Wonders of the Universe

Russinating said:
mavity episode was the first for me. Could have been half an hour instead and still had enough time for random cut away shots of mountains. Typical TV: 20 minutes content spread out over an hour.
Click to expand...


To be fair that's true of pretty much every documentary these days. I blame the Discovery Channel.


M
 
The 5G spin was great.

All signs of the smug mug, gone!

Can we please keep him on a planet which has gravitational force of at least 5G? (more would be preferable!!).
 
I think nature had finally caught up with Brian Cox when at 5G he actually looked his age (43) for about 20 seconds :D

I feel the programme seems dragged out but comfortably slow. Also it just seems edited like loads of little intros strung together :confused:

I am a little critical of the programme...''next week I'll be standing in some other part of the world (on holiday) pondering at the sky (again) at the expense of your TV Licence'' :D

I'm glad this subject is getting air time and I do enjoy it, but I did prefer the last series.
 
I've enjoyed his previous shows (Just got Solar System on blu ray :cool:) but I find this one a little, I can't quite put my finger on it.

I dislike shows where they put a very clever person in it and get them to basically act/talk stupid to cater for a particular audience. I think this series is bugging me more then others, I also think this show is starting to take it's self far to seriously. Might just be me though.
 
It has got better but I still feel it is drawn out.

It still has wasted time/elements which aren't needed.. padding I think the word is :D.

There are still way too many wide angle shots of walking.. walking.. look up at the sky.. ponder... wonder... now look!!! I'm on a mountain.. cue helicopter panning shot! Why is there a helicopter panning shot? It doesn't make me think for one second 'wow.. I'm amazed by our world'.

How many times have we seen mountains? We have all seen them on the TV.. why go to the bother of climbing one? Why go to the expense!?

These shots add nothing of value for me at all for me.

He might as well be in the UK! would have been slightly more cost effective to shoot.
 
Last edited:
Anyone else notice that he avoids the use of certain words and avoids religion?

Catering for the US Audience :p
 
Big Chris said:
Does anyone know of a site that lists the music they use for this? I've had a search but can't find anything. There's a particular track that's appeared a few times that I recognise but can't place.
Click to expand...

I had exactly the same thought, found this site but it didn't seem to have the one I was thinking of.
 
Tummy said:
No, I think they're very careful about using certain words, imho, to open it up the American market.
Click to expand...

But why would a program that spends most of it's time discussing the non-religious theory on the creation of the universe (the big bang) and the resulting evolution theories, suddenly bring religion into it? Not to mention the fact that Brian Cox is a staunch atheist :confused:
 
philip2009 said:
OK, he just went all the way to Victoria Falls to explain what a rainbow is. That just about sums up this series ... style over substance.
Click to expand...

You say that, however it's the style that draws in the audience.

I have had it said to me many times before, where is the use in knowing something amazing if you can't tell people about it.

Presentation of scientific knowledge is a fine art, a different balance needs to be struck for different audiences. For a joint venture between the BBC and the discovery channel on a program that was shown at prime time on BBC1, sucking people in with some gorgeous visuals and a compelling soundtrack, while imparting the most important facts about a subject in a way that people will easily remember seems like a great success to me.

Clearly, if you're heavily into the subject already then chances are you already know all the facts, in that case, why not just enjoy your subject being shared with others in a way that they can interact with.

I like to think I am fairly knowledgeable about astronomy and physics and and the like, but I have always found a few snippets of new info in the stuff by Prof. Cox, and in places where I haven't I have always enjoyed the presentation in the same way as I might a good exhibition in a museum.

I really don't understand why anyone could have an issue with this program. Any more substance and it would have turned off a HUGE part of its audience, and frankly without effectively becoming an academic lecture, a little more substance would have done nothing to turn people already knowledgeable more onto it. They struck an excellent balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom