New 'Universe' Series on BBC2 Tonight

[Grifflin]

TV viewing in my household is somewhat Darwinian....if its good then it survives.  Having watched the first episode its spot has been replaced by "Young Sheldon".......Hmmmmm....

Neil

[Andy67]

I think people are expecting too much from this series. It's not a "degree" course in astronomy. I think it's aimed more at the general public with very little or no knowledge of what's out there. It could well be the catalyst that starts someone on the journey that we are all on. I'm quite a newbie to star gazing. My interest was sparked by Brian Cox and programs like this as well as the fantastic views of the night sky. Once you become "hooked"  by a program like this you can start learning more about our incredible universe. My poor wife has to put up with me spouting interesting facts that I have learnt about the universe, and it all started with programs like this.

Universe is very pretty, Brian's delivery helps to create awe. Let's get ready to welcome newbies like we all were to a fascinating hobby. 😊

[bish]

I agree. These programmes are made for viewing figures not necessarily a relatively niche group of keen enthusiasts. I will be watching Strictly thougj😆

[kirkster501]

I have (or rather "had") them recorded and sat down to watch the first one last night excitedly.  I know these kind of programs are mass appeal and very high level to us as an enthusiast audience but nonetheless had reasonable expectations that at least it would be something like the recent "The Planets" series that would be entertaining.   However, I abandoned 20 minutes in.  A complete load of tosh.  It didn't even talk about the stars in any meaningful sense.  Lots of Coxy walking around on beaches and staring wistfully into the distance with a bit of CGI thrown in all with a bleach bypass colour LUT (for those that understand videography) in order to give a dramatic look.  Complete and utter cobblers and I've deleted the other recordings.  I watched "The Guns of Navarone" instead  .

I am not sure who the intended audience for this is supposed to be.  What a complete waste of license fee money and Co2 to travel to Iceland and film it all.  It is not Coxy's fault.  It is the terrible writing and lack of any content and direction.

Edited November 13, 2021 by kirkster501

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

Unfortunately I have to agree with much of the sentiment expressed here. Low on content, slow commentary delivery and decent CGI. The whole shebang has me nodding off every time. Don't get me wrong, I believe Prof. Brian Cox is a positive force for public science education. All his previous series I've watched multiple times, I've read two of his books and have tickets for his tour, however he has dropped the ball and this series is a dull rehash.

[cajen2]

I can see both sides here. I haven't got a degree in cosmology or physics (mine's in English language 😄) so I'm a science dilettante but enthusiast.

I liked how the series seemed to try to incorporate the latest insights into the Big Bang, black holes, etc without trying to blind the audience with science and the CGI stuff was great.

On the negative side, watching BC trekking across yet another desert, standing on a mountain top, gazing into space and so on gets rather wearing after a while, especially since none of it seemed to have any connection with what he was saying.

It reminds me irresistibly of 'Walking with Dinosaurs', which irritated the life out of me as a palaeontology enthusiast and was roundly lambasted by experts for not indicating was what accepted fact and what was total storytelling.

All I would say is that it gripped me enough to binge-watch the whole series and left me a little sad that there was no more at the end.

[DaveS]

I've just re-watched an episode of his "Adventures in Space and Time" from earlier in the year, and although made up of earlier programs that he's re-visiting, I found it much more engaging than "Universe".

[Gfamily]

Episode 3 was good - and I read somewhere that Prof Cox thought it was particularly worthwhile.

It relates the information that GAIA* has given us - https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/p09ybxpr/universe-series-1-3-the-milky-way-island-of-light

* Over time, I suspect that this ESA mission will be give us more value than 99% of any of the others

 

[saac]

Well I thought it was excellent. Visuals were stunning and informative - for those complaining of CGI, maybe pause and think of the ready ease of presenting  a Zebra herd in Africa (Blue Planet)  compared to a white dwarf, black hole or even a little matter of the birth of the universe.  Well I guess they could have used equations instead with Prof Cox sat at a desk rather than on location with stunning scenery and contemplative looks skyward   !!!!   Balance of technical/generalist content was spot on ; cosmology very quickly gets bogged down in maths which simply would not be accessible for a public broadcast production and to be honest it would be as dull and tedious as sin. I like Cox's poetic narratives, tips hat to Carl Sagan, he makes this material accessible and inspires wonder and awe  in the subject matter - job well done.  More of this please BBC , perhaps something focusing on James Web telescope covering upcoming launch, mission intent, programme management etc. 

 

Jim 

Edited November 28, 2021 by saac

[DaveS]

I do wish they would do a remix as the music is far too loud, difficult to hear what the prof is saying.. Guess the producer thought "We paid good money for this music, make sure it stands out" forgetting that it's Prof Cox who's the important bit.

