Jump to content

Telly getting sillier...

ollypenrice

By ollypenrice
in The Astro Lounge

Recommended Posts

ollypenrice

ollypenrice

Posted
  • Author
Posted
I've just written some music for television (a food not science-related programme).

The brief from the producer was to avoid making the music sound like Ry Cooder because that's what everyone else did.

I produced some music which sounded nothing like Ry Cooder.

He listened to it, didn't like it and asked if we could possibly make it sound a bit more like Ry Cooder.

We made it sound more like Ry Cooder.

You can't fight ubiquity.

Tim

Too good!!

BTW, I like Ry Cooder just as I like Brian Cox...

Olly

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 96
  • Created
  • Last Reply
meteoriot

meteoriot

Posted
Posted
Fair point, but they also produce lots of other science/education programmes without the mega budget, MTV production values and presenter worship we see in BC's series.

Attenborough has been making quality TV for decades without slo-mo shots and loving closeups of his moist lips ;)

Look at the recent work of Jim Al-Khalili, and Michael Mosley to give two examples.

Time Team scratch around in the dirt and have fascinated many and turned them on to archaeology and the only sex symbol they have is Phil Harding!

And then of course we have the wonderful "Sky at Night" .....

TV doesn't need to be sexed up to entertain, educate and enthrall.

Yes I agree but who watched them?

Only those who are aware of them and why would you be aware if your too busy with x factor, I'm a celeb etc etc. You need to grab peoples attention and generally labcoats and beards and monocles don't do it lol. I know people who started with wonders and are now watching these programs because of it. It's happening everywhere.

Im not defending Cox or the budget in any way but How can this be a bad thing ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Slangers

Slangers

Posted
Posted

I have long since given up on all TV science programmes. As the OP said, only 3-4 minutes per hour are of any substance, the key points have to be repeated over and over and over to reinforce and it seems to be an excuse to pointlessly send the presenter all over the world on some wonderful holidays. I understand the reasons- the programme makers want to make the science attractive by using attractive people in attractive locations. They also want great pictures to go with the book of the series. They are communicating to the masses and so have to keep the science to a minimum and the repetition ensures that everyone understands. For those of us in the know, however, the effect is exclusion, frustration and dents in the TV screen as we throw our shoes, TV remotes, beer bottles at the offending programmes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
nebogipfel

nebogipfel

Posted
Posted
Yes I agree but who watched them?

Only those who are aware of them and why would you be aware if your too busy with x factor, I'm a celeb etc etc. You need to grab peoples attention and generally labcoats and beards and monocles don't do it lol. I know people who started with wonders and are now watching these programs because of it. It's happening everywhere.

Im not defending Cox or the budget in any way but How can this be a bad thing ?

Again I agree, but I suspect that in six months time the majority of the Brian Cox groupies will have gone back to "Celebrity X Get Me Master Chef" and the folk who have a genuine interest in the science will be watching the programmes with substance over style.

I think BC is a good communicator and given decent material his programmes could be so much better. Sadly I suspect that his "celebrity" will always get in the way to some extent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted
Im not defending Cox or the budget in any way but How can this be a bad thing ?
No (never?) BAD thing. But, if one were to judge public opinion by the replies to (online) newspaper reviews (fighting, mainly?) one might be a tad discouraged re. humanity... :o

Tired of the "He's so gorgeous" and his (B.C.) "Nobber" thing, versus the "Dissenters". I felt in need of something a bit more edifying. OK, they're "climatologists" (LOL) and the discussion gets [to me] complex! But, with less invective, interesting:

Professor Brian Cox’s Wheldon Lecture: an exercise in arrogance » Harmless Sky

Whatever. "Representing" science is a HUGE responsibility? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
BigJohn

BigJohn

Posted
Posted

I suppose I should throw in my tuppence worth... and I do love a good rant. :-)

Personally, I was disappointed in the first series, Wonders of the Solar System. I felt that the balance between substance and glitz wasn't right, but in the end there was enough meat on the bones for those with a passing interest in astronomy.

I had hoped that The Wonders of the Universe would have delivered more head candy. I imagined that the subject matter that would be tackled in the second series would be less tangible, and not so concrete for most people. Cosmology is less accessible for your average person than the geology and weather of the other planets in the solar system. It’s not hard to see that it's much easier to demonstrate that Olympus Mons is a very big hill than to try and explain what gravity is in terms of space-time.

Unfortunately, I found that The Wonders of the Universe didn't deliver. I found my mind wandering off, and like Olly, I found myself focusing on the question, "Why does Brian need to go up in a fighter plane in order to explain that there is a maximum cosmological speed limit? Surely that could have been achieved more effectively and economically if he took a Nissan Micra onto the motorway? Now, there is a vehicle that can clearly demonstrate speed limitations. And there’s a bonus... he could have woven in the concept of time slowing down as you approach the speed of light. After all, I imagine that that time passes really slowly when you drive a Micra.

Anyway... I have to say that I like Brian, and that he's doing some work that's really worthwhile, (better than d:ream at any rate.) I know of one person who has a new found interest, because of his series. Unfortunately, she appears to have focused more on Brian than the subject matter. But what the hey? It does go to show that there is an appreciative audience for the series out there.

