Wonders of the Universe

I think Cox is awesome. He is to astrophysics what David Attenborough is to nature. Makes it interesting without being patronising.
 
great episode:)

had to lol at the piano bit, unless I missed something there was no real relevance there, other than saying "as well as being a massively talented particle physicist, I can also play the piano".

<3 Brian Cox
 
I posted at the start of this page that I thought this episode was good and miles ahead of the first.

I still think this.

But I find his presence on screen still makes me feel some what sick at times.

He talks about these massive subjects of science while having this cheesy grin on his face, it is hard to take it all seriously. The programme is focusing on the origin of life, deep and serious subjects.. but then he smiles like a wally most of the way through!

But then we pan to some CGI shot and I am OK for a few more minutes.

It reminds me of when you see an interview about a tragic event and the person being interview is smiling while talking about some murder or *insert some other tragic event here*.

I know we have many Cox lovers here (look at the response from the first episode! lol it was great!? So they say).

I get that he wants to be a hit with the younger generation and his aim is to inspire them, but I still find him ******* annoying to watch on screen.

When talking about deep and meaningful subjects why grin? He wasn't so bad in this episode but please Cox stop with the cheesy grin.
 
Last edited:
When talking about deep and meaningful subjects why grin? He wasn't so bad in this episode but please Cox stop with the cheesy grin.

I don't think he can help it. He's being paid thousands to do his dream job, that he loves and feels passionate about:o
 
It's alright, I watched it all and will continue to do so.

I understand that it's the style of the show to explain everything like a mimic of Sagan but it gets tiresome when he often explains the same thing two or three times in one paragraph, just to fit in another rhythmic sentence.
It's the repetition of one subject in such a short space that looks like it's trying to fill time, other than that, I like it.
 
When talking about deep and meaningful subjects why grin? He wasn't so bad in this episode but please Cox stop with the cheesy grin.
Horse for courses. I like his enthusiasm. Don't forget this is aimed at the masses and the fact that some of it appeals to you suggests the formula is working :)

I understand what you're saying, and if I thought he was being instructed to act the way he does I would find it annoying. But I believe he's genuine.
 
Brian Cox said:
Physicist Professor Brian Cox has said the BBC made a mistake by agreeing to turn down the music volume for his scientific series Wonders of the Universe.

The BBC agreed to lower the sound after receiving 118 complaints about the background music on the first episode being too loud and/or intrusive.

Speaking on Radio 4's Start the Week, Cox said he thought it was an error.

"We can sometimes be too responsive to the minority of people that complain."

He added: "It should be a cinematic experience - it's a piece of film on television, not a lecture."

Agreed, bloody moaners.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-12733793
 
Was looking forward, but haven't been able to watch either all the way through. He's just so bleeding boring and repetitive.

I'll stick the the Stephen Hawkins one.
 
I never have watched anything by this guy before but he certainly is very easy to listen to and has good ways of explaining things.

What I don't get though is how he can be so certain about all these things? Like how can the temperature of 100,000,000 degrees be estimated during an explosion? It's all huge figures involved but I think perhaps it comes across as being fact when in reality it must surely be fairly rough estimates. No?
 
Do some homework

I loled. :D

What I don't get though is how he can be so certain about all these things? Like how can the temperature of 100,000,000 degrees be estimated during an explosion? It's all huge figures involved but I think perhaps it comes across as being fact when in reality it must surely be fairly rough estimates. No?

Very few things within science are considered absolute fact.

As to how they developed the evidence for such an assertion, I'm not sure. I assume it may be to do with complex maths and/or modelling though.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom