Orbit with Kate Humble.

[twowheelsgood]

I guess so, maybe it's a generational thing but most of what was covered was talked about in school in my day.

It may be factual but at no point did it really fire any imaginative thought. In fact no emotional response whatsoever, it's like watching a repeat of "Heartbeat" on ITV3 waiting for something else to come on.

I remember to this day Carl Sagan explaining multi-dimensions outside those we experience using an angry apple as a visitor from another dimension! Brian Cox telling you with wide-eyed certainty something is "amazing" to a wide-screen cgi background isn't the same as you deciding for yourself something you just heard was in fact "amazing".

...and let's face it Ms. Humble doesn't fill a wetsuit like Dr. Miranda Krestovnikoff or Professor Alice Roberts, bless 'er.

 

[col]

I actually enjoy the simplicity of how these shows are presented. Some things are made very easy to understand which may not have been grasped before. This to me makes them great, as everyone can enjoy and understand whats going on.
Agree with the wetsuit filling

 

[thnurg]

I wonder what came first. The programme idea that needed thinking man's tottie, or the tottie looking for a vehicle?

 

[MontyVeda]

why on earth shouldn't they entertain us with science? I've seen plenty of OU type programmes and they are as dull as dishwater.


And there's no point harping on a programme made 30 years ago and going "oh back in my day..." Science has moved on in the last 30 years.

 

[ufkacbln]

I believe humble Kate has no scientific qualifications though.

Neither has Gillian McKeith!

 

[snorri]

James Burkes "Connections" the ideas are still in my mind 30 years later.

Still in my mind too, for its awfulness.
He rambled on and on from one topic to another with every sentence vaguely connected to the one before, terrible.

Mind you, after all these years perhaps memories have distorted the facts.

 

[marinyork]

Agreed.

It's visual wallpaper, science lite for the dumbed-down TV generation. Similarly, I caught 'Empire' last night written and presented by Paxo and we were treated to eternal filler like far too much footage of horse-racing at Happy Valley HK rather than details about the topic. I'd have hoped Paxo would have done better ...
It seems even programs I might be interested in watching are kindergarten at best.

I recommend the stanford channel on youtube. It has for example just on one science topic free access to pretty decent lectures that wills strech peoples' minds. For example Leonard Susskind, one of the most famous physicists in the world alive today has quite a few things on there that he dubs 'modern physics' in the titles - special relativity, classical mechanics, quantum mechanics and statistical mechanics. He also has a course on what he calls new revolutions .

 

[slowmotion]

A broadcaster who doesn't dumb his material down...?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01596/patrick-moore_1596659c.jpg

 

[Fab Foodie]

The only person with the ability to impart information with such intelligence today is Jonathan Meades and these are not really documentaries and are certainly not science, more personal polemics on topics that interest him.

Agree, though I often don't understand what he's talking about, but I like the way he says it!

Connections, Cosmos, Ascent of man and even Jaques Cousteau inspired me to a path scientific!

 

[marinyork]

A broadcaster who doesn't dumb his material down...?

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/01596/patrick-moore_1596659c.jpg

There's a lot of really good stuff in the BBC archives from the sky at night if only the beeb would let the public have access to them.

 

[Rezillo]

Meh, Primetime BBC science documentaries these days seem high on CGI content but low on actual science. I learned less from the entire Brian Cox series on the Solar System than from one episode of "Cosmos" with Carl Sagan. This series is far, far worse, at least so far.

Agree with your first sentences but disagree with the last - I thought it was a refreshing change from the now-usual treatment of science on TV. No stopping to repeat everything every five minutes, no distracting camera tricks and a certain level of terminology knowledge was assumed of the viewer.

It didn't pretend to be (the old) Horizon so perhaps my expectations weren't that high. However, there's a difference between dumbing down and explaining complex concepts in a simple but effective way and I think both programmes have achieved the latter pretty well so far.

John

 

[MontyVeda]

There's a lot of really good stuff in the BBC archives from the sky at night if only the beeb would let the public have access to them.

slightly off topic but i have a variety of stonehenge TV docs darting back to the late 60's... it's fascinating how they change their minds from one doc to the next.

 

[MontyVeda]

Agree with your first sentences but disagree with the last - I thought it was a refreshing change from the now-usual treatment of science on TV. No stopping to repeat everything every five minutes, no distracting camera tricks and a certain level of terminology knowledge was assumed of the viewer.

It didn't pretend to be (the old) Horizon so perhaps my expectations weren't that high. However, there's a difference between dumbing down and explaining complex concepts in a simple but effective way and I think both programmes have achieved the latter pretty well so far.

John

you've just reminded me... I was watching Horizon about solar storms the other day and although I'm no scientist, i found myself thinking "this is all bullshit" throughout the 'documentary' (i use that term very loosely). What has happened to Horizon???

 

[marinyork]

slightly off topic but i have a variety of stonehenge TV docs darting back to the late 60's... it's fascinating how they change their minds from one doc to the next.

.

Horizon is variable, but I've watched through the archive trial some of the horizons from the late 70s and early 80s before sophisticated graphics took over and if you bear in mind what was cutting edge knowledge at the time and what journalists may have had access to the standard was extremely high indeed. There were a few duff ones, but I did find it quite telling that some of these ones made 30 years ago told you more than what they do today. The sky at night has changed its mind over several things, well it hasn't it is just that things have been discovered. It is insightful to know what was thought in the past as often the programmes go back to the basics.

 

[ufkacbln]

Cyclchat guidelines say that you're supposed to refer to her as "Doctor" Gillian McKeith when you're poo-pooing her qualifications.

I though that her full medical title was "Gillian McKeith"