Maybe my dissatisfaction is my own fault, because I projected my own expectations, rather than take the show at face value. I do like Brian Cox. I think he has the passion and charisma that can attract new enthusiasts. If people are truly interested in any given topic, they will engage willingly, and they will want to expend a little brain power in order to learn. In my opinion, the programme makers erred on the side of spoon-feeding, and ended up with something that was all fur coat and no knickers... something for the coffee table rather than the bookshelves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Freff

Freff

Posted
Posted

Well as they say.... "You can please some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time but you can't please all of the people all of the time".

;)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Astro Imp

Astro Imp

Posted
Posted

I eagerly anticipated this series but felt let down because as has been said it was a case of style over substance.

One should remember that in these hard economic times that the BBC is not necessarily making programs primarily for home consumption but to sell world wide, which it does very successfully.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beulah

Beulah

Posted
Posted
the BBC is not necessarily making programs primarily for home consumption but to sell world wide, which it does very successfully.

So can someone tell me again, why do they need our license money? ;):mad::o:mad:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Beulah

Beulah

Posted
Posted

I'll be a grumpy old git and side with Olly here - I do not watch any television, but watched a few episodes of BC's programme out of sheer curiosity...and yes, there seems to be a lot of glitzy padding, and Cox striking a lot of pensive poses..

If anything, all I remember are the sweeping landscapes and a lone figure standing at various beauty spots around the world...

If that's what people want these days, fine. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
cervesca

cervesca

Posted
Posted

The thing that I've noticed, nto just in this but other recent programs is the way they use SFX to give a "lush" backdrop for the astronomy vistas ey by zooming into nebulae etc - which all looks really impressive but I doubt, if we were really that close to these objects, that they would look this way visually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
meteoriot

meteoriot

Posted
Posted

I thought there was substance and style personally. Although I agree the style may not have been entirely necessary it certainly served a purpose and as previously mentioned made it compelling enough to inspire thousands. Telescope sales are breaking records, new members on here are soaring, my local observatory has had record visits and science and astronomy are ever more popular and it's featuring on tv more than Before. 'wonders' has had a huge impact and has opened the gates and paved the way for more to come. If you don't like it or if it isn't advanced enough for you then that's fair enough just remember it's positive effect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
pete_l

pete_l

Posted
Posted

I don't think anybody watches BBC science programmes for their educational content - just as a sort of ambient entertainment: where it washes over you. I used to get terribly frustrated with their sitting-room science approach, particularly in subjects where I had some (even a miniscule) amount of knowledge. Due to their virtually content-free programming. Now I don't bother with any of them as I reckon you can pick up more factual information from the single top hit on Google - even from Wikipedia - than you can from any of their offerings.

Cox said something similar himself, on a late-night lecture, last year. He blamed the parlous state of science programming on cheap CGI. Since it became possible to fill the whole programme up with pretty effects and fantasy-explanations, the producers decided that was "what people wanted" and proper, factual, content just couldn't compete.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Macavity

Macavity

Posted
Posted
Despite the "Harry Hill" concept of a Jim versus Brian "Fight" (LOL), it's rare to find (truly!) adversarial scientists. While investigating (later cutting?) the "budget", a certain PM, "privately" lamented political infighting and confrontation... compared to calm scientific collaboration! ;)

Expensive, occasionally elitist, even a tad pointless, at times. I still believe in the power of science to cross human barriers. In some sense, to give the "whole darn thing" a point... :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
blackparticle

blackparticle

Posted
Posted

Define "Ironic" ...

21st December 2012 - 8:56am - Geneva, Switzerland

Brian arrives back at work after a 3 month trip around the planet filming his latest BBC epic, "Wonders of the Quantum Microverse (in Super-Brilliant new VHD-3D)". He sits down at his desk, still at bit jet-lagged and wishing he'd not had that second bottle of champagne whilst enjoying the attentions of the many air-stewardesses and spending three hours playing with the alt/az controls on his reclining leather chair.

Today he thinks he will crack the Higgs. He sets the LHC in motion and the experiment starts. Today he is right...

0.008 pico-seconds after detection of the Higgs, the nature of its wave-particle duality and observation forces it into reality and causes massive quantum interference simultaneously throughout the universe.

0.0014 pico-seconds later, all matter and energy in the universe loses quantum cohesion and vanishes from the space-time continuum leaving a very lonely and somewhat confused Higgs wondering where everything went.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Karlos

Karlos

Posted
Posted

I like watching the programmes, but treat them as a casual viewing that is aimed at non-scientific people. I would quite like more information rather than the vague details he gives. I believe the BBC is to blame for this, rather than Cox. I'm sure the BBC presenting job for him fills space in between the research placements has (i.e. CERN Hadron). From a educational point of view, the programme is lacking but if you want to see a plenty of places and cool CGI and are wanting to maybe inspired to spark an interest, I think this is the programme for you. Did it for me anyway :eek: Maybe Patrick did that too for those some years ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.