[900SL]

On 11/11/2021 at 21:27, StarWomble said:

I'm incredibly dissapointed in the series - too dumbed-down and VERY slow. 

But FAB to see the BBC spending taxpayers (NOT a license fee IMO🤬) wisely in sending the prof all over the place in a massive overpowered Rib where he was the only passenger to a remote place to 'muse' and ponder about things, and then give me his thoughts like he would to a 5 year old. What a massive waste of resource and dull as dishwater.

Rant over 🤣

in contrast, I watched an old Horizon programme straight after 'farceiverse' about dark energy and dark matter and it was very good indeed.

I fear Brian Cox is more about making entertainment than delivering anything educational.

 

Wholeheartedly agree. If I paid a licence fee I'd be spitting feathers. Cox is a self promoting freeloader. I find the PBS Spacetime stuff on youtube to be far more informative and way better presented

 

[saac]

2 hours ago, 900SL said:

Wholeheartedly agree. If I paid a licence fee I'd be spitting feathers. Cox is a self promoting freeloader. I find the PBS Spacetime stuff on youtube to be far more informative and way better presented

 

Yeah I'm not so  convinced, no where close. My BBC licence fee is £157 per annum or thereabout. Last year BBC Studios alone produced 1352 hours of studio produced content (that's 232 titles). That equates to  12 p per hour , or 48 p for the Universe series; yep I'm more than happy with that    Universe will also sell  internationally  providing investment for further production across the BBC; another "happy with that". 

I'm not sure how you are measuring or justify the charge of "freeloader", perhaps you would expand.  General principle of people being paid for services provided I would assume apply here . Prof Cox  is under no obligation to give freely of his time or expertise to the BBC.  The BBC commissioned him and paid him as is customary practice, I can't see how that even comes close to "freeloading".   I'd happily spend time listening to Cox  being paid by the BBC to share his insight than say some reality show or food programme with people sharing photographs of their dinner.  I guess it is all down to personal choice, but freeloading , I just can't see that.

 

Jim 

 

Edited November 28, 2021 by saac

[saac]

39 minutes ago, DaveS said:

I do wish they would do a remix as the music is far too loud, difficult to hear what the prof is saying.. Guess the producer thought "We paid good money for this music, make sure it stands out" forgetting that it's Prof Cox who's the important bit.

I'm sure that they said the soundtrack would be made available on BBC Sounds but I still can't find it.  

Jim 

[DaveS]

As for the soundtrack, TBH they can keep it, not remotely interested.

[saac]

I think I found it, it's up on BBC Sounds now titled  Sounds  Of The Universe with Brian Cox , Music Inspired by Universe. That 's this week's commute playlist sorted  

Jim 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sounds/play/p0b0yj0m

[900SL]

34 minutes ago, saac said:

Yeah I'm not so  convinced, no where close. My BBC licence fee is £157 per annum or thereabout. Last year BBC Studios alone produced 1352 hours of studio produced content (that's 232 titles). That equates to  12 p per hour , or 48 p for the Universe series; yep I'm more than happy with that    Universe will also sell  internationally  providing investment for further production across the BBC; another "happy with that". 

I'm not sure how you are measuring or justify the charge of "freeloader", perhaps you would expand.  General principle of people being paid for services provided I would assume apply here . Prof Cox  is under no obligation to give freely of his time or expertise to the BBC.  The BBC commissioned him and paid him as is customary practice, I'm can't see how that even comes close to "freeloading".   I'd happily spend time listening to Cox  being paid by the BBC to share his insight than say some reality show or food programme with people sharing photographs of their dinner.  I guess it is all down to personal choice, but freeloading , I just can't see that.

 

Jim 

 

Hi Jim

I've caught a few BC productions and they seem to follow a broadly similar arc, namely jetting around to as many places as possible whilst delivering content that is generally predictable  and undemanding in nature, with the typically good BBC production values. 'Eye candy for the armchair viewer' 

I believe it used to be called going on a Junket? 

There's no doubting Prof. Cox has found a rich niche to mine here though.  There's clearly a vacancy at the BBC for the new Attenborough and he fits the bill for the cheeky face of Science and Nature.  I may be being unkind I suppose. For some reason he reminds me of Tony Blair, and maybe there's a subconscious loathing thing going on there 

You may be interested in this by the way. A modernist art work entitled 'Trying to understand Professor Brian Cox' by Nate Finch, an Australian artist as I understand  https://www.singulart.com/en/artworks/nate-finch-trying-to-understand-professor-brian-cox--1206133

 

Best regards, Rich

Edited November 28, 2021 by 900SL

[JamesF]

38 minutes ago, saac said:

I'm not sure how you are measuring or justify the charge of "freeloader", perhaps you would expand.  General principle of people being paid for services provided I would assume apply here . Prof Cox  is under no obligation to give freely of his time or expertise to the BBC.  The BBC commissioned him and paid him as is customary practice, I'm can't see how that even comes close to "freeloading".   I'd happily spend time listening to Cox  being paid by the BBC to share his insight than say some reality show or food programme with people sharing photographs of their dinner.  I guess it is all down to personal choice, but freeloading , I just can't see that.

