Apart from the somewhat sneering attitude (quite normal for the BBC when discussing anything that's remotely science/technology based) and fixation with the eccentricities of a couple of presenters, this programme did provide an answer to one question.
It gave an insight into when science programmes started to become completely crap. It seems to have started in the mid to late 90's when computer graphics became cheap enough that the programme makers could focus on presentation, rather than content. Ever since that time, having pretty pictures that entertain has been more important than thought-provoking content. If that is indeed the case, it seems unlikely that we'll ever get another landmark science series, such as Life on Earth or Civilisation
Yeah, I agree-exactly what I thought. I want to be educated when I watch something on tv about science, not entertained first and foremost-but I suppose its the only way that they can keep the morons watching........dumbed down to their level. Its not good for society.
Yeah, I agree-exactly what I thought. I want to be educated when I watch something on tv about science, not entertained first and foremost-but I suppose its the only way that they can keep the morons watching........dumbed down to their level. Its not good for society.
But what is the point in making a programme on Astrophysics if only someone with a MSc is Astrophysics can understand it?
Programmes like Horizon have often been criticized for being too elitist and high-brow, all you have shown is that whatever the BBC do, they can't win.
But what is the point in making a programme on Astrophysics if only someone with a MSc is Astrophysics can understand it?.
Because astrophysicists pay the licence fee, too. Why should programmes only pander to the lowest common denominator?
The BBC gets it's money from everyone, across the spectrum of intelligence and tastes. It has a duty to service the whole audience and not just chase viewing figures.
Not a comment on this programme exactly, but the evening of programmes in general. The Horizon that was on afterwards, about Fermat's Last Theorem, started well but very soon got too complicated for me to understand (and I have a PhD in a scientific subject). It also did a good job of perpetuating the stereotypes about mathematicians (although it might just be that all maths people ARE like that). I accept that it was about the person rather than the maths, but I felt cheated that nothing was really explained.
Then there was a delightful documentary where an artist went around discovering equations. I thought he was insightful and thoroughly enjoyed it. Probably because I understood it! What a contrast from the previous show.
I've spent the past 15 years explaining technical things to novices in an easy-to-grasp way. I don't know how the BBC finds the people to write/script these things, but I'm sure I could do a decent job!
Agreed, Petely.
We settled down to watch this but were rather put-off by Robert Webb's 'smirking' delivery. You could almost hear him winking and giving knowing glances to his comedy mates - 'don't worry fellas, I'll just do this ironic voice-over and then I'll be with you'.
It would have been so much better with (say) Paul Vaughan (of Horizon fame) or indeed any one of the many more mature voice-over artists.
Deary me, I thoroughly enjoyed that, OK the jokey style of the voiceover was grating at times.
Hey ho it's TV people looking at themselves and their own output.
I was one of the million who would have beeen watching the OU's late night output years ago.
Did I somehow miss Heather Couper's appearance.
I think the sh*t hit the fan when the likes of Maggie Philbin were brought in and given 'all the exciting jobs', not because of their knowledge of science but because 'more female Producers had got jobs at the BBC', as Maggie herself pointed out.
The beginning of the end and the start of PCTV. :-(
I used to enjoy all the programmes years ago about science like Horizon and Tomorrows World,though that was crap towards the end, with a rubbish theme tune as well-- but there is still some science childrens stuff on the bbc for kids, which is important. Also programmes like scrapheap challege show a more practical application of scientific knowledge as well, so its not all bad..
I think the sh*t hit the fan when the likes of Maggie Philbin were brought in and given 'all the exciting jobs', not because of their knowledge of science but because 'more female Producers had got jobs at the BBC', as Maggie herself pointed out.
The beginning of the end and the start of PCTV. :-(
What a load of old balls, this is Tomorrows World you're talking about here, I'd be surprised if half the presenters on Tomorrows World were actually scientists, not that they needed to be for that program.
I don't think you need a Science degree to hop off a Dock crane to prove a harness works, which is the kind of 'exciting stuff' they presented.
Judith Hann was there for years and did a damn good job, buggerall PC about her presenting work IMO. TW presenters.
IIRC Johnny Ball isn't a scientist, neither were the HOW presenting team either, they didn't need to be due to the subjects they covered and their target audience.
Heather Couper, Miranda Krestovnikoff, Kathy Sykes, Hermione Cockburn, Alice Roberts, all PC appointments and under qualified to talk about Science on TV, obviously.
Really? I've only seen complaints about it being dumbed down, but maybe that's just in recent years.
I enjoyed the programme, but could have done without Robert Webb narrating.
I think the "elitist" bit is in the imagination of the BBC decision makers. They're so scared of claims that their programmes exclude people, that they operate on a hair-trigger and pre-empt such external complaints (apart from those written by critics, who are basically the same background as the beeb's people) .
Strangely, since they appear to be mostly "arts" types themselves, they aren't aware of the highbrow nature of their arts output, but since they haven't a clue about technical things, they presume that since their governing boards don't understand such things then "yer man in the street - innit" wouldn't, either. It's a peculiar situation, but just watch University Challenge as a prime example: 90% arts/history/classics, 10% science/tech.
