In a world of high tech smoke and mirrors, The usual cry to those that hanker after more every day predictable world is, "get a life", or in this case, I summerise, 'why is anyone bothered, its great TV'.
David presents what some of us thought was a quasi-scientific programme, where we saw what was captured by the cameras in the natural environment. Now he asks us to view the progammes as just entertaining "movies". What does that mean, like Shrek or Harry Potter?
He tells us now that his seamless narration, over the amazing pictures of a polar bear giving birth to a cub, was a collage of different animals in indifferent places. He suggests that is the same as not identifying different groups of animals when narrating over group species behaviour. I think not.
May I suggest an alternative wording to "Oh, by the way, this was shot in a zoo"; "not wishing to intrude or risk disurbing this intensely sensitive process we have captured it in captivity". If as he says the harshness of the mid-winter environment was what he wanted to convey then honesty for the very reason no shots could be obtained of the birth would have more persuasive.
If these are to be seen as "movies", I would have thought that he would have gathered enough material over the years for the studio wizards to produce some amazing 'movies' narrated by Sir David, for those who just like a good show.

It doesn't detract one bit from the presentation. No objection on my part.

As Mr Attenborough presents this series, I am 100% convinced it is an accurate and factual film.

i dont know what is wrong with people when else would you see this amazing footage so it was in a zoo big deal get a life then complaining about these wonderful programs would not be so high on your list

Those who criticised Sir David want their heads feerling. A more honest presenter you could'nt wish to find. Anyhow it did not detract from the program. Get a life.