Talk:Mermaids: The Body Found

Vandalism

This page is being vandalized regularly. I would suspect do to last night's broadcast. I have cleaned up the vandalism for now. Kareesmoon (talk) 14:41, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Notable Now

"No evidence of mermaids, says US government" <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-18692830>

"No evidence of aquatic humanoids has ever been found." <http://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/mermaids.html> — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.32.98.254 (talk) 16:43, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Mockumentary

"Mockumentary" is apparently a reasonable reference category for this film. Several points in the film are clearly poking fun at documentaries on similar subjects. The narrator stated that his main purpose was to stop the subsonic blasts that are believed to be the cause of whales beaching themselves. I wish there was some chance of truth, sadly there is none. Easttexaspoorboy (talk) 04:02, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

I thought so, too. Earlier versions of this article referred to this as a mockumentary or mock documentary and the citation's description of this special fit the description of a mockumentary over a docufiction. I'm changing it back to reflect the source citation, but either way works for me. Prior to my edit someone had it saying documentary which is just false. I'd rather not have anyone take this special as truthful in any way. PedanticSophist (talk) 20:22, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I would not call this a "mockumentary." The film is much closer to a "War of the Worlds" broadcast in documentary form. A mockumentary's goal is to make an audience laugh on purpose, the only thing i laughed at in this travesty was how desperately the actors and director tried to pass this crap off as actual scientific fact. And even if this was an intended mockumentary on Animal Planet's part that is not their job. Animal Planet is supposed to be a place we go to get away from the fiction broadcast on nearly every other channel. The fact that they tried so desperately to hide that this junk was fiction dilutes any small semblance of credibility this channel has left. I watch Animal Planet because it's supposed to be real. I don't want to watch Jeremy Wade catch a CGI Cuthulu in front of a green screen. I want to watch him catch something real and tangible thats out there in the real and tangible world in which we live. That is what makes Animal Planet fun to watch, interesting real-world creatures, not fiction. If I needed fiction I'd watch Fox News. Also Whale Wars sucks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.68.117.104 (talk) 05:45, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

The show meets the criteria for a "Dramatic Mockumentary" as defined on the wiki page, and should be listed as such. The purpose of the show was to argue that mermaids COULD exist, much as Discovery's documentary on Dragons did. The primary difference between the shows is that "Mermaids" presents valid scientific hypothesis as if it were real evidence, thus is a mockumentary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.67.223.48 (talk) 05:29, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

This isn't the time or place to debate whether the show was good or not. Save that for a message board about films. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.88.86 (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I'm not the only person who recognizes what bilge this is. Its obvious purpose is to pressure the Navy into ending its high-power sonar experiments -- which I agree with -- but doing it by presuming on the stupidity of the American people (which isn't much of a presumption) is outrageous. How Animal Planet and Discovery can show such obviously fraudulent material is beyond comprehension. If they were broadcast channels, I'd be signing a petition to revoke their licenses.

When I saw the first episode a year ago, I was initially open-minded. But there were several were tip-offs. The "scientists" are obviously actors selected (in part) for their good looks. The actors are obviously delivering rehearsed dialog, and the overall "tone" (especially of the second installment) is that of an infomercial intended to deceive the viewer. But the smoking gun was the cell-phone camera footage. Not only does it look professionally edited (in a manner intended to manipulate the viewer), but... cell-phone cameras don't have zoom lenses. QED. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 13:57, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Interesting question

This docuficiton is good but it raises a good question. If humans did manage to evolve underwater, what would happen? I think the creators of this film were also trying convey that, too. Also it has me wondering that question too. I would also like to state that if this is fiction, why has the US department of homeland security and the FBI closed down Dr. Paul Robertson's website? If it is mere fiction, why try to shut him and the other scientists up? I think we should take into consideration that the united states government has done these things before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yugioht43 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 29 May 2012 (UTC)

There is no Dr Paul Robertson. By setting up a fake Website, then shutting it down, you create the illusion there really is a Dr Paul Robertson. WilliamSommerwerck (talk) 14:01, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Not the place to state whether you liked the idea or not. This talk is only to talk about how the article can be improved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.88.86 (talk) 10:49, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

File:Animal-planet-mermaids.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Animal-planet-mermaids.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status as of 31 May 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Animal-planet-mermaids.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 20:14, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Keep it simple

Please do not re-add the expansion of the 'science' behind the show. This is an article about the film, not a treatise on cryptozoology. Cast and crew, if notable, critical reaction, number of viewers. If you want to compare - the article for Star Wars: A New Hope doesn't go into the physics of hyperspace travel or lightsabers. Syrthiss (talk) 11:58, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the fact that the Aquatic Ape Hypothesis is used as a basis for the show is notable and needed to be in the article, but anything other than a quick mention is not needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.88.86 (talk) 10:50, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

