Next brian cox bbc programmes

[sunshine185]

If not brian, who else can take over from the great man? i think i heard mention from someone from FLO saying there was a huge surge of interest in astronomy when the first sgl was shown, with orders for new scopes going through the roof, so to speak, so hundreds, if not thousands of new amateur astronomers will associate brian to astronomy the way millions of amateur naturalists were introduced to the hobby by sir david.

[LukeSkywatcher]

I thought the whole point of having Chris Lintott on S@N was to slowly introduce him to the public with the idea of him taking over from SPM?

Personally i am not a fan of Chris.

I'd vote for Pete Lawrence if there was a vote on the next presenter.

[sunshine185]

I agree with your sentiment, but I think what irks me about Cox is that so much of his programmes is filled with stuff that the "average" budding astronomer would not see in their life

is"the sky at night" not guilty of this too? Many times they show wonderful photographs of galaxies, nebulas, gasses of multicoloured clouds etc, which can only be seen in photos, not in a scope?

[king-jaffethehutt]

lintott lacks the on screen presence of Sir Pat, BM or BC.

lets hope its not Jonathan Ross though!!

[sunshine185]

Or that obnoxious guy from celebrity juice.

[Macavity]

But, if they make a dramatic discovery at the LHC, Brian might be called away...

[Andymac79]

Or that obnoxious guy from celebrity juice.

Keith Lemon? I agree there,

Andy

[Andymac79]

But, if they make a dramatic discovery at the LHC, Brian might be called away...

To make the tea, or do his James Blunt impression,

[TheWoodenMan]

I don't mind him. His programmes are a bit light on context but big on enthusiasm. He's blatantly a bit of a geek and makes what can be a dry subject (physics) a bit more accessible to younger viewers.

Interesting that he's gone from playing keyboards in D-Ream to lecturing astrophysics at Manchester Uni!

[fatwoul]

...is"the sky at night" not guilty of this too? Many times they show wonderful photographs of galaxies, nebulas, gasses of multicoloured clouds etc, which can only be seen in photos, not in a scope?

You're right. I was more referring to the fancy locations than the cosmic spectacles, and by "looking" I suppose I meant "experiencing", to include both visual and image-based astronomy. I'm imaging the Horsehead as we speak, and I can't see it through any of my scopes. But i can do that from my back garden adequately, and from a darker location even more effectively. I don't have to travel to the Atacama and stand on a rubble-topped mountain, looking fascinated by my surroundings, in order to acheieve this.

[Ibbo!]

Using my rose tinted specs I would like a return to old style Horizon progs narrated by Paul Vaughan et al

OK we can have the celeb fronting or narrating the prog if you wish but we know what he/she looks like

More content less talking head something like Ocean giants springs to mind recently we now it was Stephen Fry but we don't have to see him

I am turning into my dad and he was a real grumpy old git

off to grumble at something else

Steve

[LukeSkywatcher]

Using my rose tinted specs I would like a return to old style Horizon progs narrated by Paul Vaughan et al

OK we can have the celeb fronting or narrating the prog if you wish but we know what he/she looks like

More content less talking head something like Ocean giants springs to mind recently we now it was Stephen Fry but we don't have to see him

I am turning into my dad and he was a real grumpy old git

off to grumble at something else

Steve

LMAO......

i think with age we ALL turn into our dads.

[msinclairinork]

His style irritates me as well, but one can not argue with the influx of beginners; buying scopes and getting involved in the subject from his last appearance on SGL!

If he's encouraging astronomy to the masses then who am I to argue.

Michael

[Macavity]

I think with age we ALL turn into our dads.

That's certainly, frighteningly (though part reassuringly?) true. RIP, my TV-critic Dad!

I previously didn't think of myself as "political" or notably "(anti)-religious" - Above all, NEUTRAL in scientific matters. But now I worry. The BBC was always a tad "incestuous"? <G> From serious science programs, to ENDLESS "panel games", we see the same like-minded, opinioned (privileged) faces? They go to the same partys, they inter-marry, they found broadcasting DYNASTIES even...

In latter years, I found myself at variance with (even) "Sir Patrick's" (book-publicised, off-topic!) world-views. <sigh> But these did not seem to be part of a... "recruitment process", when I read his (wonderful) books as a KID. A true "renegade", perhaps? Clever people are opinionated. But the internet (Twitter!) has disillusioned me re. "celebrity" WISDOM - Of Popular Scientists notably!

Maybe what I seek is now an archaic / impossible irrelevancy? I enjoy the re-emphasis of PRACTICAL Astronomy on S@N - True, I know the protagonists, no better than the BBC "celebrity circuit", and S@N skies are RARELY clear! But as a onetime (non-celebrity) experimental ex-Particle Physicist, I can relate better...

[Moonshane]

I agree with your sentiment, but I think what irks me about Cox is that so much of his programmes is filled with stuff that the "average" budding astronomer would not see in their lifetime. I don't mean the astronomical objects, but the scenery. The danger, I feel, is from mis-advertising the subject. The mountaintop shot is the much-cited example, but I wonder how many people have been lured into astronomy by his programmes, and the Indiana Jones scientist image of a guy trekking all over the World, only to be disappointed by squinting at a fuzzy little object through a telescope.

Astronomy is a wonderful, magical subject, and really doesn't need fancy scenery and expensive trips around the world to make it more exciting. The things hidden in the sky, for me, outshine any of the natural beauty down here. Best of all, those sights are largely democratic - anybody who can get to a dark site can enjoy the Milky Way. No plane tickets required.

I take your point but if you were him, cooped up in CERN or MMU all your working life, and could either go to places like Chile/Africa etc or to cloudy Scotland or Devon to pursue your passions, what would you do?

To me anyhow, seeing places and things you'll never see in your life and as you'll never see them is an important aspect of entertainment shows such as his and e.g. Frozen Planet.

There's room for everyone I think.

[GazOC]

I see the effect his programs have on my young relatives and its hard to argue with what he does on that basis alone.

For anything a bit "meatier" on the subject then primetime BBC is probably the wrong place to look.

[russ.will]

BC is delivering prime time content, the subject matter of which would never, under any circumstances, ever, get an airing earlier than 11pm on BBC2.

This cannot be a bad thing. It means the 'great unwashed' are watching it and if even a tiny percentage are getting bitten by the bug, then this hobby is getting more popular. SAN is for the bitten and will never deliver more, until SPM passes on the mantel. I watch it, I love it, but the bloke out of The Inbetweeners isn't the one to deliver it to a larger audience.

Those hoping BC won't deliver his next series, snorkeling off the shores of Palau*, will be disappointed. Get over it, because a lot of people will be watching it, with their jaws open and their brains hurting. Job done.

Russell

*His Twitter feed will depress you endlessly. It's mostly from the peak of this, the chasm of that, or the plain of somewhere. Do you think it would be more interesting from a studio with illustrative graphics?

[che guevara]

Perhaps he could do the nexty one from space, and give the rest of the World a break

[che guevara]

lol, only Joking, who thinks Brian Cox will be the new host of the Sky at Night ?