Jump to content

sgl_imaging_challenge_2021_annual.thumb.jpg.3fc34f695a81b16210333189a3162ac7.jpg

What has the BBC done to the Sky at Night Now!! A new presenter!


reddoss
 Share

Recommended Posts

The most........annoying style....of putting.....pauses in .....sentences.....to try and sound ...... authoritative.

I don't think she does it to sound authoritative.  I seem to remember watching some of her earlier work and she spoke very quickly, almost too quickly to follow.  I think she has made a conscious effort (maybe with a voice coach?) to slow down, so maybe the pauses are her way of slowing herself down?

I must admit that I do find it a little distracting, but if she is trying to improve her delivery and presentation then you have to give her credit.  Other than that, her knowledge and enthusiasm is clear for all to see, so I wish her well.

As for the programme itself, I think the BBC are just trying different combinations because they don't know what the programme needs.  They don't understand what it was that made it successful with SPM and so they don't understand what it needs now.

The sad thing is that the more changes they make, the more they will alienate the regular viewers, which in turn will mean a drop in viewing numbers until we get to the point where they will finally be able to drop it from the schedules without anyone making a big fuss about it.

Edited by Treeden
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've seen her on various TV programs and think that she will make a good S@N presenter.  Different personality to Chris Lintott but the contrast will be entertaning.  I've liked the way it's been going recently, more focussed on amateur astronomy with a good mixture of professional and amateur astronomers and all done in a relaxed manner.

Chris

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm afraid I found her presentation on previous programs very annoying after a few moments, i'm sure they could have done better for a main presenter, after all the presenter doesn't have to be very highly qualified themselves as they have all the experts on hand that they could possibly need, they just need to be able to communicate at all levels which I don't think she does based on the few times I have seen her before. I think the existing team was working quite well without JC that is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

just a thought now I don't know if Jules Hudson has any interest in astronomy,but having watched lots of things he has presented on quite a wide range of subjects, one would imagine that he would have been a good presenter for the S@N, he always comes over as having a sincere interest in the subjects he presents on

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I remember many years ago finding the late Sir Patrick's presentation style somewhat unorthodox and very hard to follow on occasions as he seemed to fit twice as much into each sentence as anyone else but still finished it before they had even started. I got used to it.  If this was a barrier to making an interesting programme I doubt the Sky at Night would have lasted very long.  I for one wish her well and hope that the content she delivers is interesting no matter how she presents it as, even if I do happen to find her style not to my personal taste, I will get used to it.  A lot of effort went into saving the programme and I find it quite disheartening, especially for all those who put such effort into the campaign,  to see negative comments starting before the first episode has even been recorded!

  • Like 9
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I watched the December programme on iPlayer the other day.

When they signed off at the end Chris said about the absence of a January show but "the programme" would be back in Feb.

I got the distinct impression that even then they didn't know who would and who wouldn't have a place in future.

I've never seen the new presenter so can't comment.

What does surprise me is that they will have two science professionals in front-of-house roles.

I had hoped that Pete would get a bigger slice of the action.

S@N's core fan base is predominately amateur astronomers who I would expect would want to see more "hands on" observational and telescope fiddling stuff. 

SPM was the worlds best known amateur. He started at grass roots and earned his stripes at the eyepiece. His hardcore understanding of and passion for observational astronomy were key to the programmes success.

To retain any interest for me Pete (or a credible successor) would need to have a significant role in the future S@N.

It needs to keep it's feet on solid ground but I fear that S@N will now meander, looking for a purpose. Like much other BBC science programming it will end up becoming a costume drama with long lingering and utterly irrelevant dramatisations. 

Its ultimate fate lies in the hands of BBC producers who will be looking to make their mark. Producers will come and go and the core values of The Sky at Night will be low on their agenda. 

Then again, I have been wrong before.....apparently :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The most........annoying style....of putting.....pauses in .....sentences.....to try and sound ...... authoritative.

