Wonders of the Universe: Worthwhile viewing?

[baggywrinkle]

I have managed to get a copy on CD of Brian Cox's documentary.

Am I committing a heresy if I say it is more a travelogue of various places around the world with Brian in various modes of dress wandering around, blowing bubbles, doing a bit of graffitti etc etc than a good science program?

No doubt he is a good presenter but he does not make rivetting viewing.

[pixelsaurus]

No doubt he is a good presenter but he does not make rivetting viewing.

Your topic title would tend to suggest otherwise. I actually enjoy watching it and I feel the locations are relevant to his story.

[baggywrinkle]

? mark added.....

[DeepThought]

There's no doubt Prof. Cox knows his subject and is very passionate about it.

Sure there's a lot of "filler" in there, plenty of glossy and expensive looking establishing shots and lingering views of BC staring wistfully into the distance from the top of a waterfall/mountain/cliff etc, but if you can get past all that then the content is actually very good, I learned a lot anyway.

...Cosmos was better though.

[JamesF]

To a certain extent all of the "Wonders" series are a victim of current fashions in television presentation and the belief that few people will watch unless there's lots of dynamic visual content and rousing music (which is correct; of course they won't -- television itself has taught people to be thus).

Fundamentally though I think there's a lot of interesting information in the programmes and it's definitely at the better end of the BBC's science programming output. Which is not to say that it couldn't be improved or that there shouldn't be more of it (or that plenty of other people shouldn't get in on the act .

I've enjoyed most of the "Wonders" programmes and they've often led me into more consideration of and reading around subjects I'd not previously given much thought. In the modern world I think we're kidding ourselves if we expect much more than that from television.

James

[Watchman]

I thoroughly enjoy Brian Cox's programs, he is entertaining while getting very solid points across in terms that the vast majority of people can understand. His programs may not be the most scientifically worded but to be fair most of us arn't actually scientists. To make programs about fairly complex science that my mum can understand is quite a feat.. Also he is clearly excited about what he talks about.

[AndyWB]

I just wonder how much more science programming the BBC would be able to afford if it didn't blow the budget shipping Brian Cox around the world for a one minute shot of him in, say, the Namibian desert, or a Brazilian prison, or staring at the sky. I love the science, and he's a good communicator, but I don't think all the travel was justified. I guess I question the production.

And I was very worried when they seemed to be trying to line him up as the next David Attenborough - fortunately the programme turned into the physics of animals, which was interesting and seemed more natural to him.

[DeepThought]

I just wonder how much more science programming the BBC would be able to afford if it didn't blow the budget shipping Brian Cox around the world for a one minute shot of him in, say, the Namibian desert, or a Brazilian prison, or staring at the sky. I love the science, and he's a good communicator, but I don't think all the travel was justified. I guess I question the production.

And I was very worried when they seemed to be trying to line him up as the next David Attenborough - fortunately the programme turned into the physics of animals, which was interesting and seemed more natural to him.

I think there's a bigger picture here.

Big glossy documentaries look to be a bit over the top but this in turn makes them far more marketable abroad. I don't know the numbers myself but I suspect a lot of these documentaries make more money for the BBC than they actually cost.

A more understated yet entirely factual show (the likes of which we often see on BBC Four) just wouldn't sell.

[JamesF]

I just wonder how much more science programming the BBC would be able to afford if it didn't blow the budget shipping Brian Cox around the world for a one minute shot of him in, say, the Namibian desert, or a Brazilian prison, or staring at the sky. I love the science, and he's a good communicator, but I don't think all the travel was justified. I guess I question the production.

I'm coming to the opinion that if they didn't make programmes this way then there would actually be less science programming on television. The more people watch science programmes, the more will be likely to be made because the BBC will be seen to be responding to the demands of its audience. You and I might be happy to sit and watch BC or whoever else in a studio discussing the evolution of the early universe (for example) for an hour, but frankly most people, particularly those who don't have a strong interest in the first place, won't. For the majority of the audience there has to be something else or they'll just switch off. That "something else" is, in this case, the locations and camera work that turn what would otherwise be a "hard science" programme into "entertainment".

The irony is of course that the audience has become this way because television has "trained" them to want it. It's self-reinforcing. Years ago television was in many respects "radio with pictures". These days it seems to be more and more about the pictures/presentation and less and less about the content. And when there are hundreds of channels to compete with to get an audience it's hardly surprising that the former become a significant part of the programme as a whole.

Frank Lloyd Wright (I think) once described television as "chewing gum for the eyes". And he died in the late 50s. He'd probably have kittens if he saw what it is like now.

I guess one might also ask whether the "Wonders" series haven't actually been significantly profitable for the BBC, partly due to the production style, and if it isn't possible to fund even more science programming now as a result of its success.

James

[Kai]

Put simply even with it's issues its 100% better than the rest of the tripe ( read cooking / reality / celebrity shows ) forced upon us

My kids like his program's and maybe that's the point , it's meant to introduce people to the subject rather than preach to the converted.

[AndyWB]

Big glossy documentaries look to be a bit over the top but this in turn makes them far more marketable abroad. I don't know the numbers myself but I suspect a lot of these documentaries make more money for the BBC than they actually cost.

That's a fair point, although due to the unique way the BBC is funded, I thought that they were supposed to produce programming that isn't necessarily motivated by profit. I mean, doesn't that give them an unfair advantage, if profit is the motivation? That said, commercial television doesn't seem to be kicking down the doors to actually do science and nature - it's all celebrities dancing on ice. Kai's point is well made.

I guess it bothers me as I feel that science in the BBC has been dumbed down since I was a kid. I mean, I remember Tomorrow's World describing a Multi-Layer Perceptron and how a neural net works, or ATRAC compression in Minidiscs, and in reasonable detail. I can't imagine that in a programme now. And fair enough, wide appeal 'introductory' programming has a very important place - but I'm starting to feel like it's all 'lowest common denominator'.

Don't get me wrong - I watched them, and thought them very good, even with all the gratuitous shot's of Brian's floppy hair - but would it really have been different if he was at a beach in Cornwall rather than Namibia?

Maybe I just worry - how long before the BBC tries to replace the Sky at Night with a once-a-year 'Stargazing Live'?

[DeepThought]

I honestly don't know how the BBC handles its profits from selling license payer funded productions. I know they have a commercial arm called BBC Worldwide but I gather at least some of the profits must get rolled back into the Beeb's coffers.

Perhaps someone here could enlighten us.

[thegoatboy]

IWonders of the solar system was very good in my book

I didn't think the universe one was as good.

still enjoyable though.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I enjoy watching him. I preferred his first series more then the second. Looking forward to his new series which starts on thursday.

[baggywrinkle]

Not seen the first series, I had heard it was better, I am trying to find the DVD's for it. They do not cost an awful lot here.

I agree he gets the subject over well enough, but I am not hooked and just think the BBC has dumbed down. While I was in Perth he came to do a show, but the ticket price was eye watering.