Wonders of the Universe

manic_man said:
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.
Click to expand...

Its great isn't it. I just spoke to my mum and she loves it, makes it all very accessible and exciting for the average layman. He is interesting, the visual style is great and visually stunning.

I would rather they spent my entire licence fee on a few programs like this than 95% of the crap on the bbc. Some people love soaps and others don't but thats why the beeb covers such a wide range of topics.

At any rate, I would imagine that a soap opera costs a hell of a lot more than his one man show does.
 
Starting to get a bit frustrated by watching this, I just wish there were slightly less CGI sequences, especially when they're being repeated throughout the series, makes the whole thing feel a little too long winded :(
 
manic_man said:
You say that, however it's the style that draws in the audience. ...
Click to expand...

Does the type of audience who are drawn in by the style really give two hoots about the subject matter? Former New Scientist editor Alun Anderson had a point, although I don't take quite the same aggressive stance.

Anyway, Jim Al-Khalili in his current series manages to do just as well as Wonders of the Universe without the bulging audience patronisation budget I assume Cox had. </rant>
 
philip2009 said:
Does the type of audience who are drawn in by the style really give two hoots about the subject matter? Former New Scientist editor Alun Anderson had a point, although I don't take quite the same aggressive stance.

Anyway, Jim Al-Khalili in his current series manages to do just as well as Wonders of the Universe without the bulging audience patronisation budget I assume Cox had. </rant>
Click to expand...

Of course they care about the subject matter, are you saying that someone would watch his show without the audio because they have no interest in what he says?

This isn't aimed at anyone who hasn't got a casual interest in the universe. That is why the show is presented as it is. Why don't we just have a teleprompter running down our screen explaining everything on tv rather than using pictures and "visual style".

That is what separates every good show from those that are not; accessibility, interesting subject and well presented with a great visual style.

Your last statement should give you all the answers you need. He presents the same information and yet is not as popular as Brian Cox or his show. What is the difference.
 
philip2009 said:
Does the type of audience who are drawn in by the style really give two hoots about the subject matter? Former New Scientist editor Alun Anderson had a point, although I don't take quite the same aggressive stance.

Anyway, Jim Al-Khalili in his current series manages to do just as well as Wonders of the Universe without the bulging audience patronisation budget I assume Cox had. </rant>
Click to expand...

K, why don't you suggest a program to the BBC where you can read out a university level cosmology book to the audience. I'm sure people will love it.
 
fez said:
Its great isn't it. I just spoke to my mum and she loves it, makes it all very accessible and exciting for the average layman. He is interesting, the visual style is great and visually stunning.

I would rather they spent my entire licence fee on a few programs like this than 95% of the crap on the bbc. Some people love soaps and others don't but thats why the beeb covers such a wide range of topics.

At any rate, I would imagine that a soap opera costs a hell of a lot more than his one man show does.
Click to expand...

This tbh, I'd rather have a few high quality televison shows than more crap ones.
 
It's OK, it's over now Shamikebab.

Tonight was the last episode of this travel padded series.

Let's be honest, even the die hard Cox lovers have to admit that them 4 hours taken up by the Wonders of the Universe could have been presented in a programme lasting no more than an hour and a half and still would have been interesting.

It was packed full of crap! I know that one persons crap is another's treasure, but seriously.. the amount of panning shots, 'deep in thought stares to the horizon', and travelling to some remote location which adds next to zero beneficial value to the topic... is all just ridiculous. I would say each episode only had around 40% real content if you were lucky. I understand it needs to look nice in order to pull the viewing figures in, but the tone of the series concentrated way too much on the visual aspect and went on to neglected the actual subject most of the time.

For me episode 2 was the only episode which had any real content.

A poor series in my eyes.
 
Last edited:
2StepSteve said:
It's OK, it's over now Shamikebab.

Tonight was the last episode of this travel padded series.

Let's be honest, even the die hard Cox lovers have to admit that them 4 hours taken up by the Wonders of the Universe could have been presented in a programme lasting no more than an hour and a half and still would have been interesting.

It was packed full of crap! I know that one persons crap is another's treasure, but seriously.. the amount of panning shots, 'deep in thought stares to the horizon', and travelling to some remote location which adds next to zero beneficial value to the topic... is all just ridiculous. I would say each episode only had around 40% real content if you were lucky. I understand it needs to look nice in order to pull the viewing figures in, but the tone of the series concentrated way too much on the visual aspect and went on to neglected the actual subject most of the time.

For me episode 2 was the only episode which had any real content.

A poor series in my eyes.
Click to expand...

I just have to say that I absolutely loved this series. I'm a fairly keen person when it comes to science / cosmology - and sure - I can tell when Mr. Cox might be milking the budget a *bit* when it comes to the locations chosen to explain some aspects (rainbow / falls being one of them!).

