I think Chester have done a good job with the pages about the Zoo's history on their website, and they could do more on site at the Zoo as well (perhaps they have started already, I haven't visited since the series began). They ought to do well with the new book about June Mottershead too. No-one has yet mentioned the very worst omission - George Mottershead's moustache Alan
Actually, I don't remember saying that you need to chill....applying my statement to yourself only goes to show you yourself are aware of your mahoosive over-reaction to a couple of petty historical inaccuracies.
Aside from the human actors, and if I was being picky, which I am not, I could go on and on about the animal`s behaviour, in terms of their somewhat unnatural reactions to certain situations in the programme, but I won`t. I think we need to just accept the programme for what it is, rather than examine it for faults. June was apparently very pleased with the results and how it was all depicted, so in that respect is was true to her memories from her childhood.
I'm not sure any purpose is served by "he said/ she said ... I chilled/ you chilled" so I shall desist! The BBC has made a six part series set in a zoo (hurrah!). It is widely described as being based on the founding of Chester Zoo. I have shared, as a matter of record, a number of areas where it differs (or may differ) from actual history. For those who care about such things it may assist them in checking out the actualite. For those happy to enjoy 'Our Zoo' without worrying about its accuracy then they will doubtless ignore my comments. And that's fine.
I very much agree! I still find it amusing/befuddling that people are getting so wound up about a TV drama though. Especially when the reasons for making changes are blindingly obvious. I dread to think how irate people would get if Dame Maggie Smith was seen using IKEA fish knives on Downton Abbey!
But I genuinely don't see the reason, for example, for ignoring the fact that GSM had run a zoo prior to moving to Chester.
it's a drama as you say and by definition it'll be at the mercy of the director/writer for interpretation as they see fit. They must have felt that it didn't fit the story they want to tell? I'm really enjoying it as an enjoyable entertainment - I didn't expect it to be 100% factual and have been pleasantly surprised by just how factual it actually is. It's fun spotting the locations in use too. Hopefully there will be a second and maybe even subsequent following series that will be interesting as we start to get towards more modern times.
Because it wouldn't have made as good a narrative. Script writers and editors really do know what they're doing on that score
Just like when Rogers and Hammerstein "elaborated a bit" with the story of a nun going to look after a sea captain's seven children in Austria, again a true story but jazzed up a bit to make it more interesting and enjoyable to the public
Lots of interesting comments, so at least that means people are interested and have something to say. If I could chuck my views into the ring; 1. I am enjoying the drama based on a real situation 2. Chester Zoo does not come out badly for recognising its past; I wrote a zoo history masters dissertation two years ago, so this is not a mindless assertion 3. June is said to be happy with the end result, so that is good and I doubt that she would see her sister so badly misrepresented (although I do wonder about that) 4. People watching it will remember bits of it and think that is really what happened, so it does matter about what is accurate and what is not. The overall significance might not match the history od WWII but representing the past accurately is just as important. Keep watching, keep enjoying and put people right when they think fiction was fact.
I've got to be honest i'm really enjoying this series, it's the only programme i turn my computer off for. I couldn't care less how much they bugger about with the real story, it's a bloody good series. If you really want the real story told, i suggest you go about making a documentary, (I'll watch it.) but for a bit of escapism every week, this is ticking all the boxes. Well done BBC.
I decided to publish a local zoo history book rather than try to get the dissertation published. At some point, when I have time, I am intending to put some of the chapters on my website. A lot has happened in zoo history during the last two years but I think some of the dissertation would still be of interest. There is a zoo history section, lengthy literature review and then a survey of what all BIAZA zoos had on their websites about zoo history and zoo history education. What would be interesting would be to see what has changed on the websites in the last two years and in the zoos themselves, for example, there are photos of heritage signage in the gallery on here that were not around when I started my research.
The programme was meant to be a drama, and by definition, it is exactly that - a dramatisation loosely based on George Mottershead`s life. However had it meant to be a factual historical documentary then that is something entirely different - and yes it would need to have been factually correct and true to history.
Unfortunately - in the view of some at least - Chester's own website is running hard on 'Our Zoo' without making the point made by Nanook, that it is a drama not a documentary. I don't blame them for taking full advantage commercially - it could prove to be a very successful Sept/Oct - but the words "based on" could have been deployed to effect.