Do we have to have Robert webb narrating so many shows in his smug/ironic manner?
I'm really sick of him
Although I smiled at a few of the gags, I'd have enjoyed the doc without them.
At times it was a bit grating, would have been better if he'd just played it straight, but he's a comedian, so playing it straight isn't why they got him involved.
Good to see a thread on this and that there are some people watching some of the excellent BBC4 programmes at the moment.
Interesting variety of comments above. I thoroughly enjoyed the programme. I didn't find it too sneering, though on the subject of sneering attitudes, the media in general constantly display these towards sci-fi programmes... but don't get me started.
Re the above point about astrophysicists paying the licence fee - well, I am a qualified one, and I also pay the licence fee, but I wouldn't presume to think for a moment that science shows should have their heads in the clouds - that's not the point at all. The general public's knowledge of basic science & mathematics is, quite frankly, almost non-existent - as someone said last night, what you don't undertand, you fear, and you won't watch it. Science programmes designed to educate should take the viewer on board without necessarily dumbing things down too much.
Re Horizon, that is an example of dumbing down over the last few years - some of the episodes in this time have been appalling. They seemed to follow the news media line of reporting a non-story and saying much about very little. It's only just recently got back on track again. The last series was quite good.
Re Tomorrow's World, Judith Hann was a scientist.
For me, The Ascent of Man is the greatest documentary series ever - a great companion piece to Kenneth Clarke's Civilisation (mentioned above; note - it was an arts series, not a science series) - everyone should have these on their shelves. Did anyone see My Father, the Bomb and Me by Lisa Jardine about Jacob Bronowski last Thursday?
It was also good to see Connections and The Body in Question get a mention (as well as the many excellent sci-fi clips). Re the poster above about the artist & the equeations - this was Matt Collings's Beautiful Equations, broadcast on Tuesday evening. It was also quite enjoyable, even if it hadn't that much to say.
The most significant point is that the BBC has suddenly found it has a rich source of programme archives that it can use to make new programmes cheaply. There's bound to be some interest in them for a lot people, although they won't break any ratings records.
For example, this and "Business Nightmares" earlier on BBC2, just a collection of old adverts and news bulletins. That's two on the same night.
Expect more.
Got to be better than some of the rubbish they schedule.
Heather Couper, Miranda Krestovnikoff, Kathy Sykes, Hermione Cockburn, Alice Roberts, all PC appointments and under qualified to talk about Science on TV, obviously.
It was very nice to see how things have changed in the past. I really think it was a bad idea to remove the Open University from the telly. That would have let those who wanted to know more about what was mentioned in the science programmes to discover much more. I agree that with computer graphics things went rather downhill. They spent more time on showing off the flashy graphics. For example, in Wonders of the Solar System, it was much better when Professor Brian Cox (PBC) showed the ideas with sticks and sand. He also seemed to spend more time explaining things. In the Universe one, PBC did not really explain things properly and there seemed to be more flashy graphics.
I think the best solution would be to have a series of programmes that teaches different science topics, the first programme giving the basics, then the other programmes expanding on them. I guess a bit like a lecture, but it would mean that those who are fascinated can learn more. It will give the best of both worlds.:D
There's still OU programming on the BBC (OU on the BBC), it's scattered about at bit, various formats, the OU banner isn't so prominent on TV anymore.
Maybe it's a bit of re-branding at work, as the OU banner might scare some people off as they consider it not for them/too in depth or dry.
For those who want more depth, then I guess following the online content or related programs on other BBC outlets is the way to go
OU programming has changed and the budget doesn't come out of the petty cash tin anymore, I'm one of those odd people who used to watch it late night when the budget was tuppence hapenny.
Coast, BBC 4's Justice season, Attenborough's work, etc, looks like different BBC departments are coming together and I guess combining budgets on productions that crossover from one department to another.
Prince Monalulu
Posts: 35,900
Comments
It gave an insight into when science programmes started to become completely crap. It seems to have started in the mid to late 90's when computer graphics became cheap enough that the programme makers could focus on presentation, rather than content. Ever since that time, having pretty pictures that entertain has been more important than thought-provoking content. If that is indeed the case, it seems unlikely that we'll ever get another landmark science series, such as Life on Earth or Civilisation
But what is the point in making a programme on Astrophysics if only someone with a MSc is Astrophysics can understand it?
Programmes like Horizon have often been criticized for being too elitist and high-brow, all you have shown is that whatever the BBC do, they can't win.
The BBC gets it's money from everyone, across the spectrum of intelligence and tastes. It has a duty to service the whole audience and not just chase viewing figures.
Then there was a delightful documentary where an artist went around discovering equations. I thought he was insightful and thoroughly enjoyed it. Probably because I understood it! What a contrast from the previous show.
I've spent the past 15 years explaining technical things to novices in an easy-to-grasp way. I don't know how the BBC finds the people to write/script these things, but I'm sure I could do a decent job!
