgery Goes Wrong" shows.

It was freaky looking and too distracting.

Guy:Incognito

timthumbni wrote: »

Jaysus. At least you lot don't pay for the BBC in the form of that ridiculous license fee. I wouldn't care if I never saw another BBC programme again.

But don't youse pay to watch the even worse rte brigade. Why in 2016 are we forced to watch tv.?

Who's forcing you to watch tv?

Esel

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Who's forcing you to watch tv?

Orders from the Order.

Edward Hopper

I thought they'd done away with more of their sport coverage or bbc 4, now that would have been serious stooping, this, not so much.

Thelomen Toblackai

Why is exactly do you think it's low or disrespectful to use CGI to change their appearance rather than blurring or doing a silhouette thing ?

Doesn't it all amount to the same thing ? I.e. them not being recognisable ?

super_furry

The Daily Mail attacking the BBC? There's a surprise.

timthumbni

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Who's forcing you to watch tv?

I worded it badly perhaps. What I meant to get across is why should I be forced to pay for a license to watch tv when most if not all the things I watch would not be connected to the BBC or their archaic enforced fee. I want to watch tv, just not the crap the BBC spew out.