Netflix - F1

[coppice]

The noise is absurd , and misleading . Do they add noises off to other sports ? The thwack of willow on leather (or whatever cricketers get up to ? ) , the whir of TdF cyclists wheels and the ..err..panting of marathon runners? .

[Eric Mc]

TheDeuce said:

Clearly they do feel that what they're adding in is worthwhile and justifiable overall. Like all shows, they have to please and draw in an audience to survive - and in this instance I suspect they also have a mission to convert casual viewers of the show into live F1 viewers..

Don't lots of documentaries add in entire recreations to demonstrate the drama of what is being examined? I've watched a couple about the birth of the universe - I can't imagine where they got original footage from..

Did you watch and find interest in the series?

Falsifying in a documentary is a no - no as far as I'm concerned. It's tolerable in dramas but definitely not in a supposedly factual programme.

And your comparison to a documentary on the birth of the universe is crass in the extreme. By it's nature, such a programme is speculative. A documentary shot in a real place, in the real world, with real artifacts and real people at the same time as the events are unfurling before the cameras has no need to falsify what they are telling. It is frankly disgraceful.

[TheDeuce]

coppice said:

The noise is absurd , and misleading . Do they add noises off to other sports ? The thwack of willow on leather (or whatever cricketers get up to ? ) , the whir of TdF cyclists wheels and the ..err..panting of marathon runners? .

In various 'documentaries' I bet they have for dramatic effect. This is not normal sports coverage, it's TV series production.

Best not to question too much of what make a TV show enjoyable though. Start picking holes and before long you'll find there is nothing left to watch that doesn't take at least a few liberties in terms of honesty, accuracy or self contradiction.

Either you watch and enjoy or you dont..

[Bo_apex]

TheDeuce said:

coppice said:

The noise is absurd , and misleading . Do they add noises off to other sports ? The thwack of willow on leather (or whatever cricketers get up to ? ) , the whir of TdF cyclists wheels and the ..err..panting of marathon runners? .

In various 'documentaries' I bet they have for dramatic effect. This is not normal sports coverage, it's TV series production.

Best not to question too much of what make a TV show enjoyable though. Start picking holes and before long you'll find there is nothing left to watch that doesn't take at least a few liberties in terms of honesty, accuracy or self contradiction.

Either you watch and enjoy or you dont..

The regulator OFCOM has strict rules on documentaries.

But Netflix falls outside the regulator. It's an issue that's being looked into.

[TheDeuce]

Eric Mc said:

TheDeuce said:

Clearly they do feel that what they're adding in is worthwhile and justifiable overall. Like all shows, they have to please and draw in an audience to survive - and in this instance I suspect they also have a mission to convert casual viewers of the show into live F1 viewers..

Don't lots of documentaries add in entire recreations to demonstrate the drama of what is being examined? I've watched a couple about the birth of the universe - I can't imagine where they got original footage from..

Did you watch and find interest in the series?

Falsifying in a documentary is a no - no as far as I'm concerned. It's tolerable in dramas but definitely not in a supposedly factual programme.

And your comparison to a documentary on the birth of the universe is crass in the extreme. By it's nature, such a programme is speculative. A documentary shot in a real place, in the real world, with real artifacts and real people at the same time as the events are unfurling before the cameras has no need to falsify what they are telling. It is frankly disgraceful.

Frankly disgraceful!? Oh come on Eric... It's a TV show that's bumped up the production values a little to give a more polished and cinematic end result. The core of the program is entirely factual, it's not as if they're employing actors. They've just added a fairly typical layer of TV sparkle.

[Eric Mc]

Nope - disgraceful.

End of.

It's called "lieing" - something I abhor. If it's OK with you - fine.

[TheDeuce]

Eric Mc said:

Nope - disgraceful.

End of.

It's called "lieing" - something I abhor. If it's OK with you - fine.

Fine, I agree with you. Your view point on this matter is fair, balanced and correctly apportioned for the depth of the deceit.

Is that ok with you?

[Eric Mc]

Absolutely.

I just hate falsehoods.

[Mr_Thyroid]

Eric Mc said:

Absolutely.

I just hate falsehoods.

I'm not sure he was being entirely honest when he said he agreed with you.

