Talk:Wild China

Reception section
The article could do with a reception section giving an overview critical reception, some ratings and in the future any awards or nominations. mattbr 18:04, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Criticism, bias, manipulations, etc?
To be honest, while the first two episodes I saw where... grand, beautifull, the fact it was done with PRC's ok and all thsi make me wonder...

Wss there critics by international groups like greenpeace, bias and manipulations from PRC or it's pressure, etc...? Because I am sure they tried by example discretely to 'veer' attention away from 'sore spots' and so on...

Frankly, was there any greenwashing and whitewashing?

Answer to Above
Somehow I knew this question is going to come up, but I mean, just chill out. It is simply impossible to be filming such a big project in a country without that country's government saying OK, regardless of which country. So PRC's OK isn't something that should make you wonder, it's a given or BBC will be breaking all kinds of international laws... And I mean, if you don't have faith in the PRC government's media presentation, you've gotta have faith in BBC NHU, it is THE team for top level nature documentaries. It is not fair for the filming team and for China's wild life scene otherwise.

There are still many environmental problems in China oh for sure, but not every documentary needs to focus on the stain on the table 100% of the time, especially when outsiders don't even know what the whole picture looks like yet. As a general presentation of Chinese wild life and conservation efforts, I think Wild China is very dignified. It is also true that the Chinese government is flooding a lot of money and effort into conservation nowadays, no one would argue with that. So I'd say it is an optimistic view into the relationship between Chinese people and their environment in recent years, showcasing the increasing effort for conservation but downplays a lot of the detailed difficulties in the process. It is optimistic as in it choose to focus on the general trend, it also focus on the solution more than the problem (we've been told the problem enough times already). For the final verdict, I'd say there's as much or maybe very slightly more "greenwashing" to Wild China compared to other BBC productions of the same scale.

Now lastly, remember that this is a nature documentary, not a political one: it captures images of certain animals in their natural habitat with various behaviors. All the cultural and ideological or even human factors are ultimately tasty frosting, but the stars are the animals themselves. And to that extend, I don't know how could it ever be "whitewashed" --- The facts about those animals are definitely true, and BBC has done a great job with them, what more can I say. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.111.220 (talk) 01:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps not the first collaboration with a foreign broadcaster
I think of the "Silk Road" series made with NHK as the first collaboration of CCTV with a foreign broadcaster. Is it correct to say that "Wild China" was the first? --Bistropha (talk) 17:29, 15 July 2015 (UTC)