How We Got to Now (2014– ) User Reviews

brilliant display of connected thinking

[happyseaurchin · 9/10 · 15 March 2015]

I haven't read the book, and I found this series brilliant. Why? Because it shows connected thinking, which reflects the subtle and pervasive effect of social influence.

Steven Johnson brings to our attention a few specific people in their specific social contexts, bringing humanity to the challenge facing the inventor. Quite often, the invention is met with ridicule, e.g. Heddy Lammar's frequency jumping idea, before it is adopted, in this case to protect inter-ship communication. And then, Steven shows the influence.

Steven is interested in pervasive technology changes. Where one invention creates a platform of social change, e.g. the humble neon light and signage, and the corresponding business invention of the 'franchise'.

As a presenter, Steven keeps it light. He is dealing with world-changing inventions and some genius characters. He could easily be a nerd, but he is charming and self-effacing. For all his humour, notice how he ends most of his skits with an understated though defined moment of gravitas. Requires a keen listener, a sensitive viewer, which I believe the material deserves.

I haven't seen anything as intelligent as this on terrestrial TV. In the UK, it is on BBC 3, and I wouldn't be surprised if it reprises on the more mainstream channels.

Should be called How America Got to Now

[shannonjefferies · 9/10 · 24 June 2015]

A great series, very informative, but I kind of feel like it should have been called How America Got to Now. Beginning with the 1st episode, you would think that Chicago was the very 1st city in the world to create a sewer system. Not so - every city all the way back to Mesopotamia had a sewer system, but around the mid 19th century many had outgrown their old sewers and began updating them. At the same time Chicago was updating theirs, London was doing the exact same thing and without any help from the Americans. By the end of this segment the viewer is left with the impression that the Chicago sewer system was the sole inspiration for the London Underground - absolutely not true. The Brits were the 1st to invent the steam engine, the train and the underground subway without a single American to help them along. Here are some more American-centric examples from the series: The host goes straight from whale oil to the electric light without ever mentioning gas lights. Gas lights (another British invention) predated the electric light by about 80 years and were used throughout Europe. In the episode about glass the host barely mentions the camera and fast forwards to the camera NASA developed for the moon landing. BTW both the still photo camera and the movie camera were French inventions, but I suspect that's why they weren't included in the show. In the episode about sound, the host fails to talk about the invention of the radio and skips ahead to the vacuum tube which amplified the radio. But I guess that's because Marconi was an Italian and Lee DeForest was an American. In spite of these glaring omissions, this is still a really great series full of very important inventions that have shaped our world today. So I would encourage everyone to watch it, but then afterward look up gas lights, the camera and the radio and read about all of the non-Americans who also shaped our world.

Excellent

[mmeier-08196 · 8/10 · 27 January 2018]

This series is about discovery, and the origination of what we take for granted. There is no in-depth treatise intended, but it reveals a path from the beginning of a technology, the advances along the way, and what we have now. Personally, even with my strong science background, it was fascinating. I wasn't expecting an entire episode of how modern water purification works. That it started with contaminated water in metro areas and developed into the safest time in world history to drink tap water is what makes this series compelling. Who knew the entire city of Chicago was raised to install a sewer system? How did that lead to subways? Beer is good to drink. Who created the modern time zones we use today? How was fiber optic technology developed? I only wish there were more episodes to watch.

The episode on glass.

[TxMike · 22 October 2014]

At first blush a 60-minute TV program on "glass" might seem, well ... too transparent. I mean, glass is glass. It is clear, it lets us see through it, while keeping the rain and cold out. But where did glass come from? How was it first discovered? How many innovations did it make possible?

While I cannot attempt to cover it all in this short review, I will give one example. It starts with European winemakers. They used screw-driven grape presses to extract the juice. Then one enterprising gentleman names Gutenberg had the idea of using the basic mechanics of a wine press to make a printing press, allowing for the first time the mass production of printed books. But where's the glass connection?

Well with books came more and more readers. But many of those found they could not read the blurry print, because of poor eyesight. So the yet scarce use of spectacles became a giant need and the development of new lenses led to things like the microscope and the telescope, and the rest if the history of discovery of both the micro world and the distant worlds of our universe.

All because someone found out how to make clear glass and others came up with new uses.

