Jump to content

Narrowband

Horizon Special - Transit Of Venus


andrew63

Recommended Posts

[...] why was a biologist talking about an astronomical event? Her co-presenters were a lot more engaging and imho should have been the only ones presenting the show.

sent from Gherkin Muncher mk .III (commonly known as a Galaxy S2)

I don't see why she shouldn't. She's a TV presenter (with a scientific background) reading a script, just like the other two. And her presence on the show was justified alone by the discussion of life occupying Earths cloud layer, and using the transit as a means of testing the techniques used to detect the possibility of life around exoplanets.

As for an excuse for the presenters to simply jet around the world, I'm pretty sure the shows producers would have made that decision, not the presenters themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

James, I couldn't agree with you more and also with the comments of Alan (Astro Imp) above. Not sure why the BBC is so afraid of giving us the scientific nitty gritty, after all I would imagine that the vast majority of those wanting to watch this programme do so because they want further knowledge on this subject, not just a description of the topic area. I really like it when presenters with the correct technical background present these types of programmes - mind you the way the BBC use presenters, it can't be long before Richard Hammond starts presenting Sky at Night ! :D :D

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was a bit disappointed with the Horizon programme, too. I didn't think they had the balance quite right between the nice graphics and locations and the hard scientific content. I remember when I was a kid seeing Carl Sagan deliver the Royal Institution Christmas Lectures without any of the fancy visuals we have nowadays, and I was spellbound. Not sure we have an equivalent nowadays who can convey the wonder of the subject so convincingly and with so much obvious passion. Prof Cox does it for lots of people, I guess, and Marcus du Sautoy for Maths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's very easy to say things are poor but not so easy to make TV content that will satisfy all sectors of the viewing public.

That’s a good point and I think Horizon failed on this, particularly as it was a special.

Science programming may not be easy but should it be?

I actually think Horizon has got lazy with this style of programming. I also don't feel that a program vehicle like Horizon would ever be able to satisfy all types of the viewing public. Therefore it may be better to focus in what they were good at. It's maybe like a rock band who try to appeal more and more to the masses and find that no one really likes their material.

The average East Enders, flick to Corrie viewer will most likely not watch Horizon anyway. If they did they may stay longer if there were interesting visuals.

Anything worth watching, listening to etc. usually requires skill and serious effort on the part of the performers and producers. The odd contemplative, wistful, ‘camera rotates around presenter’ shot is fine but not as the program anchor.

Producers don’t need some guy standing at a blackboard for half an hour to be intellectually stimulating or to introduce science. There are lots of hour long past horizons which are very watchable and actually contain science and can be understood by a wider audience.

Brian Green did some US programming on the cosmos, while being ‘shiny shiny’ with lots of well done graphics and effects for the general viewer, had some excellent science explained in a fun and entertaining way. The episode on time and relativity was noteworthy, tackling these hard concepts which can be difficult to explain at the best of times.

I work in an art college with video production and most of the students I talk to are pretty clued up and are not impressed with the 'presenter is the star' type of science shows. They want to see some real WOW and actually learn something new. Programme makers can make something too mass market and loose the type of folk looking for that bit more.

Do the producers of these shows sit around and try and think up new analogues of scientific concepts? How silly is it going to get. Candyfloss as a star system and hungry gob as a black hole :grin: MUNCH MUNCH

If they want to shows stars, why not just show them, with all their majesty and gorgeousness, rather than get tea light type efforts on a beach! The real images themselves are surely so much better.

I know they think it’s stylish and arty, but one would be better to watch the excellent NASA transit set to music on space.com

The material on the ship at the start would send anyone to sleep. It’s important to set the scene and explain background but a little more use of ‘B roll material’. I.e actually interesting video to watch while the presenter narrates would have helped. On a plus note, I think the show did get better towards the end when they went to the Allen Array and the presenter showed real interest in the project.