There's a good episode of the 99% Invisible podcast called The Sound of Sport all about Foley artists in sport - you might find enlightening.

[Eric Mc]

Mr_Thyroid said:

Eric Mc said:

Absolutely.

I just hate falsehoods.

I'm not sure he was being entirely honest when he said he agreed with you.

There's a good episode of the 99% Invisible podcast called The Sound of Sport all about Foley artists in sport - you might find enlightening.

I know - but I didn't want to engage in any further arguments on the topic. He doesn't mind them inserting false or enhances sounds in the documentary - I do. There's no more to say.

[jammy-git]

You know what, I bet they cut and spliced the footage for added dramatic effect too!!!

[Eric Mc]

How is that dishonest? They are showing what happened. Nothing wrong with that.

Adding in stuff that wasn't there - that's not on.

[parabolica]

Having been a few races in person during the current hybrid era, the cars do sound completely different in person to how they do on the TV during race coverage. Yes they are much quieter than what came before, but there is more drama to them in person than the TV pictures/sound would have you believe. The race coverage pulls sound from track-side microphones which inevitably changes what the cars sound like in person to how they sound on the TV; having experienced both I'd say Netflix do a reasonable job of making the cars sound more like they do in real life vs race coverage.

[jammy-git]

Eric Mc said:

How is that dishonest? They are showing what happened. Nothing wrong with that.

Adding in stuff that wasn't there - that's not on.

Because by chopping and changing the timeline, when things were said, when events happened, they can easily change the narrative.

Put it this way, I'd be far more worried about them editing the sequence of what was filmed, rather than them tweaking the noise of the exhaust!

[HustleRussell]

The sound is a bit overblown but the show would be a lot worse if the audio was cobbled together from whatever noise was available incidentally. It's a compromise I can absolutely accept because as a consequence of the show I now have several family members / friends who I can talk about F1 with which I didn't before.

[Eric Mc]

jammy-git said:

Eric Mc said:

How is that dishonest? They are showing what happened. Nothing wrong with that.

Adding in stuff that wasn't there - that's not on.

Because by chopping and changing the timeline, when things were said, when events happened, they can easily change the narrative.

Put it this way, I'd be far more worried about them editing the sequence of what was filmed, rather than them tweaking the noise of the exhaust!

That's fine as we are all entitled to our views.

For me the sound of a car is part of its soul. Falsifying that is a cheat too far.

[LM240]

I’m fairly certain things like ‘Blue Planet’ and similar Attenborough documentaries don’t actually feature the ‘real’ animal sounds.

They are recreated and added later.

[Henson]

LM240 said:

I’m fairly certain things like ‘Blue Planet’ and similar Attenborough documentaries don’t actually feature the ‘real’ animal sounds.

They are recreated and added later.

Saw that episode featuring the sequences of those beautiful white swans and I remember thinking, that's frankly so graceful.

[TheDeuce]

LM240 said:

I’m fairly certain things like ‘Blue Planet’ and similar Attenborough documentaries don’t actually feature the ‘real’ animal sounds.

They are recreated and added later.

So much of wildlife TV is sound added to footage later on. It's the only way quite often. To get a clean sound recording you need to leave mics live and wait for the sounds to be made and a clean recording of them to be verified - The recording equipment could be left for days, recording any sounds heard. Then you can get the footage from several hundred feet away via tele lens - which is obviously far to great a distance to get a worthwhile sound recording from.

So it's all 'real', but due to the complexity involved the final result is assembled and of course that leaves room for a little artistry too.

Same as with the sounds added by Netflix to F1 incidents on track. Obviously it's impossible to hear or record the sound made by a collapsed front win scraping along when there is 900 angry horsepower roaring away behind it.. But that doesn't mean it's dishonest to add in an approximation of what bodywork scraping along tarmac would sound like. No one is being mislead are they? It's just comes down to how it's presented for good televisual effect.

[Deesee]

LM240 said:

I’m fairly certain things like ‘Blue Planet’ and similar Attenborough documentaries don’t actually feature the ‘real’ animal sounds.

They are recreated and added later.

Nor the dramatic music played from the land rovers when the Lion is ready to move..