Universe, with Brian Cox

[bungeejumper]

Either I'm getting old, or Brian Cox is losing his touch. I've watched three episodes of the current series, and fallen asleep during two of them. How are others getting on?

I don't think it's that I'm not trying hard enough. I think it's that Mr Cox has finally reached the limits of the scientific information that can be understood by a mere layman like me in an armchair. So, instead of wasting his time trying to teach me quantum physics, he just gives up and reels off endless volumes of statements that have presumably been computed by some great institute or other (he doesn't usually say which ones), and that's that. You don't ask how he knows that there are galaxies that are older than the origins of the universe - you just nod and hope he'll say something comprehensible before too long.

And above it all, the crashing computer graphics and the loud music and the strange wailing noises like a cat caught in a mangle. And our Brian talking in a slow, quiet voice as if he's reading the Old Testament. (Sometimes he is.)

Take episode one. Before the universe was formed, there was nothing but threads of dark matter holding space together like a web. And, slowly, the hydrogen atoms got their acts together, and ....... hang on, Brian, hydrogen atoms? I thought you said there was nothing there?

Ain't no time to wonder why, whoopee, we all gotta fly. In comes the wailing and the rock soundtrack and the Doctor Who graphics, and whoosh, we're off again. There were definitely times when I'd rather have been watching Rimmer and Lister and Kryten. At least they had an answer to the problem with the white hole.

BJ

[scrumpyjack]

Yes, once you have said the Universe is BIG, not sure where you go from there? Trouble is we've heard it all before many times, so when he drones on about another huge galaxy heading straight for ours, yes we know it is Andromeda and yes we know that when it hits, nothing will actually hit anything because everything is so far apart the gaps are HUGE.

[kempiejon]

SO puts Brian on when she goes to bed early specifically for the soporific qualities of Brian's softly spoken narrative.

[pje16]

When he first appeared on TV I thought he was very good
but I now feel he is too full of self importance and sounds condescending, so I don't watch with him anymore
sorry - that could just be me
PS thanks for the Red Dwarf references @bungeejumper

[todthedog]

If he talks any slower time will reverse.

Manages to make the incredibly interesting unbelievably dull.

[scotview]

Agree with the tedium of this series.

Seems to me Brian Cox is like a younger David Attenborough. Attenborough has stepped well away from his brilliant wildlife movie making career. Brian Cox is coming to the limit of his, short, presentational career. He will probably go on a similar grail quest, like Attenborough, pay rolled by the BBC whether we want to listen to it, or not.

[tjh290633]

Either I'm getting old, or Brian Cox is losing his touch. I've watched three episodes of the current series, and fallen asleep during two of them. How are others getting on?

I have fallen asleep in every one. I think I lasted longer on the Milky Way, but I have no idea about how far in I was. The first one turned me off with strange (alledged) music. We have this standing in the dark but not showing anything of interest at that time. A voice over some of the graphics would be better. Why when you are talking about the Universe, do you have to visit some strange place?

I will have to ask his Auntie Kath.

TJH

[scotia]

I'm afraid I'm another down-voter for Brian Cox's Universe. I have only watched a small part of one episode, but the music and the vague talk decided me that it was not for me. Not a patch on Jim Al-Khalili.

[Redmires]

Yep. All style and no substance. I too have been falling asleep halfway through. To be fair to Brian Cox, I think the problem is wholly a production issue. In one episode he referred to 'styrofoam' (and not polystyrene as it is known in the UK) and it jarred with me. Then I realised that the programme is a co-production with a US broadcaster and I'm not going to say that it's been dumbed down, but it's been dumbed down.....

I long for the days when Horizon and Equinox (C4) were intelligent, challenging science based programmes. All substance and little style, you could say
As mentioned, there's always Jim Al-Khalili and some others on BBC Four though. TV for grown-ups.

[Arborbridge]

Well, I have to agre with the majority. Was his earlier series really as bad? I remember being quite inspired by it, but this is just slow, slow, slow. All the lovingly crafted graphics - some of which are really good - do not make up for the lack of pace.

These programs should be 30 or 40 minutes. It seems odd to say it when he is talking about the whole universe, but there are simply not enough facts in each episode to support an hour. I'm watching it because there are a few things I did not know, but honestly, only out of a sense of duty - it isn't fun.

Arb.

[Mike4]

As mentioned, there's always Jim Al-Khalili and some others on BBC Four though. TV for grown-ups.

You mean Radio 4 presumably, or is Jim on the telly too nowadays? (I don't run a telly so wouldn't know.)

Who was it said (something like) "Radio is similar to television but the pictures are better"?

[XFool]

As mentioned, there's always Jim Al-Khalili and some others on BBC Four though. TV for grown-ups.

You mean Radio 4 presumably, or is Jim on the telly too nowadays? (I don't run a telly so wouldn't know.)

He has been the the narrator on several past TV science documentary programmes and series. One that comes to mind is 'Shock and Awe: The Story of Electricity' This is not currently available on iPlayer.