We settled down to watch this but were rather put-off by Robert Webb's 'smirking' delivery. You could almost hear him winking and giving knowing glances to his comedy mates - 'don't worry fellas, I'll just do this ironic voice-over and then I'll be with you'.
It would have been so much better with (say) Paul Vaughan (of Horizon fame) or indeed any one of the many more mature voice-over artists.
Hey ho it's TV people looking at themselves and their own output.
I was one of the million who would have beeen watching the OU's late night output years ago.
Did I somehow miss Heather Couper's appearance.
The beginning of the end and the start of PCTV. :-(
What a load of old balls, this is Tomorrows World you're talking about here, I'd be surprised if half the presenters on Tomorrows World were actually scientists, not that they needed to be for that program.
I don't think you need a Science degree to hop off a Dock crane to prove a harness works, which is the kind of 'exciting stuff' they presented.
Judith Hann was there for years and did a damn good job, buggerall PC about her presenting work IMO.
TW presenters.
IIRC Johnny Ball isn't a scientist, neither were the HOW presenting team either, they didn't need to be due to the subjects they covered and their target audience.
Heather Couper, Miranda Krestovnikoff, Kathy Sykes, Hermione Cockburn, Alice Roberts, all PC appointments and under qualified to talk about Science on TV, obviously.
My favourite bit had to be the Doctor Who sections, though. The Doctor was the first person to get me interested in anything sciencey.
Really? I've only seen complaints about it being dumbed down, but maybe that's just in recent years.
I enjoyed the programme, but could have done without Robert Webb narrating.
Strangely, since they appear to be mostly "arts" types themselves, they aren't aware of the highbrow nature of their arts output, but since they haven't a clue about technical things, they presume that since their governing boards don't understand such things then "yer man in the street - innit" wouldn't, either. It's a peculiar situation, but just watch University Challenge as a prime example: 90% arts/history/classics, 10% science/tech.
I'm really sick of him
Although I smiled at a few of the gags, I'd have enjoyed the doc without them.
At times it was a bit grating, would have been better if he'd just played it straight, but he's a comedian, so playing it straight isn't why they got him involved.
Ah of course - that's why they used him. Too risky for the BBC to put on a programme about science without someone to make it "accessible".
Although Magnus Pyke and Patrick Moore would have been enough
I don't know when accessible = humour.
Interesting variety of comments above. I thoroughly enjoyed the programme. I didn't find it too sneering, though on the subject of sneering attitudes, the media in general constantly display these towards sci-fi programmes... but don't get me started.
Re the above point about astrophysicists paying the licence fee - well, I am a qualified one, and I also pay the licence fee, but I wouldn't presume to think for a moment that science shows should have their heads in the clouds - that's not the point at all. The general public's knowledge of basic science & mathematics is, quite frankly, almost non-existent - as someone said last night, what you don't undertand, you fear, and you won't watch it. Science programmes designed to educate should take the viewer on board without necessarily dumbing things down too much.
Re Horizon, that is an example of dumbing down over the last few years - some of the episodes in this time have been appalling. They seemed to follow the news media line of reporting a non-story and saying much about very little. It's only just recently got back on track again. The last series was quite good.
Re Tomorrow's World, Judith Hann was a scientist.
For me, The Ascent of Man is the greatest documentary series ever - a great companion piece to Kenneth Clarke's Civilisation (mentioned above; note - it was an arts series, not a science series) - everyone should have these on their shelves. Did anyone see My Father, the Bomb and Me by Lisa Jardine about Jacob Bronowski last Thursday?
It was also good to see Connections and The Body in Question get a mention (as well as the many excellent sci-fi clips). Re the poster above about the artist & the equeations - this was Matt Collings's Beautiful Equations, broadcast on Tuesday evening. It was also quite enjoyable, even if it hadn't that much to say.
Ahhh - Blake's 7..
The most significant point is that the BBC has suddenly found it has a rich source of programme archives that it can use to make new programmes cheaply. There's bound to be some interest in them for a lot people, although they won't break any ratings records.
For example, this and "Business Nightmares" earlier on BBC2, just a collection of old adverts and news bulletins. That's two on the same night.
Expect more.
Got to be better than some of the rubbish they schedule.
You're having a laugh there, right??
Laugh about what, I'm not with you.
I think the best solution would be to have a series of programmes that teaches different science topics, the first programme giving the basics, then the other programmes expanding on them. I guess a bit like a lecture, but it would mean that those who are fascinated can learn more. It will give the best of both worlds.:D
Maybe it's a bit of re-branding at work, as the OU banner might scare some people off as they consider it not for them/too in depth or dry.
For those who want more depth, then I guess following the online content or related programs on other BBC outlets is the way to go
OU programming has changed and the budget doesn't come out of the petty cash tin anymore, I'm one of those odd people who used to watch it late night when the budget was tuppence hapenny.
Coast, BBC 4's Justice season, Attenborough's work, etc, looks like different BBC departments are coming together and I guess combining budgets on productions that crossover from one department to another.