[lqet]

If I am not mistaken, you are saying that technical entry barriers into documentary filmmaking are much, much lower today than in 1978, and therefore it is much easier to create such a series today. The former is definitely true, but consider the following:

- "Connections" used a substantial amount of acted historical scenes. Creating them in such a quality (and not some sketchy animation or a re-cut of existing work) is still a challenge today. You need half-decent actors.

- Technical quality is secondary to content. "Connections" is not just a collection of interesting and well-made bits about how technology evolved, there is an entire and compelling theory behind it, which Burke tries to bring accross. Such aspirations, executed with such intellectual and inspirational confidence, need something more than just technical ability and financial resources. Just because paper and ink got much cheaper since the 16th century, we didn't suddenly produce a Shakespeare every 2 years.

So far, I haven't seen any historical documentation on YouTube which even compares to the depth and width of "Connections".

[ghaff]

You also, as I recall, had a fair bit of location shooting including places like Navy ships that probably took some producer a bunch of time to arrange. The technical barriers are certainly much much lower--younger interested in film me would have killed for an iPhone much less even a $500-ish videocam--but it still takes a lot of work to film a professional looking documentary.

[PaulDavisThe1st]

I can't speak specifically to "historical documentation", but in a field that interests me, which I suppose we could call "music, musicking and music theory", YT is better than anything I'm aware of from TV with the possible exception of the Bernstein lectures.

For a TV station/network/organization to have exposed us to just one of (for example): David Bruce, 12Tone or Adam Neely would be remarkable enough, but we actually get all three and then a whole bunch of others who are in the same general ballpark.

For example, the "David Bennett Piano" channel, produced by a young UK piano player, has a 15 minute segment that is hands-down the best explanation of why many musical cultures settled on dividing the octave into 12 tones. It's better than anything I've ever seen on TV.

It is true that these tend to be shorter and more focused presentations than series like Connections. I'm not sure I see anything inherently wrong with that. It's also true that they don't score always hit it out of the park for every "episode" they produce (unlike much the more collaborative processes that would have led to each episode of Connections). But I'm not sure I see much a problem with that either.

[wegs]

Well, let's consider these one at a time:

> - "Connections" used a substantial amount of acted historical scenes. Creating them in such a quality (and not some sketchy animation or a re-cut of existing work) is still a challenge today. You need half-decent actors.

But is this core to the value? I find a lot of the animated versions, Ken Burns, and stock footage on Youtube to be way more than good enough. It's exactly as you said: It's about the content.

> Just because paper and ink got much cheaper since the 16th century, we didn't suddenly produce a Shakespeare every 2 years.

We kinda did, actually. He's hidden among a massive pile of stuff, but he's there. Brilliant books come out far more frequently than I can read. I'd place many well above Shakespeare, not in fame, but in quality.

> So far, I haven't seen any historical documentation on YouTube which even compares to the depth and width of "Connections".

My favorites are Extra History (history) and 3Blue1Brown (math). I think both have at least the same depth and width, albeit in a different direction.

[JKCalhoun]

Agree. I would add too, it seems likely that James Burke more or less created the idea too of connectedness across disciplines, historical events, etc. as opposed to the linear, "homo-disciplinary" approach we were used to. Or at least he brought the idea to the masses in a compelling way.

[selestify]

> it seems likely that James Burke more or less created the idea too of connectedness across disciplines

Is there a name for this idea?

[fakedang]

Idk, interdisciplinary?

[selestify]

That word alone doesn’t quite capture the narrative of science as something non-linear, meandering and somewhat accidental.

[dredmorbius]

Connections was savvy in finding faires, working museaums, and access to the BBC's film vaults for providing much (though not all) such footage. Burke describes going to reenactment festivals to film many of the medieval life scenes.

And his journalist background and connections enabled him to have the access necessary to shoot single-take sequences such as this:

https://youtube.com/watch?v=2WoDQBhJCVQ

(Hardly the only impressive on-location scene in his work.)

Agreed with your comments on the primary importance of writing and research. I'd argue that Chris & Evan Hadfield's "Rare Earth" is getting close, Tom Scott is doing quite well, and Derrek Muller's "Veritasium" and Destin Sandlin's "Smarter Every Day" have promise.

Several YouTubers have been picked up by traditional broadcasters/production organisations, notably Hank Green ("Crash Course"), with PBS, and Emily Graslie ("Prehistoric Road Trip"), with the Chicago Field Museum. YouTube as a training and recruiting ground has merits.

One reason Connections is so hard to compare to is that it's pretty incomparable: forty years on we're still discussing it in glowing terms. It was produced by someone well-established and experienced at least within the BBC, and backed by the organisation. Notably, little from either national/public broadcasting or commercial production has even approached it. My short list includes Sagan's Cosmos, Burke's own The Day the Universe Changed, Ken Burns. Daniel Yergin's The Prize. And of course Kenneth Clarke's Civilisation and Jacob Bronowski's The Ascent of Man, which had paved the way for Burke himself. I might include Adam Curtis's works.

The role of the author or creative voice --- a Burke, Sagan, Burns, Bronowski, Clark, Curtis --- cannot be overstated. That talent seems rare, perhaps also the ability to simply get out of its way. Also realising when it's circled too hard back in on itself --- Burke had 2--3 good series in him, but he hasn't matched himself in at least three decades.

Related HN thread with additional recommendations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2698026

Part of that is a more crowded field: there's more produced, it's harder to get noticed. Part my own near-total avoidance of broadcast television. But I don't think that's all of it.

And yes my HN history shows I'm quite the fan of Burke: https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...

[WalterBright]

I'd like to give a shout out to Alistair Cooke's "America".