He also did a programme on Sellafield - which I enjoyed as it reunited me with several memories from my boyhood, including recognising the fuel rods inside an ancient decommisioned nuclear reactor. Often wondered where they were for...

[XFool]

...About the latest Brian Cox series: I have only seen one, been watching 'Shetland' on at the same time. I know the critics have also given it a hard time, but how much is down to Cox and how much to the producers of the programme? I often get frustrated by science programmes today - is it the old 'dumbed down' thing? - they seem terrified of frightening everyone with 'dull' facts or long explanations. They want drama, excitement, spectacle and entertainment! All in easily digestible bite-sized pieces, or so it seems.

[XFool]

I long for the days when Horizon and Equinox (C4) were intelligent, challenging science based programmes. All substance and little style, you could say

Really? The earlier Horizon, yes. But Equinox? I never worked out what that was supposed to be about. I couldn't ever reconcile to it being a "science" programme after the one dedicated to the Los Angeles(?) police department on drug busts... Indeed, following a later version of Horizon on Auschwitz(?) - Yes? But No? But? - I wrote a letter to the BBC complaining about it and liking it to an episode of Equinox!

Mercifully, I feel Horizon has improved since those days.

Then again, in the very early days of C4 - do you remember them?! - there was a programme I think was called 'Shouts & Murmurs', or something similar (I have never since been able find a trace of it on the Internet). Though when I think now of those early C4 programmes I often wonder if I simply dreamed the whole thing (it often felt like that at the time) - or somebody was spiking my coffee.

[Redmires]

As mentioned, there's always Jim Al-Khalili and some others on BBC Four though. TV for grown-ups.

You mean Radio 4 presumably, or is Jim on the telly too nowadays? (I don't run a telly so wouldn't know.)

Who was it said (something like) "Radio is similar to television but the pictures are better"?

He has had quite a few on BBC Four (TV channel). There's none on iplayer at the moment but they are repeated often enough.
This shows the 13 series that he has produced for BBC 4

https://jimal-khalili.com/broadcasting/tv/

[Bminusrob]

I agree with most of the comments here. I enjoyed Brian Cox's previous series, but after watching (half of) the first of this series, I stopped the recording of subsequent episodes. I think the problem is that he is trying to stretch half an hour's worth of information into five(?) hours of television by adding lots of pretty pictures. Yawn.

[SteMiS]

Take episode one. Before the universe was formed, there was nothing but threads of dark matter holding space together like a web. And, slowly, the hydrogen atoms got their acts together, and .......

Has he just made that up because I've never literally heard that before...?

[Mike4]

As mentioned, there's always Jim Al-Khalili and some others on BBC Four though. TV for grown-ups.

You mean Radio 4 presumably, or is Jim on the telly too nowadays? (I don't run a telly so wouldn't know.)

Who was it said (something like) "Radio is similar to television but the pictures are better"?

He has had quite a few on BBC Four (TV channel). There's none on iplayer at the moment but they are repeated often enough.
This shows the 13 series that he has produced for BBC 4

https://jimal-khalili.com/broadcasting/tv/

Excellent, thanks. On Amazon Prime so I can watch with no telly licence, yay!

The first episode suffered (for me) from the same effect as Brian Cox. Three minutes of interesting information squeezed into half an hour. Later episodes got more interesting

[bungeejumper]

Take episode one. Before the universe was formed, there was nothing but threads of dark matter holding space together like a web. And, slowly, the hydrogen atoms got their acts together, and .......

Has he just made that up because I've never literally heard that before...?

Warning, I'm well out of my depth here. But apparently there's a consensus that there might have been something before Big Bang and the origins of the universe (13.787 billion years ago). The so-called Methuselah star was reckoned until recently to be 16 billion years old, although that's now being called into question. So I did a bit more reading up on t'interweb.

Methuselah has been called a "low-metallicity" star, because it consists of nothing much except for hydrogen and helium. Most stars, by comparison, have a sizeable proportion of other metals in their composition - but that difference seems to make sense if we reflect that they were created during/after Big Bang, when the lights had been switched on and the more complex elements were being forged.

Where did I learn that? Not from Brian Cox! Do I know whether it's true? Nope, I have absolutely no idea. But try this website: https://www.space.com/how-can-a-star-be ... verse.html . Or this one: https://www.digit.in/features/sci/digit ... 53766.html

Fascinating stuff. But no real surprise that an American-funded show wouldn't tackle it. Why, nearly half the US population thinks the world was created in 4004 BC, and that even the dinosaurs' bones were put there by God as a puzzle for humankind to muse upon. I can't see any US network that relied on advertising revenues wanting to annoy its viewers with the idea that it might all be even older than Big Bang.

BJ

[servodude]

Why, nearly half the US population thinks the world was created in 4004 BC, and that even the dinosaurs' bones were put there by God as a puzzle for humankind to muse upon

Well... if they wanted it to be a puzzle they'd have mixed up the order they were buried a bit