Sorry, but she is just unwatchable. I suppose there is always the mute button!

Agreed, I haven't managed to get through anything she has presented.

She may be enthusiastic but she's no TV presenter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Forgive my ignorance but I'd never heard of her... So I googled her (as you do) she seems OK. In fact if you watch this http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=tMAC0ZZxZC4 about 2/3 through she talks about grinding her own mirror, you can almost see a black female Patrick Moore :-)

I like her!

Same here. I'd never heard of her but from a quick look at that documentary she could be OK. Put it this way I'd rather have her in that style and get away from some of the current presentation which can sometimes be just a little bit too blue peter in style. All those synchronised hellos and "and now over to Lucie who will show us how an eclipse works with the aid of a melon and three other presenters in a field" I find slightly grating as it sacrifices content for accessibility but really just condescends to the audience rather than making it accessible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see what time slot it  gets on BBC4. This will give us an indication of the future of S@N.

i.e. 7.00 or 8.00 pm good......2.00am....Bad

I think someone is pulling a sly and rather underhand piece of misdirection here in an attempt to make the BBC look better than it is.  S@N has been shown on BBC4 for some time (usually 7:30pm on the Wednesday or Thursday after the first broadcast), and in a longer format.  I always record it from BBC4 to watch because cutting it down to twenty minutes seemed to make for a disjointed programme.

So instead of "we're moving it to a slot on BBC4" what the BBC ought more honestly to be saying is "we're dropping the broadcasts on BBC1/BBC2".

James

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sky at Night will settle down,i,ve seen this lady,and she has boundless enthusism.

In the early days Patrick was thought of as a some what fast talking eccentric,to which in someways he was.

Thanks BBC for continuing the tried and trusted format.

Mick.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The sky at Night will settle down,i,ve seen this lady,and she has boundless enthusism.

In the early days Patrick was thought of as a some what fast talking eccentric,to which in someways he was.

Thanks BBC for continuing the tried and trusted format.

Mick.

The difference for me between the unusual manners of speech of SPM and Maggie A-P are that whilst SPM spoke very quickly, his speech pattern was actually quite "normal" and easy to listen to; it just required concentration.  She on the other hand breaks her sentences with significant pauses in odd places that don't suit the flow of the words and it jars hideously.  I'm really hoping that it's just some sort of odd habit when presenting long pieces to camera (perhaps from autocue) and that in a format that mixes "conversation" and voice-over she may well not do it.  Otherwise she always comes across as having huge enthusiasm for her subject and to want to involve other people in it which I think has to be a good thing.

James

Link to comment
Share on other sites

sometimes the people with knowledge and brains aren't always the best ones to present and build a program around, if you take Time Team for example, Tony Robinson has presented that show and made it appeal to a wide range of people and was the centre or glue around which they built the program and was the focus around which the experts were brought in as needed, all he had was an apparent enthuisiam (can't spell) for the subject, he could probably do the same for the S@N as he has popular appeal

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better than the one that had been banded around (Kate Humble). Now she is irritating beyond all measure. As others have said the new presenter is very knowlegeable and enthusiastic. I must admit I never really warmed to Lucy Green. And don't get me started on her dress sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems as if the rest of the presenting team will be staying on.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/mediacentre/latestnews/2013/maggie-aderin-pocock.html

From twitter  chrislintott @chrislintott 

"As far as I know @dr_lucie, @Avertedvision, @chrisenorth @paul_abel and @jonculshaw - will be staying with us into the new Sky at Night"

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is the usual problem of the BBC being in the hands of large numbers of Arts graduates... who are all about the triumph of presentation over content and making 'sexy' programmes.

Just look at some of the recent Horizon programmes... all about arty camera work and thin on content. The craze for unecessarily using special effects... particularly the annoying 'miniature' effect where there is one small part of the frame in focus.

Their career progression is the main driving force, hence the constant push to expand the audience... thereby covering them with reflected glory in the eyes of their peers.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.