Again just my 2p’s worth and just rattling on as there is no seeing. If folk enjoyed the program and learned some new stuff, that's always good!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with you on that @mindburner - there's a big difference between the old style of hour-long Horizon's and the more recent ones, and IMHO the older ones did a much better job of getting the science over, but still in an engaging way - the science was the star of the show, not the presenter/ scenery.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thought it was just OK, and good to see all female presenting team, too few female scientists. As a practicing biologist learnt something new about cloud ecology and my friend from Austria who was siting next to me just happened to go to uni with the cloud ecologist who was interviewed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got round to watching it on IPlayer and have to agree with the general consencus, a triumph of style over content.

This is a problem of the creeping effect of all TV producers now having been through " medja school" and being clones of each other.

Gone are the days of producers recruited from all walks of life and being capable of original, independent thought .

I don't know what the budget of the BBC CG department is but they seem compelled to produce special effects to go with any and every occasion.

And why do they think we need intrusive "mood music" with every scene, it's getting like US tv where they're teriffied of loosing the audience attention if

they dare have a few seconds silence.

Could go on but have got to get off my high horse and go make wife a cup of tea.

Davey-T

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Years ago Horizon was a great thought provoking TV program full of interesting content. Now it is just pap TV; very nice photograph and visual effects, but no reall content to speak of. Obviously this is a much cheaper program make and follows in the Sky TV mediocrity model.

Come on let's have at least one good in depth science program every six months - it really isn't too much to ask

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll chip in with a good word or two for the programme.

- I learned something new: cloud habitat, moon reflection, infra red scopes

- Women presenters, doing its bit to inspire more women scientists. We men all agree that women are smarter, so imagine what can be discovered by these smarter scientists.

- Parallax was discussed at length, with principles explained, diagram drawn

It seems some people are expecting a university lecture??

On mobile (excuse the strange predictive words...)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Definitely not a University lecture, and I agree there was some good stuff in there, I just would have preferred the balance tipped a bit more in favour of substance/content over style. But I agree with one of the earlier posts that a programme like this has a difficult job to do going out at prime time and appealing to as many as possible. Still prefer the older style of Horizon's etc, but then again I am getting on a bit...!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll chip in with a good word or two for the programme.

- I learned something new: cloud habitat, moon reflection, infra red scopes

- Women presenters, doing its bit to inspire more women scientists. We men all agree that women are smarter, so imagine what can be discovered by these smarter scientists.

- Parallax was discussed at length, with principles explained, diagram drawn

Well those account for a whole three minutes worth of programme time - or they would have done if they hadn't been padded and repeated.

You don't need a university lecture - but compare this with a Christmas Lecture and it's abysmal. Those lectures are full of content, full of diagrams, graphics and practical examples; presented in a structured and progressive way by someone who actually works in the field and their knowledge and enthusiasm for the subject shines through. Horizon, once upon a time, although having a presenter (usually a lot more a voice over than some muppet interrupting the scenery) - used to have a lot more content. The "meat" in today's programs is a fraction of what there used to be. Let's face it - when people see "Horizon - The Transit of Venus" in the T.V. listings they are either going to be interested. Or not. So they are NOT, or shouldn't be, targeting the whole spectrum of possible viewers - they're going to be presenting to a bunch of people who WANT to watch and to be informed. The Christmas Lectures show that you CAN have a whole lot of content in a program and that the viewers will lap it up. Not everyone will choose to watch them, true; but those that choose to watch will thoroughly enjoy them. That's the way it USED to be with Horizon. These days I could present the information content in a Horizon program in ten minutes or less without "bombarding" or overwhelming the average viewer.

Not that it's just Horizon, every "informative" program does this these days. It's just so sad to see what used to be a top end programme reduced to being like all the rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's face it - when people see "Horizon - The Transit of Venus" in the T.V. listings they are either going to be interested. Or not. So they are NOT, or shouldn't be, targeting the whole spectrum of possible viewers - they're going to be presenting to a bunch of people who WANT to watch and to be informed.

Exactly. If I watch a science program I don't expect to be talked down to as if I have the knowledge and attention span of a 12 year old.

It's Interesting that Sky are pushing ahead of BBC in having worked out that it's ok to push programmes at a minority audience. Sky Arts are showing full operas and folk festivals with tiny viewing figures, for example. They've realised that those tiny viewing figures will start adding up. Perhaps one day soon, the BBC will catch up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have to say that I was quite disappointed. I mean, better that there was something on prime time BBC TV than nothing at all, but it could have been much better.

