I haven’t really been watching the BBC’s new science show, Bang Goes the Theory, but after hearing both positive and negative comments about it I decided to watch Episode 1 on the iPlayer.
From left to right: Dr. Yan Wong, Jem Stansfield, Liz Bonnin and Dallas Campbell
At first, things didn’t look good. The person who appeared to be the show’s frontman, a man called Dallas Campbell, who I’ve never heard of, introduced the show with a hyped-up monologue that was in no way reminiscent of MythBusters. (A quick examination of Campbell’s biography indicates he’s an actor and writer. Oh dear. No scientists?)
After the titles, we’re thrown into what looks like something between Battersea Power Station and an overgrown untidy shed. We then learn this is the studio, where we see a presenting style that seems like an uneasy mix of Top Gear and Blue Peter. Only Campbell, Jem Stansfield and Liz Bonnin (the latter two of whom, I’m told, are scientists) are present in the studio, as allegedly, the fourth presenter, Dr. Yan Wong (who apparently wrote a book with Richard Dawkins) has an intellect “too big to fit into the studio”. (In short, that means he’s the roving reporter, whose job it is to mingle with the Great Unwashed and show the public that science isn’t as shit as science class makes it out to be.)
After a brief introduction, we’re shown the first pre-recorded segment, a film that begins by talking about CCTV, and how incredibly easy it is to fool a CCTV operator by changing clothes and walking with somebody else inside a building. OK… not so much science so far.
We’re then shown the University of Southampton’s project for measuring someone’s “gate” (that is, their posture and stride that is unique enough to act as a fingerprint.) Put simply, it’s a long tunnel with coloured blocks on the walls, and an array of cameras all feeding into a computer. Hurrah. Now we’ve actually got some science involved.
Initially, this didn’t look hopeful either. Before Campbell makes his first proper walk down the lane to register his gate with the system, he plays the fool and does it as if it were a cat walk. I didn’t laugh. It wasn’t funny. And then, as a voiceover explained how the system worked, we saw some terminal output that looked like it was specifically designed to show how “hi-tech” this system was.
However, when the system recognises Campbell’s and Bonnin’s gate, it turns out this terminal output flying past is in fact the output of the program, as demonstrated when it outputs a table of the closest matches. This pleased me. It wasn’t visuals for visuals’ sake.
However, before we leave, Campbell can’t help acting like an utter pillock again by doing another walk down the lane, jumping up and down, impersonating a breakdancer, and generally making you feel like throwing rotten tomatoes at the television screen.
The next film featured Jem Stansfield building a vortex cannon to ‘blow a house down’. Starting with scale models, cheering when it works… hmm… reminds me of something… And, typically, it’s broken partway through to be continued later in the programme.
J. Craig Venter. Image courtesy of Public Library of Science
The next film we’re shown sees Bonnin (so far my favourite out of the presenters) heading out to interview J. Craig Venter. Yes. Seriously. And she even mentions the scientific controversy and the ethics behind it.
The interview takes place aboard Sorcerer II and she discusses artificial lifeforms with Venter in an informative and interesting interview. Venter even mentions the word scalable – THIS IS PRIME TIME BBC1!
And then, it all comes tumbling down as they link out of the film with Campbell saying, in his annoying and patronising voice, “that was such an interesting film.” Ugh. He’s a pain.
We’re then shown a segment with the roving reporter, Dr. Yan Wong, who shows the public how to fry an egg in a paper container. Am I the only one who’s noticed his resemblance to Jimmy Carr, but with glasses? It’s his habit of raising one eyebrow when talking. It’s suspicious.
Yan presents an informative, if somewhat frivolous film, saturated, of course, with completely uninformative vox pops from the public. “Ugh… that doesn’t look edible,” one woman says. As if I care.
I should make it clear here: I don’t have a problem with humour in science programmes, but only if it doesn’t get in the way of the science. The vox pops seemed unnecessarily frivolous. And then, a word from Campbell, who complains that he recently bought an expensive frying pan and now realises he shouldn’t have bothered. Brilliant. Not.
And finally, we see the end of the big film, with Jem allegedly blowing down a house of bricks (in reality, slightly demolishing a small wall of bricks that aren’t even cemented together) using his vortex cannon. The whole thing plays out like a poor remake of MythBusters. True, Jem doesn’t have the same “piss you off” factor as Campbell, who desperately needs to cut back on the infantile humour, but the point where he alone cheered as the wall slightly collapsed was rather disappointing. Common sense would dictate that you would turn it into a “spectacle” – i.e. have the whole presenting team there. And also, at some point, I swear he said they were trying to get the right mix of explosive to air, before explaining what “the right mix” was. Seriously. We know. We’re not stupid.
Overall, Bang Goes The Theory wasn’t too bad, but it needs several things fixing:
- Liz Bonnin needs to be at the helm. She’s the perfect presenter. Also, the Top Gear presenting style needs to be improved – the format doesn’t work for every programme (just remember how they butchered Gardener’s World with such a style.)
- Dallas Campbell needs to cut back on the poor humour. I’m sure he’s a relatively competent presenter, but infantile jokes just irritate the audience. He arses around like a student.
- For god’s sake, the big experiments have to stop being such rip-offs of MythBusters.