As a scientist myself, a Chemist who first hand made use of the many applications of glass in the laboratory, it is a totally engrossing subject, presented very well. I hope to see all the others.

Interesting approach - mediocre execution - incorrect title

[PogoNeo · 6/10 · 13 August 2016]

Overall: you should watch this; but with caution. Because it tells the story of diversified kinds of inventions in a comprehensive way, by showing a wider spectrum of events, often extended in history over decades and centuries. And that is an interesting approach; but unfortunately it is done in a kind of selective way

Also Steven Johnson simply falls short of being a TV host. He just does not fit this job. And what is more, a typical post-editing error is made over and over: every time a name or date is thrown at the viewer by the host, it is not repeated in a written form; but we are shown on the screen the quotes being read by the host from journals or documents shown at the same time. So why did they make an extra effort to do that (using CGI), but failed to deliver more basic and crucial information (spelling of the names)? A detail like that just shows that it is a more entertaining and less informative kind of program. And that kind of mediocrity of television should not be done on channels like PBS

As for the incorrect title, instead of "How We Got To Now" this series should be called "How USA Got To Now", because it is so much America centered. For example the viewer may think that the problem of unclean streets begun in 19th century in USA, because the show does not even mention medieval cities of Europe flooded with all kind of excrements, mud and garbage, as it also does not evoke sanitary systems of ancient Rome. When speaking about glasses, the show completely skips the early Arabian achievements in the field of optics. And when talking about printing books, it starts with the Gutenberg's movable type and not with what the Chinese did way before him. And as such, the title of this show is incorrect (and the show itself simply uses a false-ish narrative

I found this show unwatchable

[polygnotus · 1/10 · 14 September 2015]

I watched the episode on Édouard-Léon Scott de Martinville, inventor of the phonautograph. Fascinating topic.

I barely made it to the end. Between the host Steven Johnson's patronizing condescension as if his audience were three year olds, and the dreadfully slow pace at which information leaked out between all his cutesy stammers and stutters, not to mention the pauses to make room for yet another unneeded production gimmick, I found this program simply unbearable.

This was a wonderfully interesting subject. The first recordings of the human voice! Amazing.

But in some bizarre attempt to dumb it down to a 1st grade intellect, all the fascination was stripped away leaving a sickly sweet Leave it to Beaver meets Disney patina.

And most incredibly, the real gem of the show, the actual digitization of the original "phonoautographs" into renderable audio files, garnered a whopping 15 seconds of screen time.

One wonders if, perhaps, the producers were less enamored with personality and more on the actual subject matter, we may have been treated to a better treatment of it.

Even my 9 yr old found it slow and condescending. And when she realized that no further recording would be forthcoming, her exact words, unprovoked or influenced by me, were, "Aaaah. Bummer."

Guess I'm expecting more from Steven Johnson and PBS

[bruce-129 · 22 October 2014]

I found out about Steven Johnson with his book "Mind Wide Open" which I listened to in audio-book format while on a driving trip. I liked his style and clear way of writing, but mostly what I liked is that he was telling me, not all, but mostly about stuff I did not know about at the time. He sparked my interest in neuroscience, which I suppose I did not really know existed at the time. I heard Steven talk on his book lectures twice. I am predisposed to look favorably on him and his work.

"How We Got To Now" cannot help but remind me of the series I watched as a teenager, "Connections", by James Burke. Burke had a sophisticated worldly point of view and spoke like an adult. Before Burke was Jacob Bronowski's "Ascent Of Man" which started this type of programming ... with me anyway.

I want to like and watch "How We Got to Now", but I cannot help but compare it negatively with these other programs that I think far outclass it, as I thought the original "Cosmos" series outclassed the new series that was released on PBS.

I am left wondering ... what happened.

It's not that Johnson's effort is bad ... it is not, in fact it is fairly good. The problem is that it is the same as or less of the the previous versions, and seems to be dumbed down. I am picked by and detest this trend in America.

In every single section of this episode of this series there is Johnson full in the camera acting the clown. When did every public programming about science, math, economics, or anything more complicated than Kim Kardashian's ass become something to be ashamed of, or clown about, or more specifically act stupid about?

