Talk:Horizon (TV series)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contents |
[edit] (Music comment)
Isn't the theme tune to Horizon "Another Green World" by Brian Eno?
- yes
[edit] Dumbing down
I had been watching Horizon from since the early 1970's when Paul Vaughan was the usual narrator and stopped in the mid-90's, due to the changes made at the time. Compared to what it once [was], Horizon is dumbed down, so much to the point of being almost unwatchable, at least for me. It would seem that the same goes for [others] as well. Ian Dunster 13:24, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, the show can be hard to watch because of all the stupid imagery and fluff material they throw in to stretch the time out. People who need fast-moving city shots with flashy lights to keep their attention wont watch a documentary in the first place. Remy B 18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
-
- I have only watched Horizon for 2 years thanks to P2P. I have seen more than 150 docs and find that the latest are utter rubbish, an insult to the trademark. It started when they got a new web page. Funny enough, when I need information on docs and TV programs, I never find it in their corresponding webpages, this could be a new Murphy's law...Cgonzalezdelhoyo 01:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Pro-"New Horizon" language?
Anyone think that the following parts in bold (my emphasis) have the faint but definite air of trying to make a case for the programme's recent direction?
The down-side to Horizon's focus on Pure Science, Sheer Drama and the occasionally forced narrative this engenders has led to occasional accusations of dumbing down, with one former editor writing a newspaper article about how the programme concentrates too much on human stories, and not enough on the science. Whether or not such accusations are justified must inevitably remain a matter of opinion but perhaps a factor weighing in the series' favour is the challenge that presenting often highly abstract, technically complex issues and ideas to the public creates for any documentary maker tackling science.
Fourohfour 16:15, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
- It could also be seen as a plea for help, given the not unreasonable over-riding requirement for NPOV. Davy p 06:38, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Editor list
I think it'd be nice to have a complete list of Horizon Editors (Exec. Producers, to disambiguate them). The IMDB credit list is totally misleading. I could do the ancient ones but even then would be uncertain of actual dates. It would take someone with access to BBC archives, I think. El Ingles 21:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Programs list
Today I have found the following BBC Horizon archive: http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/archives.shtml It only goes back to 1996 and several episodes are missing, but it is far better than nothing. Also, some dimwit at the BBC has decided to sort them in autum-spring season when the rest of the world, that is the P2P community :), has long settled for cronological orders. Atleast is more than Discovery offers though it seems that the best work is done by people who dont get paid. Actually that could do for another Murphy's law :) i.e. if you want information come to Wikipedia :)Cgonzalezdelhoyo 01:38, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Sources
(See also User_talk:Tony_Sidaway#Horizon for more discussion on this subject).
I reinstated "The Register" as a source (IIRC I was the one who put it in in the first place). Although it's not "The Independent", "Nature" or whatever, I feel that as a reasonably mainstream website arguing a case (first link) and a significant number of letters (which probably wouldn't be individually citable), its inclusion is warranted. Fourohfour 12:25, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the Register is sufficiently mainstream to be used for reference. Although arguably anti-establishment at times, they do try to get the details right; and sometimes pick up on events and nuances that others miss.
- W.r.t. Murphy's l;aw mentioned above, there is something known as Reith's Law. This is along the lines that audience is proportional to the product of desire for a particular sort of content and the quality of presentation. If there's a lecture that you particularly want to hear, then you'll happily use a wind-up gramaphone if that's all that is available. At the other extreme, with 3-D full colour and surround sound almost any content is palatable. Davy p 14:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- I agree, but some could take this to mean that *any* reference will do in the absence of something better; that certainly isn't the case, and there are limits as to what's acceptable. For example, I'd reject almost anything from urbandictionary.com out of hand. If you look at the article history, you'll see that I removed a Usenet (via Google Groups) reference, as I realised that it was not good enough.
- In the case of the Register articles, I felt that they were clearly above the acceptability threshold for the purpose at hand. That's why I put them in. Fourohfour 16:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