To be honest, I found it a bit patronising to have an all female presenter line-up and the wet-suit on the beach scene... really?

It also had plenty of over-hyped sesationalized claims (that Venus transits were the basis of modern astronomy - what?!) that I found annoying and the whole bit about life in clouds, which seemed to be the central part of the programme, had nothing whatsoever to do with the transit at all. Isn't the BBC beyond the fascination with alien life in our solar system? As someone else said. if you want to a programme on life in the Venusian atmosphere then at least do that properly and look as well at the heat, pressure and acidity. That whole section of the programme was utterly pointless to me.

So a 5 out of 10 at most from me. Better than nothing but a missed opportunity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So they are NOT, or shouldn't be, targeting the whole spectrum of possible viewers - they're going to be presenting to a bunch of people who WANT to watch and to be informed.

I'm sorry Squeaky, but I couldn't disagree with this more strongly. The BBCs remit is to both entertain and educate. They should always (in my own view), target the widest possible spectrum of viewers for a program like this. It's their job to try and present what are complex and difficult subjects, in such a way that people who are not as well-informed as people on this forum, have a chance of understanding it.

Sorry to have to say this, but what you have to realize is that we (i.e. people who already know about this stuff), are not the target demographic for a show like this. Just about anything they could slot into a 60 minute show we would already know about, so what would be the point in that? In a sense, it's just preaching to the choir, its pointless, it would be complete waste of time, and worse all it does is foster an elitist approach to science programming that is basically divisive and says "Science is for intelligent people only, everyone else - KEEP OUT".

Take, for example, that recent show Horizon did discussing new approaches to the treatment of cancer. Who was the target demographic for that show? Oncologists? Surgeons? Radiologists and radiographers? Nurses? Research scientists? No, it was everyone else. Why? Because oncologists and radiologists and so on already know about this stuff. There is nothing a 60 minute show could tell them about the treatment of cancer they don't already know. They were not the target audience. Everyone else was.

TV science programming should inform, and educate in an inclusive way, and yes be entertaining if that is a legitimate way of getting the message across.

Given the previous comments on this subject, I realize mine will be an unpopular view. If the new forum had a "disklike" button I would fully expect to get "negged" into oblivion; but hey, such is life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Given the previous comments on this subject, I realize mine will be an unpopular view. If the new forum had a "disklike" button I would fully expect to get "negged" into oblivion; but hey, such is life.

I agree with almost all that you've said here... It's just that I didn't think the programme ticked those boxes...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm sorry Squeaky, but I couldn't disagree with this more strongly. The BBCs remit is to both entertain and educate. They should always (in my own view), target the widest possible spectrum of viewers for a program like this. It's their job to try and present what are complex and difficult subjects, in such a way that people who are not as well-informed as people on this forum, have a chance of understanding it.

Sorry to have to say this, but what you have to realize is that we (i.e. people who already know about this stuff), are not the target demographic for a show like this. Just about anything they could slot into a 60 minute show we would already know about, so what would be the point in that? In a sense, it's just preaching to the choir, its pointless, it would be complete waste of time, and worse all it does is foster an elitist approach to science programming that is basically divisive and says "Science is for intelligent people only, everyone else - KEEP OUT".

Take, for example, that recent show Horizon did discussing new approaches to the treatment of cancer. Who was the target demographic for that show? Oncologists? Surgeons? Radiologists and radiographers? Nurses? Research scientists? No, it was everyone else. Why? Because oncologists and radiologists and so on already know about this stuff. There is nothing a 60 minute show could tell them about the treatment of cancer they don't already know. They were not the target audience. Everyone else was.

TV science programming should inform, and educate in an inclusive way, and yes be entertaining if that is a legitimate way of getting the message across.

With the exception of "widest possible audience" we're not really in disagreement here. The points you raise are all valid. My point was that the program DIDN'T hit the targets you say they should be aiming at.