someone has sabotaged the text, I think

witll the original authors review the article? It seems to be corrupted — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.59.64 (talk) 02:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Maybe not sabotage, but definitely opinion. No citations. I deleted it. It ruined the article.--Bryan Batcher (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I would also like to state that if this is fiction, why has the us department of homeland security and the FBI closed down Dr. Paul Robertson's website.If it is mere fiction, why try to shut him and the other scientists up. I think we should take into consideration that the united states government has done these things before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.59.170.125 (talk) 05:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Those sites are owned by Discovery Channel and were created with the purpose of advertising the show. Even the credits of the film say it's a work of fiction. You can see on its' official page on Animal Planet has also said that both the show and the other sites are fakes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.9.88.86 (talk) 10:52, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is saying the documentary is fake, okay. That's fine. But, seriously, with the evidence they've given, who's to say there really isn't mermaids? There is plenty of evidence to safely say we could've had aquatic ancestors, possibly surviving to this day. All of you have a right to say it's a load of crud, but other people believe there can be mermaids. It could happen. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.150.197 (talk) 14:39, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Your argument is flawed as no evidence is presented, this is fictional, says right in the credits. They made up the historical incidents of spears in fish, the sonar injuries of beached marine animals, the eye witness testimony, and photographic evidence. Additionally they make false statements about human biology, we do not have more fat than any other non-marine mammal, see Polar Bears. Nothing anyone says on this program can be assumed to be true. Do they use some actual facts and theories, yes, just like the Colbert Report talks about actual news events, but just because they say some true things doesn't mean you can take any individual thing said as truth without verifying it elsewhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.194.139 (talk) 01:41, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Criticism section

Shouldn't there be a criticism section? This program styled itself as a documentary but doesn't mention that it is fictional until the end credits, and very briefly. For those of you criticizing those saying this is fiction, despite the 'evidence', watch the credits yourself, it says it's all fake. Every person shown on the program is an actor, no scientists, no eye witnesses, all actors. Additionally the actors playing scientists make false historical and scientific statements but again this is never indicated except by a small note in the end credits that the program is fictional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.90.194.139 (talk) 01:35, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. There was a lot of controversy surrounding this release. It was detested for hiding it's fictional background, and I recall hearing that Discovery faced legal action for fraud after saying that the US Gov't had taken down specific websites to hide information, when really they had simply created fake websites. 160.5.185.13 (talk) 16:15, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Hoax, fiction.

seriously, there are sources online that this is fraudulent like Bigfoot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonron (talk • contribs) 18:35, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Animal Planet Main Article

Added this controversy to Animal Planet's Wikipedia page. I used essentially the text found here - just condensed a bit, and used links from this article's reference sources. If this page has been a target of frequent vandalism, it might be worth keeping an eye on the main article as well. jg (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 January 2015

Where's the proof of the documentary being fake? If none, please delete the Criticism section. Dragopentling (talk) 18:26, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: click on cited sources. Cannolis (talk) 18:34, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2015

This article is based on opinion and not fact. The documentary had some computer generated images and therefore the entire program cannot be called fact, however this does not mean that the rest of the documentary is fiction. An individuals opinion should not be projected here. If you are going to claim that this is all false, you MUST provide proof!! This is not a website for personal opinion! 208.168.248.19 (talk) 14:35, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. What claims made in the article are unsourced? Also, feel free to check out the Aquatic ape hypothesis article, you would probably benefit from reading it Cannolis (talk) 19:03, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2015

JacindaSoto (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC) Not a "docufiction" a DOCUMENTARY

Not done: When the first words in the first citation of the article say "This two-hour special is science fiction", I'm going to go with no. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:10, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2015

This type of programming receives particular criticism when, as in the original broadcast of Mermaids: A Body Found, there are no disclaimers or information identifying the programming as anything other than the factual documentary it purported to be.

EDIT - Remove this line. The source it points to clearly states that there was a disclaimer. Every airing has had a disclaimer, though it was one that was easily missed.

Kabooses (talk) 20:56, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Partly done: I tweaked the wording to indicate that there were a few disclaimers. But the fact stands that these disclaimers were intended to be missed, so that will be mentioned as well. Altamel (talk) 17:33, 30 August 2015 (UTC)

Comparisons to other docufictions removed

I've removed the following bits from the article:

• "...and several other similar programs dealing with other unsubstantiated claims, such as the Channel 4's The Last Dragon and the fictional elements of The Discovery Channel's Shark Week dealing with a purportedly discovered "monster" shark in Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives are all recent..." (1)

and

• "See also

The Last Dragon, a similar program airing on Animal Planet that attempted to describe dragons in a scientific manner.

Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives was also a similar program that aired on Discovery Channel in which actors, playing doctors and other experts, theorized that the megalodon, a prehistoric shark that lived millions of years ago, was actually still in existence and responsible for attacks on boaters and swimmers off the coast of South Africa. Like "Mermaids", the show wove a great deal of fiction around the accepted facts that the megalodon did, indeed, exist at one time. The show told of fictitious encounters with the animal, including fictional footage of an attack on a private boat. (2)

You may ask, 'but why remove them, Jack, you handsome, clever devil? They are obviously the same sorts of resumé-padding twaddle that people at Animal Planet and A&E have all lost the plot about'. And you'd be right. But - and here's the thing - we cannot use our own assessment about these comparisons. When we have a source that compares these, then we cite them. Without a source, we cannot connect them. Thoughts? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 19:15, 14 February 2018 (UTC)

"Go (Mermaids: The Body Found)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Go (Mermaids: The Body Found). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Go (Mermaids: The Body Found) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 21:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Mermaids the Body Found (TV FILM)" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Mermaids the Body Found (TV FILM). The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 December 30#Mermaids the Body Found (TV FILM) until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Dominicmgm (talk) 21:56, 30 December 2020 (UTC)