There's Johnson at Heathrow Airport making dumb jokes about how bad he is at directing flights in the Air Traffic Controller simulator ... which of course he would be since he just sat down at the seat. Same with the worldwide time synchronization organization. The cue seems to be these things are something to joke at, like calling Galileo a misfit nerd.

So far everything I am seeing seems aimed at adolescent children with ADHD, dumbed down so they will not feel bad. Maybe that is necessary, or maybe it is to appeal to the parents so they will be members of PBS ... I don't know ... but what I do know is that this is less than the stuff what was explained earlier in other series that seemed much better, with a more inspirational view of Western Civilization, science and technology. How is it that we can be going backwards? How is it that these things are dumbing down at a time when we know more and depend more on technology than at any other time, not to mention that the pace of change is not at a level that will hit most of us in a very disorienting way before we are even old or retired.

There is no vision in this program, there is no wonder, it's almost like something a smart person would write to seem stupid so he will feel less likely to be rejected.

Is there a conspiracy to dumb down society and the media? If there is I'd want to think that Steven Johnson would have nothing to do with it. So what is going on? Why don't we get anything useful on Commercial Television for our citizens, and why doesn't Public Broadcasting challenge and inform anymore? Has our national intelligence level really dropped in the last 30 years? I think this program would be aimed at the Jr. High School level, so maybe I am not a fair reviewer.

How come this series seems so lightweight? 3/5 and being kind.

Unwatchable

[dmfk · 3/10 · 23 October 2015]

For such interesting topics, I was really disappointed.

It was quite obvious that this production crew was more concerned with creative 'shots' and post production editing than actually making a useful documentary. It got to the point where I was actually laughing at how hard they were trying to be creative and original with the production shots.

There were also a ton of stock footage shots that had very little to do with the specific topic at hand. Like, footage of people walking around modern-day downtown Chicago.

The host was brand new to me, and, I couldn't stand him. Very condescending and somewhat annoying.

I love science and shows showcasing science, but this was just a show about how to have cool camera shots ruin a good show.

Very poorly written

[s_imdb-94 · 1/10 · 28 October 2015]

This show has good intentions, but we found it to be an extremely poorly written show. One of the worst written shows we have ever watched in our lives. Or maybe it's just poorly researched. This show is like reading a high school book report from a student who never actually read the book in the first place. For example, they will start talking about one important topic, or tease you with a question about something... but then they will NEVER finish talking about that topic nor answer that question for you! So they leave you hanging without "tying up" any of the loose ends, or actually giving you an education about anything! For example, in the episode about how humans invented artificial cooling devices, the show simply says "And then the refrigerator was invented, one of the most important inventions of all mankind." And then they move onto other less important topics. Um, hello?! HOW was the refrigerator invented? HOW does the refrigerator even work?! Another example: In the episode where they are talking about the invention of "sound recordings", THEY DON'T EVEN TELL YOU how Edison figured out how to record or playback sound on wax records! It's an EPISODE ABOUT SOUND RECORDINGS, FOR CHRISSAKE!! And yet all they say is, "Edison invented the first record player." Wait, what? How in the world did he do that? Any more details that you'd like to share with us about this major invention that changed the entire world? Nope, they've already moved onto the next scene, which is usually the host doing something completely irrelevant for 10 minutes. And then, for the rest of the episode, they never come back to fill you in on the details that they skipped. But then, the show BOUNCES ALL OVER THE PLACE with a variety of unimportant facts! By doing so, this show DOES NOT GIVE ANY VALID NOR USEFUL NOR EDUCATIONAL INFORMATION TO THE VIEWER, and you can't truly make sense of the stories that they're trying to share. And the host is absolutely terrible -- he is extremely fake & condescending & pandering to the audience. He tries waaaay too hard to be a host. It's very clear that he has never been in front of the camera before. In any case, it seems like these people tried really hard with this show, but each episode ends up leaving you way more confused & frustrated than before you started watching the episode. You actually go INTO the show with more knowledge than when you LEAVE the show. Would love to see this show get a MAJOR overhaul with some ***PROFESSIONAL WRITERS*** who ACTUALLY DO SOME RESEARCH and CAN KEEP FOCUSED and TELL A STORY FROM START TO FINISH. Until that happens, this show should get ZERO STARS. Every single episode is literally as bad as what I described in this review. Truly terrible show. Terrible, terrible, terrible, terrible. We have never seen a worst TV show.