As another review has already mentioned this is NOT Prof. Cox's best work. I'd go further. It's his worst.
The review in the Guardian talked about the dumbing down that is right through the programme. But it's worse than that. I know a bit about this subject and in the first half hour alone I spotted three statements made by the professor which at best could be categorized as "misleading" but at worst one might even say they were just wrong.
Firstly, he begins one segment with the statement that "in the beginning" there were filaments of dark matter across the universe. Okay, we'll allow the reference to Genesis with the "in the beginning" but the fact remains that "in the beginning" there was NOT a web of filaments across the universe. "In the beginning" there was the Big Bang, followed by a massive inflationary period, followed by fundamental particles forming, followed by ... and then there was, at some point well after "the beginning", the formation of a network of filaments of dark matter across the universe. So, no, "in the beginning" is just wrong.
Secondly, at one point he describes the life cycle of stars from Hydrogen and Helium right up to the heaviest element that is created in stellar nuclear fusion, iron. Correct. But then he goes on to say that in the life cycle of stars, the star then collapses and an implosion occurs with the resultant distribution of all these elements out into space to seed the creation of more stars. This time, a very misleading statement. Sure, many stars end their life in this way but they need to be of sufficient mass to do so. Our sun, for example, will not end in a supernova explosion as it just isn't large enough. Yes, in the early universe most stars were large enough for this to occur but to state this or at least implying that all stars end their lives in this way is wrong.
Thirdly, he specifically states that the elements that are created which are heavier than iron come from the collision of two stars. Where did that come from? It is well understood, well documented, and widely studied that the heavier elements from above iron in the table right up to Uranium are created during a supernova process when the collapse of a dying star towards the core fuses the remaining elements in the star's core into those heavier elements before the final explosion distributes them out into space where they eventually coalesce into other stellar systems and their planets (like Earth!). Collisions of stars? He knows better than that. I've never seen a reference to any astronomer observing the catastrophic collision of stars though a large star or black hole pulling matter away from a smaller companion star is common enough (and that doesn't create heavy elements). Probably heavier elements would be created IF or when stars collide (rare now but maybe more common early on?) but the main method of creation for heavier elements during the life of the universe has been supernova explosions at the end of a massive star's life.
But the errors weren't the worst of it.
The show was just incredibly slow and tedious.
The prof would make a statement with a sense of profoundness and then give us five or more seconds to absorb what he said and understand just how important it was. Then he would spend another few seconds enunciating another sentence equally profound (in his mind) and then give us another five or more seconds to understand how important the information was. On and on and on and on it went. Ad nauseum and I do mean nauseum.
I just wanted him to get on with it.
I would guess if you could edit out all the long gaps of silence (or music) in between the profound statements, the show could be reduced from 1 hour to maybe 45 minutes. It was that bad. Speed up the delivery as well instead of dragging out each sentence and you're down to 35-40 minutes tops.
The music? Just dreadful.
The CGI? Over the top and sometimes they lingered on images way WAY too long. Once we've seen the image of what a hot burning blue supergiant star looks like theoretically, did they really need to keep going back to the same image over and over and over again? I think not. I guess that paid for the special effects, so they wanted to get their money's worth.
We gave up after about 35 minutes when my wife said she was falling asleep.
We expect better Prof. Cox.
The review in the Guardian talked about the dumbing down that is right through the programme. But it's worse than that. I know a bit about this subject and in the first half hour alone I spotted three statements made by the professor which at best could be categorized as "misleading" but at worst one might even say they were just wrong.
Firstly, he begins one segment with the statement that "in the beginning" there were filaments of dark matter across the universe. Okay, we'll allow the reference to Genesis with the "in the beginning" but the fact remains that "in the beginning" there was NOT a web of filaments across the universe. "In the beginning" there was the Big Bang, followed by a massive inflationary period, followed by fundamental particles forming, followed by ... and then there was, at some point well after "the beginning", the formation of a network of filaments of dark matter across the universe. So, no, "in the beginning" is just wrong.
Secondly, at one point he describes the life cycle of stars from Hydrogen and Helium right up to the heaviest element that is created in stellar nuclear fusion, iron. Correct. But then he goes on to say that in the life cycle of stars, the star then collapses and an implosion occurs with the resultant distribution of all these elements out into space to seed the creation of more stars. This time, a very misleading statement. Sure, many stars end their life in this way but they need to be of sufficient mass to do so. Our sun, for example, will not end in a supernova explosion as it just isn't large enough. Yes, in the early universe most stars were large enough for this to occur but to state this or at least implying that all stars end their lives in this way is wrong.
Thirdly, he specifically states that the elements that are created which are heavier than iron come from the collision of two stars. Where did that come from? It is well understood, well documented, and widely studied that the heavier elements from above iron in the table right up to Uranium are created during a supernova process when the collapse of a dying star towards the core fuses the remaining elements in the star's core into those heavier elements before the final explosion distributes them out into space where they eventually coalesce into other stellar systems and their planets (like Earth!). Collisions of stars? He knows better than that. I've never seen a reference to any astronomer observing the catastrophic collision of stars though a large star or black hole pulling matter away from a smaller companion star is common enough (and that doesn't create heavy elements). Probably heavier elements would be created IF or when stars collide (rare now but maybe more common early on?) but the main method of creation for heavier elements during the life of the universe has been supernova explosions at the end of a massive star's life.
But the errors weren't the worst of it.
The show was just incredibly slow and tedious.
The prof would make a statement with a sense of profoundness and then give us five or more seconds to absorb what he said and understand just how important it was. Then he would spend another few seconds enunciating another sentence equally profound (in his mind) and then give us another five or more seconds to understand how important the information was. On and on and on and on it went. Ad nauseum and I do mean nauseum.
I just wanted him to get on with it.
I would guess if you could edit out all the long gaps of silence (or music) in between the profound statements, the show could be reduced from 1 hour to maybe 45 minutes. It was that bad. Speed up the delivery as well instead of dragging out each sentence and you're down to 35-40 minutes tops.
The music? Just dreadful.
The CGI? Over the top and sometimes they lingered on images way WAY too long. Once we've seen the image of what a hot burning blue supergiant star looks like theoretically, did they really need to keep going back to the same image over and over and over again? I think not. I guess that paid for the special effects, so they wanted to get their money's worth.
We gave up after about 35 minutes when my wife said she was falling asleep.
We expect better Prof. Cox.