And yes, I saw the cancer one, and in fact all the recent ones, and, as I say, there's too much padding, too much repetition, and very little in the way of "meat" in the production sandwich in comparison to what Horizon used to present. It seems to be aimed at a twelve year old with an IQ the same as his shoe size and the attention span of an inebriated gnat.

EDIT: "Entertain AND Educate"...? But not always, one hopes, in the same programme? Where's the Education in East Enders? It's pure entertainment. So why can't Horizon be pure education - the way it used to be?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With the exception of "widest possible audience" we're not really in disagreement here. The points you raise are all valid. My point was that the program DIDN'T hit the targets you say they should be aiming at.

And yes, I saw the cancer one, and in fact all the recent ones, and, as I say, there's too much padding, too much repetition, and very little in the way of "meat" in the production sandwich in comparison to what Horizon used to present. It seems to be aimed at a twelve year old with an IQ the same as his shoe size and the attention span of an inebriated gnat.

EDIT: "Entertain AND Educate"...? But not always, one hopes, in the same programme? Where's the Education in East Enders? It's pure entertainment. So why can't Horizon be pure education - the way it used to be?

As far as padding is concerned, sometimes you need a little "white space" to allow information to sink in. Especially if it is complex or difficult. As far as soaps are concerned, they are a well known vehicle for addressing social issues, so education yes, in a wider sense. Not that I am a fan of soaps of course! ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as padding is concerned, sometimes you need a little "white space" to allow information to sink in. Especially if it is complex or difficult. As far as soaps are concerned, they are a well known vehicle for addressing social issues, so education yes, in a wider sense. Not that I am a fan of soaps of course! ;)

A LITTLE white space yes. Fine. Signal to padding ratio these days is about 1 to 6. And the white space is just that. Not "lower level" "easy" stuff - but pure tat.

Harrumph! :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rubbish IMO. Why do these programs dumb down the content so much? This is an Horizon special (i.e. scientific or supposed to be) for goodness sake; I have seen more scientific content on the One show before. They digressed from the subject of the Venus transit onto the possibility of Venus life and loads of stupid shots of the female presenters wandering through lava fields, on the beach etc. Very poor IMO. If you enjoyed it then good for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I just watched it on iplayer, it's a bit disappointing. It's more a program about planet Venus rather than Venus Transit.

The program has been dumb down a lot and certainly not what you'd expect for a Horizon program. Anyone who watches a Horizon program (or a S@N for that matters) will have a decent understanding of science, so it's not necessary to go through all the basics.

This show was more at the level of a 'Bang goes the theory' type entertainment program.

Liz Bonnin may be a trained Biochemist, but I don't think she is the right presenter for Horizon.

The statement that the next transit will not be visible in the life time of our children and grandchildren may be true in the 19th century, but I'm fairly confident my grandchildren will be alive to see the 2117 transit. For a child who is born this year and have a kid when he/she is 30. The grandchild will only be 75 years old and by the time the next transit happens in 105 years. 75 is easily achievable even today, let alone 105 years from now. In fact I expect many children born in the last few years will be around to see the 2117 transit. As for myself, spending 60 years in retirement is too much, so I don't plan on hanging around to see the 2117 transit.

PS: Very interesting way of installing tripod spreader at 3'00". I thought it's quite obvious where to put it, but apparently not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol @ the comments in this thread.

I sat down and watched it, and have to admit that I didn't think most of it had much to do with the Transit, it was clearly padded out (like some people have noted). I also think it was a bit silly to air it a few hours before it happened WITHOUT showing it happen, that just seemed a bit strange and they clearly missed a trick there or simply couldn't be bothered. But even though I was disappointed with it, I did prefer to watch that than some drivel like East Enders or Coronation Street (sorry soap fans!).

It's good they're making this kind of programme, but they let themselves down this time in my opinion becasue 75% of the show wasn't about the actual subject matter.

Chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PS: Very interesting way of installing tripod spreader at 3'00". I thought it's quite obvious where to put it, but apparently not.

Ah yes I spotted that too! It's going to take a very long time to set that scope up... I'd hoped it had been left in the edit as an "in joke" but sadly having watched the rest of the programme I suspect not!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

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

  • 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.