On Altering Nature Itself...

I think it’s a very difficult question to decide whether altering nature for a more film-friendly setting is ok or not. One must keep in mind that the film-based media, especially the ones that are released to theaters or specifically to thrill (i.e. things on the Discovery Channel for instance), are intended to present as a visual medium some great excitement or drama. As Attenborough states, if one just showed a film of a lion just sleeping all day rather than it chasing say a gazelle during a hunt, its far less entertaining for the audience. Filmmakers know this, and that is one main reason why they feel the need to provoke nature, and to entice a normal, everyday reaction, just a little bit faster. Where one should draw the line is possibly where the actions that are provoked are ones that are completely out of the ordinary, or ones that give a totally false perception to an animal. The best example I think of is the shark, specifically the great white. Thanks to movies like Jaws, it has a horrible reputation as an animal that is bloodthirsty and just after humans to kill. Moreover, even the “documentaries” on Jaws, even from credible, “unbiased” sources such as National Geographic, they are still somewhat presented as a hunting animal that lives for the kill. For someone who is actually educated on sharks, they know this not to be true, and thus, this would be a good example of how a filmmaker’s choice of “directing direction” can alter an audience’s opinion forever.