I'd agree.  Whilst he may come up with (some of) the ideas for the programmes and write some of it, I'd imagine the choices of location and visual style are down to others who have a target audience in mind.  I suspect that whilst many presenters with a physics background could do a good job of fronting most programmes relating to physics, those responsible for commissioning and planning science programmes contribute to what is almost "typecasting" of science presenters depending on the style of programme they want to make.  They get Brian Cox to do this sort of stuff, Jim Al-Khalili does a different style that's much more down to earth, Helen Czerski is a bit of an "action scientist", Mark Miodownik does more materials science type programmes and so on.

And ultimately, as he's the Royal Society's Professor for Public Engagement in Science, people are presumably paying him in the expectation that he will get involved in this sort of stuff.

As has already been said, many SGL members are probably way outside the target audience for this type of programme and shouldn't expect too much of it, just as many people with a strong interest in, say, horticulture, are outside the target audience of Gardener's World and somewhere on the net there's probably a forum for people who are really into cooking where they slag off whatever the latest celebrity chef is doing

James

Edited November 28, 2021 by JamesF

[callisto]

The way I see it "our hobby/interest" is getting air time and that's good enough for me (IMHO)  

[ScouseSpaceCadet]

6 minutes ago, callisto said:

The way I see it "our hobby/interest" is getting air time and that's good enough for me (IMHO)  

Very true, but it still sends me to sleep... This series is the only Brian Cox programme I've felt the need to criticize. In the last twelve months I've rewatched Human Universe, The Planets and even recently bought The Planets book. All fantastic however this latest affair is far too slow and brings nothing new to the table. Almost as though the series is just a place holder. Filling in time while they think of something else to produce.

 

[DaveS]

2 hours ago, 900SL said:

Wholeheartedly agree. If I paid a licence fee I'd be spitting feathers. Cox is a self promoting freeloader. I find the PBS Spacetime stuff on youtube to be far more informative and way better presented

 

In case you had missed it, Prof Cox's day job is as a scientist working at CERN and lecturing at Manchester Uni.

[DaveS]

1 hour ago, JamesF said:

I'd agree.  Whilst he may come up with (some of) the ideas for the programmes and write some of it, I'd imagine the choices of location and visual style are down to others who have a target audience in mind.  I suspect that whilst many presenters with a physics background could do a good job of fronting most programmes relating to physics, those responsible for commissioning and planning science programmes contribute to what is almost "typecasting" of science presenters depending on the style of programme they want to make.  They get Brian Cox to do this sort of stuff, Jim Al-Khalili does a different style that's much more down to earth, Helen Czerski is a bit of an "action scientist", Mark Miodownik does more materials science type programmes and so on.

And ultimately, as he's the Royal Society's Professor for Public Engagement in Science, people are presumably paying him in the expectation that he will get involved in this sort of stuff.

As has already been said, many SGL members are probably way outside the target audience for this type of programme and shouldn't expect too much of it, just as many people with a strong interest in, say, horticulture, are outside the target audience of Gardener's World and somewhere on the net there's probably a forum for people who are really into cooking where they slag off whatever the latest celebrity chef is doing

James

And don't forget Prof Alice Roberts *sigh*.

[JamesF]

33 minutes ago, DaveS said:

And don't forget Prof Alice Roberts *sigh*.

Indeed not   She's usually the "human story" science presenter

James

[Macavity]

1 hour ago, DaveS said:

In case you had missed it, Prof Cox's day job is as a scientist working at CERN and lecturing at Manchester Uni.

I get the impression "no one really knows"? lol. There are these Professorships for Public Engagement...
But the distinction between "public service" and personal (financial!) gain is somewhat blurred?
In the PAST, [IMO] you "did science" because you had a passion for the subject? These days,
it is a complex superposition of promoting science... "rationalism"... Getting "Gigs"? 🤔
Not necessarily "knocking it", but times have TRULY changed, since my day. lol
The Professor that attracted ME to "Do Physics" was NOT like them? 😎

Edited November 28, 2021 by Macavity

[callisto]

2 hours ago, ScouseSpaceCadet said:

Almost as though the series is just a place holder. Filling in time while they think of something else to produce.

Hmm 🤔, you have a point there

[UKDiver]

It's possible that he might not even get paid by the BBC for this program. I'm aware of another presenter who does not get paid as it would create 'a conflict of interest'. No idea why though.