Jon Culshaw to join the Sky at Night team

[mikehab]

I would have liked to see BRIAN MAY get the part. Great ambassador to astronomy, and a close friend of the late and great...PATRICK MOORE.

Completely agree.... I would prefer to have Brian May on the program over Jon Culshaw any day. I find JC's voice increadibly 'grating' and I feel that him constantly trying to bring some light-hearted comedic banter to the program is really quite off-putting - and totally un-necessary for The Sky At Night. I actually really enjoyed last week's program - all except the bits with JC in. Sorry JC - nothing personal.

[101nut]

Personally I'd much prefer they got rid of Penfold and replace him with JC ... or anyone ...

AndyG

[cheb]

auspom, what i meant was the formula isnt broken, obviousley SPM dieing changes things but i did say about him/Jon being the layman to be talked to by the others, to be as SPM was, the foil sort of to direct often heavy subjects at. I have no problem with him being on the show as him, none at all, i only have a problem if he is trying to be an impressionist on the show.

[Kropster]

But Brian May has a doctorate in Astronomy... hardly a layman.

He would have to be on the professional side of presenting... leaving JC to represent Joe Public.

[Codmate]

I like Jon Culshaw, but agree with those who say his presenting voice sounds 'put-on'.

It brings a disingenuous air to everything he does.

I have no idea why he does it; but it is rather irritating; especially when the content of what he is saying is fine.

Brian May would be a far better bet, but it seems that he's not into the idea of being on the show most weeks. I'm sure he'll still pop up occasionally.

I'll continue to watch the show, but probably still cringe a bit when 'the voice' appears.

[Scott]

auspom, what i meant was the formula isnt broken, obviousley SPM dieing changes things but i did say about him/Jon being the layman to be talked to by the others, to be as SPM was, the foil sort of to direct often heavy subjects at. I have no problem with him being on the show as him, none at all, i only have a problem if he is trying to be an impressionist on the show.

I understand what you're saying cheb but I don't think jon is the one that chooses whether or not he does an impression and to my recollection he hasn't done one since his spm tribute 3 or 4 mths ago. I can see that his voice seems "put on" but I feel it's just his way of trying to sound interesting.

Either way, lets just enjoy s@n for what it is...an entertaining and informative show about a subject that we all love

[Treeden]

... leaving JC to represent Joe Public.

Kropster, this is not aimed at you, but your comment is representative of many I have read in this and other threads on this issue.

My question is simply this; Why do people seem to think that the programme has to have a member whose role is to represent 'Joe Public'?

That opinion would seem to suggest or imply that the other members of the team don't understanding who their viewers are, or are incapable of presenting the programme without bewildering the viewers with high-end astro related techno-babble? From what I have seen, every member of the Sky At Night team go to great lengths to ensure that the content is presented in clear and simple terms that we can all follow, and that when technical terms or more complex subjects are discussed, one of them (most often Chris Lintott) interjects to explain the technical terms on behalf of the viewers, before they proceed.

Do we really believe that without someone to represent Joe Public, the programme would fail to deliver? Do we believe that without Jon Culshaw (or some other non-professional proxy) that the programme would drift off into the realms of high level Astronomy and/or astro physics where only a small minority could follow? If so, then I think we do the team a great disservice.

I think the team (Chris, Lucie, Chris, Pete & Paul) do an excellent job, and having to squeeze Jon in there too just means more talking and less content in a show that is already too short.

[alan potts]

I have to say having just watched it Jon was many times better than I thought he would be, seems to come across very well to me, I think although there seem to many on the show I would keep him.

Alan.

[Macavity]

Any veteran of the scientific "social event", might sometimes crave

the presence of someone with "professional" comedic timing?

With good presenters (as indeed now) I see no huge need for "representatives" either. Science has, for a long time, produced excellent communicators. In recent years, some have been "spotted" by the media. Ironically, sometimes, they too perpetuate the "baffling, elitist", image of the scientist... To which, naturally, they are a notable exception?

As someone, much in favour of the complete democratisation of science,

I chuckle at those who now say: "My name is Professor Joe Bloggs" etc.

Fair enough! But in cool science tradition, Titles were rarely mentioned?

[ollypenrice]

Here's the thing; ask a TV producer what the Sky at Night was about and they would most certainly not say 'Astronomy.' They would say 'Patrick Moore.'

And that is their problem.

Olly

Are Nigella Lawson's cookery programmes about cookery or are they about... other things?

[Kropster]

Treeden, I agree with your point, but the BBC is in the hands of people who know a little about the subject matter of programmes, but who think they know what we want and how to 'appeal' to an audience..as a result they apply a generic formula when producing programmes.. so I think we have to accept that they have made up their minds that they must have a Joe Public representative... and JC seems a reasonable compromise as Joe Public, not being an uber celeb. with no knowledge of the subject but 'who wants to find out about it'.

[JamesF]

Given most of what gets broadcast today I think television generally is in the hands of people who know less and less about more and more. The target for most programming seems to be "nothing that would stretch a moderately bright eleven year old". Unless the vacuous majority start turning it off and doing something else unfortunately the current output seems unlikely to change.

James

[Stuck in a field somewhere]

I agree with everyone that finds his irritating put on voice annoying. Why does he have to constantly talk like he's David Attenborough observing some cheetah cubs from up close? You know what I mean, that funny breathless whisper with a put on gravity. Can he not just talk normally? Is it really too much to ask?

[long_arms]

I think it must be difficult for both the BBC and the Sky at Night Team.

