Quote:
Originally Posted by CraigS
Ok .. so here's a non-gooey thought ..
Way back in my post #51, I mentioned that I felt that Episode #1 of this series had an 'Earth-centric' spin to the way Solar Astrophysical phenomena were presented. This arose mainly because of the Death Valley sequence and the sequence of Cox taking solar photos, in what appears to be a jungle environment. (I actually lost the relevance of him being in the jungle and splitting light using the prism .. I think the point was to explain why the leaves reflect green light …  )
Anyway, whilst I appreciate the technique as being one which may enable the general audience to (perhaps) connect with what the presenter is saying, from a more scientific rational perspective, I do not feel that the point was reinforced in anything other than a quite superficial way.
As discussed in our Science Forum thread about 'Counterintuitiveness Facts', I am of the view that most of Science is counterintuitive. A corollary to this may be that if we focus too heavily on our own Earth-bound experiences, we are more than likely to completely miss the points, which the Science uncovers for us.
For example, most Astrophysical phenomena cannot be replicated here on Earth, thus most of the phenomena we see when we look through telescopes has no Earthly equivalent, nor can most of what we see, be replicated in scaled down labs/experiments on Earth. Rational thinking and rigorous, methodical scientific process, enables us to overcome such a bias.
I think the producers are atempting to make this point, (via Cox's experiments), but so far, I'm not sure it has been made with any emphasis. Such emphasis, (for me), adds to the weight and quality of these type of documentaries.
Perhaps the 'light touches' on this topic may evolve into more substance as the series progresses - I haven't yet seen the rest of the episodes.
I will be looking for signs of this aspect, as the rest unfolds. If it doesn't emerge, then for me, the series will fall into the 'eye candy' category. (Much as this also initially appears to be the only reason for the selection of Cox for presenting the material - as is evidenced also, by the observation that the only impact the documentary has thus far achieved here, is in generating comments about Cox himself).
Comments welcome (the above is only my humble opinion).
Cheers |
The way I see it, is that in this series his style of presenting is to engage the viewer and educate on a "fairly simple" level. Demonstration through tests helps us understand better. I liked the earth based approach as it was very different to many other documentaries. With the leaf test (that you mentioned in your first para.), he was demonstrating how all the plants have adapted to the sun by abosorbing the energy and making it (the sun) work for them. Now I wouldn't know that if I was busy gawking at him would I.
(I got that out the way at the beginning when I had to keep rewinding it).
I do think if people weren't interested in the subject material, they would tune out eventually, candy or not. In comparison, I'm sure "The Universe" series didn't just hire Amy Mainzer for her intellect. They splashed a ton of make-up on her, styled her hair, dressed her immaculately and presented her looking like Barbie's sister.
Also, Carl Sagen was a very handsome man with a voice and presentation style to makes us all melt, men included.
Yes, he's sweet eye candy, but if there was nothing on the show to hold my attention intellectually, I wouldn't be watching it and absorbing the information he relays. I was skeptical about this series as I mentioned in my earlier post, as he didn't hold my attention well enough in other shows I've seen him in. But this one got to me.
Interestingly, did you notice at the end when the credits came up, it was written & directed by someone else
What does that mean exactly
There were no credits to Brian Cox, just only as a presenter.