The main point I'd like to put across however is that it gets my friends talking about the the universe, space, time and our beginnings rather than the usual fare (beer, music and women - not that I'm adverse to any of those). This is the first time I've seen a series of this type get people who normally aren't that excited by the subject sit down and really get verbal about it.

This is TV licence money well spent in my opinion. Sure - it might be spoon fed slightly but if you took out all of the CGI, the beautiful locations, Cox's overblown similes and the cinematic score: how many people do you think would be interested? If you've got a passion of the subject - surely the more people interested the better?

Just my two pennies.
 
I watched all 4 and didn't notice that much stuff being repeated? the CGI was fine, surely it's a necessity to anyone with no physics knowledge, how else are we supposed to envisage it?

he actually has a semi-rant about coronation street in that vimeo video a few posts up:p
 
2StepSteve said:
It's OK, it's over now Shamikebab.

Tonight was the last episode of this travel padded series.

Let's be honest, even the die hard Cox lovers have to admit that them 4 hours taken up by the Wonders of the Universe could have been presented in a programme lasting no more than an hour and a half and still would have been interesting.

It was packed full of crap! I know that one persons crap is another's treasure, but seriously.. the amount of panning shots, 'deep in thought stares to the horizon', and travelling to some remote location which adds next to zero beneficial value to the topic... is all just ridiculous. I would say each episode only had around 40% real content if you were lucky. I understand it needs to look nice in order to pull the viewing figures in, but the tone of the series concentrated way too much on the visual aspect and went on to neglected the actual subject most of the time.

For me episode 2 was the only episode which had any real content.

A poor series in my eyes.
Click to expand...

If you understand exactly what he is saying and referencing from the second it leaves his lips then you could cut 70% of the show out. Most the audience will not have this knowledge already and seeing someone passionate about science and willing to be less technical and arrogant is a god send.

That quote from the previous editor of the new scientist was tongue in cheek I hope, otherwise it shows a complete ignorance of the issues science has nowadays.

We are trying to get more people to follow the sciences and these programs are accessible to all ages. You will have parents sitting with their children watching this and talking about it afterwards. Thats great; those children might suddenly develop an interest in science that schools seem quite happy to neglect.

I always applied myself more when I could relate a theory to an application. Science was usually taught in such a boring way that the only people who had a real love for it were those who spent their own time learning the more interesting aspects of it.
 
To the people who hate on the CGI and exotic backdrops I ask, what else should they be showing? Brian Cox stood infront of a blackboard writing equations and pointing at stuff? Yeah, that's going to do well...
 
Doohickey said:
Good interview with him from The Guardian, where he addresses the OTT of random mountain shots and 'dumbing down' etc.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2011/mar/24/brian-cox-wonders-of-the-universe
Click to expand...

Quite a good interview. I am getting a bit sick of this idea that to be taken seriously you must be dull, ugly and with little passion for what you do.

Hes not a model, they could have just hired him to write it and got some 25 year old looker to actually speak but they didn't. The truth in the scientific field is that charisma and excitement for the subject is sorely lacking and gets worse as you get into the harder stuff. He makes it interesting, gives people time to drink in the wonders of the universe and relates the concepts to the planet we live on and things we know already.
 
manic_man said:
For a joint venture between the BBC and the discovery channel
Click to expand...



Well that certainly explains the weaknesses of the series. Does anyone make documentaries these days that are not co-productions with the DS? They've already ruined Horizon, and their aimed-at-14-year-old-boys (their quote, not mine) school of voice-over has permeated even things they didn't have a hand in. I'm only surprised that any good bits crept through. Although I probably won't bother with the last episode as the first three were weak enough.


M
 
Calneon said:
To the people who hate on the CGI and exotic backdrops I ask, what else should they be showing? Brian Cox stood infront of a blackboard writing equations and pointing at stuff? Yeah, that's going to do well...
Click to expand...

They could have made each episode a good 10-15 mins shorter if they hadn't OTT'd on the CGI and "him walking and standing with contemplation etched on his brow" shots.
 
For those that say his show is OTT, take a look at his live presentation style (few videos on youtube of his lectures at Manchester, he also has a vid on TED), he is referred to as a rock-star scientist because he engages his audience in a way I doubt I, for example, ever will.

I have no doubt much of that comes from his time behind a keyboard. That's not to say he doesn't still come across as a bit nervous, he's still clearly a scientist first and foremost.

And it would also be fair to remind I think of his academic achievements, the man is clearly brilliant. You don't get to be a Prof. before your 45, in charge of a department at a huge University, as well as an important CERN experimental group, as well as having regular slots on TV for your own programs, if you don't actually have the goods in your head!

Let me put it this way, I certainly look to people like him for presentation tips, in the hope my delivery can improve and become more engaging.
 
Have to admit it: Solar System was better than Universe.

I don't see how what WotU did stylistically was any different than what they do with Top Gear every week. At least with this, I didn't have to listen to Clarkson making a pretentious tit of himself again.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom