Telly getting sillier...

[sbooder]

We have had this out before so most of you know what I feel about it. I am afraid that the Wonders of the Universe can not hold a candle to these three:

The Cell

Atom

Chemistry a Volatile History.

So good are they, I watched them all third time round, and wish I could get them on DVD but you can’t.

[meteoriot]

Currently watching 'the story of science' Fantastic stuff (As previously mentioned...

Also recently Enjoyed 'everything nothing' by Jim Alkhalili and 'chemistry a volatile history' (looking forward to his new series too)

'Through the wormhole' is ok too as are many others I guess (please recommend)

Infinitemonkeycage is very good too on BBC radio 4 as was the live show.

For me personally though these are stepping stones from the 'wonders' series. Otherwise I would be unaware, but books and study are the real 'substance over style'!!!

[Collyer911]

We once watched a Brian Cox programme in physics and agreed that, although there is some good science and explaining in there, he is completely taking the mickey with the program's budget. He flies in a supersonic jet so he can say that the speed of light can't be broken, he explodes a bomb to say that the big bang didn't bang into space and goes to a south american waterfall to talk for a minute about how rivers change their levels due to the sun. Seriously, Patrick Moore hardly ventures out of his home and he still does amazing programs!

i could,nt agree more

[rabbithutch]

Although I've never seen a Brian Cox program (I don't think BBC America carries it nor do the other 'information' channels), I feel compelled to provide a colonial perspective on media production in the form of my own rant, agreeing with Olly completely about the banality of most TV productions, whatever the content.

I've come to the conclusion that over-production is the result of over-specialization. I think movies, TV, most modern music, and even much of today's writing is the work of people trained to ape the successes of their predecessors in their fields. Educators give lip service to the value of original thought but rarely reward it (if they recognize it at all). They continue to learn a standard or two in their field of endeavor to gain their credentials to teach then foist those standards onto their students by their grading and teaching. It becomes incestuously banal. The most blatant example of this is the way news is covered in the media. I get to watch news shows produced in several different countries in several different languages and find myself marveling at the sameness and staleness of its delivery. And don't get me started on what's happened to the profession of teaching . . .

I've reached the age (almost 70) where I have a perspective that stretches from before TV and before degrees in education - a time when teachers mastered their subject matter and learnt classroom skills that had been tested in the cauldron, not skills that were the end result of over-speculative eggheads and social scientists trying to elicit credentials from ether.

OK! Meds are kicking in. Everything is getting smoother and smoother.

Maybe I should try Speakers' Corner on a Sunday. Do they allow colonials to speak there? Haven't been there in a long, long time.

[starstalker]

maybe we should go back to the old style of open university of a bloke with a beard standing in front of a blackboard talking at you,and then we can spend the rest of the budget on eastenders or casualty, seriously if that happened everyone would be complaining about that,ok so its a bit extravagant but at least money is being spent on a subject we enjoy!

[wiseman]

You can please some of the people, some of the time, etc etc etc.

I have to say I enjoyed B.C much more than most, if not all, of my astro physics lectures in the early 80's, the lectures rattled along, no way you could call em glacial, but I had very great difficulty after 4 lectures of following the greek alphabet and remembering that we were actually trying to prove the weight of an electron from first principles.

On the whole, I suspect it was worth making the programe

[Macavity]

Back-of-envelope calculations, suggest that BBC salaries are equivalent to 1/3 of the UK CERN subscription?

One online EU correspondent, with direct access to our TV, commented that THEIR evening news was "one guy reading a sheet of paper". BBC news looked like it "came from the flight deck of the Starship Enterprise"! Others observed that (local) weather reports become "outside broadcasts", we have a dedicated "Royal Correspondent" PLUS sundry "posh people" on state occasions. How many "TV Chefs" do we really NEED? etc. etc.

BBC-bashing is a weekly activity for some broad-sheets. It may (may not) be fair? But even (Eastender's) "Big Mo" might think "They're 'avin a larf" sometimes? Of course, all big organisations do it. As Brian Cox observes, most physicists "peak" before the age of thirty? As with BBC newsreaders, it pays to look young, Eh, B?

P.S. I rather miss the tank-topped OU/schools programs - Better than the real thing!

[sbooder]

I used to love the OU late night programmes, a friend of mine and me used to sit with bottles of cider packets of Monster Munch and our funny fags and watch all the OU stuff...well, apart from the Shakespeare Workshop that is.

[chiltonstar]

However annoying many of us obviously found the BC programme, it clearly enhanced sales for a number of astronomy products such as planispheres - so maybe it did succeed in stimulating interest in astronomy, something most of us would consider a good thing....

Chris

[nebogipfel]

However annoying many of us obviously found the BC programme, it clearly enhanced sales for a number of astronomy products such as planispheres - so maybe it did succeed in stimulating interest in astronomy, something most of us would consider a good thing....

Chris

...and I'm sure if Brian had still been smiling seductively out of our screens the same effect could have been achieved with more content, better analogies and a fraction of the budget.

[sbooder]

However annoying many of us obviously found the BC programme, it clearly enhanced sales for a number of astronomy products such as planispheres - so maybe it did succeed in stimulating interest in astronomy, something most of us would consider a good thing....

Chris

Fair point, but and there is a but.

How many of those planispheres will end up in the bottom of a draw or in the bin. The problem with flashy programmes about astronomy if they wish to encourage people to take it up is the representation of objects.

You have just watched the programme and you think oh yes, and go and buy the scope you can afford with your limited budget you go to look at M101 because you saw how magnificent it looked on the sexy cool science programme.

OK you are not in the middle of the Atacama desert and you do not have a 10" RC CAT GOTO MEADE but surly you will see something in your 5" GOTO....is that a smudge I see, and telescope gets consigned to cupboard until ebay beckons!

[Macavity]

I'm beginning to avoid (lengthy) "science" discussions with the bloke next door. He has an "Amazing brain for absorbing stuff" (apparently)! Unfortunately, so much much of it is only half right.

No <sneering>. But so many of my neighbours are self-styled experts?

[meteoriot]

Fair point, but and there is a but.

How many of those planispheres will end up in the bottom of a draw or in the bin. The problem with flashy programmes about astronomy if they wish to encourage people to take it up is the representation of objects.

You have just watched the programme and you think oh yes, and go and buy the scope you can afford with your limited budget you go to look at M101 because you saw how magnificent it looked on the sexy cool science programme.

OK you are not in the middle of the Atacama desert and you do not have a 10" RC CAT GOTO MEADE but surly you will see something in your 5" GOTO....is that a smudge I see, and telescope gets consigned to cupboard until ebay beckons!

But those that keep them will be dedicated! I also doubt all the thousands of people who have been inspired recently just buy a scope and eBay it later (although many will to the benefit of the new bidder . Astronomy is on tv more, Sky at night is getting more viewers. magazines are selling more. My local observatory has record visitors, A new generation of people are reading Carl Sagan, Record numbers of people are starting university courses in physics and astronomy. Rock venues across the country are being sold out by science gigs!!!! But most importantly people are looking at the stars in wonder!!! What are you all moaning about?! This is a great time to be an astronomer! Regardless of what you think of Brian Cox... love him or hate him It's science and astronomy that's benefiting from all this in a big way and I for one will enjoy every minute of it!

[kev 102 42]

Any one want a copy of Atom PMme............kev

[sbooder]

But those that keep them will be dedicated! I also doubt all the thousands of people who have been inspired recently just buy a scope and eBay it later (although many will to the benefit of the new bidder . Astronomy is on tv more, Sky at night is getting more viewers. magazines are selling more. My local observatory has record visitors, A new generation of people are reading Carl Sagan, Record numbers of people are starting university courses in physics and astronomy. Rock venues across the country are being sold out by science gigs!!!! But most importantly people are looking at the stars in wonder!!! What are you all moaning about?! This is a great time to be an astronomer! Regardless of what you think of Brian Cox... love him or hate him It's science and astronomy that's benefiting from all this in a big way and I for one will enjoy every minute of it!

I could not agree more, I am not sure that I stated anywhere that I hate Brian Cox, I think he is doing a lot for Astronomy and Physics, but as usual I have opinion about the way programmes are made and I will voice that opinion. I just find that more of the budget could go on science rather than world travel.

And you have to remember, I am over 40 and I am from a generation that has a concentration span over 30 seconds, so sound bite TV gets my back up.

[meteoriot]

We have had this out before so most of you know what I feel about it. I am afraid that the Wonders of the Universe can not hold a candle to these three:

The Cell

Atom

Chemistry a Volatile History.

So good are they, I watched them all third time round, and wish I could get them on DVD but you can’t.

'Everything and Nothing' 'Chemistry' both very good! Thanks for the heads up on 'the cell' and 'atom'

I've just managed to acquire them. Looking forward to 'story of electricity'

It isnt Jim Alkhalili but 'The story of science' is also very good.

[meteoriot]

I could not agree more, I am not sure that I stated anywhere that I hate Brian Cox, I think he is doing a lot for Astronomy and Physics, but as usual I have opinion about the way programmes are made and I will voice that opinion. I just find that more of the budget could go on science rather than world travel.

And you have to remember, I am over 40 and I am from a generation that has a concentration span over 30 seconds, so sound bite TV gets my back up.

I don't entirely disagree with some of the negative comments, or should I say I understand it's not for everyone but I want to point out the positives as they far outweigh the negatives and my comments were not aimed directly at you so I hope I didn't come across that way.

[rabbithutch]

Speaking of silly things, after posting last evening, I chose a Netflix film to guide me to the Land of Nod. I think I actually saw Brian Cox (well, 'a' Brian Cox, anyway). The movie, Chain Reaction, with Keanu Reeves and Morgan Freeman was about a group at the University of Chicago (where the first sustained atomic reaction was achieved on or about the very hour of my birth) working to devise a means to create cheap energy by separating the hydrogen out of water by means of laser bombardment thus creating greater energy output than was input. It was a poor film, as most are, badly over-produced (what we used to call a B movie), with a poorly written plot and badly acted to boot, BUT . . . at the very beginning was a chap (credited as Brian Cox) with a Brit accent lecturing about energy. Could this have been THE Brian Cox spoken of here?

Description: Middle aged to ... 'senior', average height to maybe a bit short (hard to tell in a film), friar's fringe, full beard and mustache, hair and beard all gray. A bit heavy set but not what I would call 'portly'.

Think of the irony of it. Joining a thread wherein a famous Brit pop-scientist is discussed (one of whom I know nothing) along with bad film production; and "What? Ho?" I pick a badly produced film (though not really about science) and the very scientist is among its stars!

Makes one wonder about the cosmic karma of it all !

As it turns out (after a bit of googling) that I HAVE seen the BC of whom this thread speaks though he was NOT in the film. Instead the Brian Cox who acted in it is a Scot, born in Dundee right after the last Great War. No 'cosmicity' and no karma - story of me life.

[sbooder]

Ah, but it dose have Rachel Weisz in it, which makes it all OK.

[PortableAstronomer]

So true. Nowadays any form of science has to be presented in a way that appeals to an audience that have virtually no attention span. The producers obviously want to un-nerdify the image of scientists to make science appear 'cool'.

For me, it's been a long slippery slope downwards from the good old days of Tomorrow's World with people like William Woollard, Judith Hann, Raymond Baxter etc...

[Mr Bond]

I think anyone that puts bums on seats at primetime promoting any science should be thought of highly, no matter how diluted you might feel the content to be.

I found it watchable and enjoyed its high production values re location/mood/music.

Would you rather be watching a soap opera or topgear topgear topgear topgear or topgear?

Big red button sorts most telly out. You no likey, you no watchey.

[meteoriot]

So true. Nowadays any form of science has to be presented in a way that appeals to an audience that have virtually no attention span. The producers obviously want to un-nerdify the image of scientists to make science appear 'cool'.

For me, it's been a long slippery slope downwards from the good old days of Tomorrow's World with people like William Woollard, Judith Hann, Raymond Baxter etc...

No. They want science to be part of popular culture and you don't have to be geeky or have a beard to enjoy it. I thought tomorrow's world was just a technology program showing new inventions etc etc I don't remember anything educational or scientific but maybe my memory is bad!

[sbooder]

No. They want science to be part of popular culture and you don't have to be geeky or have a beard to enjoy it. I thought tomorrow's world was just a technology program showing new inventions etc etc I don't remember anything educational or scientific but maybe my memory is bad!

This is a good point about science being part of popular culture, we do need science to be an accepted norm and not cliché images of Frankensteinian mad men.

Tomorrows world did to a degree reveal science to a wider audience, they did not just feature new technology they broke it down to explain the inner workings, it was a must see when I was a kid, the best thing about it was it was on early and influenced a lot of us younger people at the time.

[Macavity]

As long as science remains ULTIMATELY disassociated with "militant atheism", alternative comedy, "celebrity culture", dodgy politics, "animal rights" etc. I'm NOT sure certain bloggings / twitterings lend much to scientific credibility either.

Intelligent people are BOUND to have strong views etc. But sometimes I wonder: What is it with popular astronomers / physicists? Maybe if they were a tad busier, with their day jobs [mostly teasing]

If I may risk being a TAD partisan, I'd welcome a few more (astronomical) blogs from Chris Lintot. Despite circumspection, I've warmed to his apolitical(!) stance etc. Unfortunately, he seems to be a too busy actually doing astronomy...

[sbooder]

"militant atheism" What is that when it is at home, how can one be militant about the lack of anything?