Given for example the time of broadcast its regular audience is probably predominantly amateur astronomers. Not 'Joe Public'

It obviously needs to find a balance as it NEEDS to appeal to people who know nothing, and have no experience of astronomy. But who are interested to find out more.

Many say they were inspired by SPM (who wouldn't be) and their interest was sparked by the Sky At Night amongst perhaps other things.

But the young generation now is without a space race, human space exploration and the Sky at Night is at an unnoticeable time with no advertisements.

What is there?

I think Jon Culshaw and the Sky at Night team are doing a great job.

Edit: May I also add that perhaps we can hear a strangeness to Jons voice that isnt really there, but we overly think about it simply because he's a known impressionist. Just an idea of mine...not necessarily right.

Dan

[JamesF]

I've just idly looked at the television schedules for this evening and picked out these delights:

"Bizarre ER: Featuring a woman wounded while trying to kill a flea with a pair of pliers, a panto dame with a swollen elbow and a man who fell from his loft. Plus, how pioneering surgeons fitted an injured motorcyclist with a bionic bottom"

"Keeping up with the Kardashians". Who? Isn't that some sort of 70s Doctor Who monster?

"Peter Andre: My Life"

"Barely Legal Drivers"

Exactly how little self-respect do you have to have to watch something like that in preference to beating yourself into unconsciousness with the first blunt object that came to hand? If I wrote what I really think the sweary word filter would go into meltdown. Given the choice between watching something like that or doing absolutely nothing for several hours I genuinely absolutely without any shadow of a doubt would choose to stare at a blank wall.

James

[ollypenrice]

Given most of what gets broadcast today I think television generally is in the hands of people who know less and less about more and more.

James

This made me laugh out loud! We can look forward to a time when these idiots will perfect themselves and know nothing about everything...

Olly

[Cath]

lol, you've noticed too then James.

I honestly can only see one destination where our money ends up - in the pockets of the BBC peeps. They VERY occasionally make something worth watching (S@N is one of them), but £3,000,000,000 worth each year? - I think not. That's £145 from 20,000,000 homes or so each year.

You can't help but wonder what's really going at times lol.

[starman1969]

Did anybody see "I believe in UFO's" with Danny Dyer on BBC3? He was inspired to search for them after meeting SPM, apparently.

Voted one of the worst programmes on the channel.

[Crimson Sunset]

I feel that Jon Culshaw has his place on the program and has obvious enthusiasm for astronomy but I agree about that presenting voice of his. It's pretty hard to listen to.

Did anybody see "I believe in UFO's" with Danny Dyer on BBC3? He was inspired to search for them after meeting SPM, apparently.

Voted one of the worst programmes on the channel.

Yup, it was an absolute pile of mince.

[LukeSkywatcher]

Malcolm Smith (A.K.A~Danny Dyer )..................

Enough said.

[Kropster]

That is my favourite line-up!

Seriously though.... I find JC perfectly acceptable and think the his 'normal' voice is probably what we are getting, but as has been said, our perception is coloured by the fact that he is an impressionist (not the oil paint kind).

[Macavity]

But the young generation now is without a space race, human space exploration and the Sky at Night is at an unnoticeable time with no advertisements. What is there?

Uhm... Books? (A general, not personally directed remark!)

And I speak as one who has probably only read half a dozen "novels" right through. LOL. In truth, I only had two or three Astronomy books as a kid (kidult!) too - But these were certainly well-thumbed! The rest of my reading was electronics / radio (later computer) mags. Most of my closer school friends were of... rather similar ilk?

It slightly surprises me some (enthusiastic!) new recruits to Astronomy, "never heard of it", B[efore] C[ox]? So I wonder too (albeit ireverantly) how many of the burgeoning number of Uni / College students in Physical Scientists will still be at it in Five - Ten years time. Science has a great "sizzle" to sell, but I fear the "sausage" can be a bit... bland, at times?

Many kids, have their time "organised" now? So many *things* available, but few with a possibility for modification? ("Rasberry Pi's" end up in the hands of Dad / Mum!) As to less visible hobbies, unique to themselves, I wonder. Certainly not my neighbours' FIVE (shared, part-time) 10-17s. As "Mum" politely put it: "Can't think of any of us particularly interested in Astronomy". Ah well, I did offer...

Books have another great feature! Unlike Blogging (Tweeting) they have Editors!

Science Books are on science, not the "visionary" word-view of scientist authors...

[LukeSkywatcher]

I really am enjoying the "new" format of S@N. I think it is brilliant that the team are getting out there and involving amateurs. SPM would be proud. I also like the new thing "astronomy surgery", which answers peoples question.

I was never a fan of Chis Lintott, but i am starting to enjoy/like him. I think Lucie Green on the team is great. I really do like her, and astronomy on tv needs more females.

John Culshaw i can live with (in small doses). I just dont like his presenting voice and seriously..................he needs to stop doing his impression of SPM.

Overall, without any major changes involved, i think the "new" format has modernised the show and in a way become "hip" and more appealing to the younger astronomers.

SPM would be very proud i'm sure.

I have not watched the show religiously for yrs, but i do make a point now of watching or recording it.

Call me a convert.

[starman1969]

Malcolm Smith (A.K.A~Danny Dyer )..................

Enough said.

Ha Ha. Don't sound much of a geezer now, eh Malcom??

[LukeSkywatcher]

Ha Ha. Don't sound much of a geezer now, eh Malcom??

I actually do like him as an actor in all those "Brit" gangster movies. I hate him on tv presenting shows about gangsters and football hooligans.

I agree.................Malcolm Smith..............not so much a geezer.