Stargazing live 2014

[nebogipfel]

enjoyed the 1st 2 shows, missed the last half of  the 3rd one tho, got it recorded to watch tonight tho

not sure... but is Maggie allways like she was when she was on SGL, she seemed soooo uncomfortable, when she was asked a question it was like she was super rushing her answers, it felt a tad awkward lol, might just be me?

Yes, I found her contribution quite uncomfortable to watch.

All in all three very good night's TV with some excellent guests. Much improved on the original format and it's good to see the back of the token comedian/celebrity

FWIW I think Chris Lintott works very well with Brian Cox

[Scott]

Yes, I found her contribution quite uncomfortable to watch.

All in all three very good night's TV with some excellent guests. Much improved on the original format and it's good to see the back of the token comedian/celebrity

FWIW I think Chris Lintott works very well with Brian Cox

how was this years sgl different from last year or the year before? What was improved? Dara o' and BC were there last year, they're there this year (comedian/celeb still there). If you are talking about the format of s@n, well apart from the addition of Maggie, we don't really know the line-up do we? Sorry, but I'm a tad confused here

[beamer3.6m]

Have to say the CBEEBIES coverage was excellent. It was pitched for the age group and used some really clever ideas to teach basic things.

For example a bear called ursa major went on a walk to the north star and saw the northern lights on the way.

Brilliant.

Better than the adult version.

[Ben Smith]

Have to say the CBEEBIES coverage was excellent. It was pitched for the age group and used some really clever ideas to teach basic things.

For example a bear called ursa major went on a walk to the north star and saw the northern lights on the way.

Brilliant.

Better than the adult version.

I agree. My 4 year old was glued to it. Then pretended to point to different planets on the ceiling haha. I'm so proud. I think I know what to get for her birthday.

[stevetynant]

Yes, lets hope she is as slow speaking and coherent as was Sir Patrick?

Yes I get your point but she seems even quicker than SPM in his youth and that's not a good presenting style. Not trying to deviate this thread into a Maggie fest and I honestly hope things work out for both her and the programe.

[JamesF]

My impression was that Maggie A-P came across as a bit excitable but far better than I think she has been in other programmes I've seen her do.  I felt quite positive about how things will work out with her on  S@N.

For me the person who has been a big disappointment every series is Liz Bonnin.  I just don't think she has what it takes to be a good live presenter.

James

[nebogipfel]

how was this years sgl different from last year or the year before? What was improved? Dara o' and BC were there last year, they're there this year (comedian/celeb still there). If you are talking about the format of s@n, well apart from the addition of Maggie, we don't really know the line-up do we? Sorry, but I'm a tad confused here

You are clearly confused. This is a thread about Stargazing Live and presumably Back to Earth.

Unless my few remaining Brain cells are gone I am recalling inane and totally pointless contributions? from the likes of Jonathon Ross, John Bishop and David Baddiel.

The guests this year were particularly interesting and the whole production seemed much tighter and more slick.

I do think Dara is largely superfluous and his role could be better filled by Chris Lintott for example. Why did we need to send him to wallow about in the zero G 'plane and indeed the centrifuge when the BBC have recent footage of BC doing just that?  FWIW I think Dara's Science Club is very  good.

As for MAP, it may be my problem, I don't doubt she's very bright and a really lovely person but I found her contribution uncomfortable to watch. A good scientist is not necessarily a good presenter.

[JamesF]

I think in many respects Dara is the on-screen presence of the producers.  He appears to be the one who has to make sure they move things on at the right times and get the things done that the programme-makers want, which is why he often ends up interrupting people.  I think it's harsh to criticise him for doing so when that's part of his function in the programme, though I agree it would often be far more interesting to allow people to continue.  That's the nature of the medium.  The people appearing on-screen make very few decisions about what happens and do as they're told if they want continued employment.

Putting him in the "vomit comet" etc. may seem unnecessary when BC has done the same, but there may be any number of reasons for doing so.  Perhaps the BBC wanted to avoid showing viewers something they'd already seen.  Perhaps the production company wouldn't have been allowed to use the video because of copyright issues (I've not looked to see how much of this stuff is done "in-house").  Using the short clip of BC might be considered "fair use" when the entire piece wouldn't.  Perhaps the commentary in the BC version wasn't considered relevant to the way the topic was being presented in Stargazing Live.

James

[x6gas]

I too think that Dara does a good job of holding the show together and keeping it moving.  He adds a bit of light-hearted entertainment to it, and he's ideal because he does have a foundation in physics.  I actually see him as representing the interested and informed amateur with a bit more knowledge than your average person on the street.  After all, the show is not a documentary.

I don't have a lot of time for Jonathan Ross personally, but at least he was on the first series because he has a passing interest in astronomy and his wife had bought him a scope that he wasn't sure how to use (IIRC).  That provided a good hook for some practical astronomy and I thought it worked quite well.  However, there have been real low points with celebrities appearing on the show who have no interest in astronomy at all and one really does wonder why they are there (presumably, from their point of view, to try to sell a DVD but why the producers thought it was a good idea is anyone's guess...)  In my opinion this year's series was a huge improvement in that regard and Back to Earth - which I found a tad disappointing and frustrating last year - was brilliant this time around, especially the second one.

All in all, though, I am just pleased that BBC runs the series and that Stargazing Live is so much more than the TV shows.  I've had several friends saying how much they enjoyed the shows and pointing their friends at me for more information on astronomy and astro-imaging.

Well done BBC.  We want more.  We want more.  We want more!

[nebogipfel]

I think in many respects Dara is the on-screen presence of the producers.  He appears to be the one who has to make sure they move things on at the right times and get the things done that the programme-makers want, which is why he often ends up interrupting people.  I think it's harsh to criticise him for doing so when that's part of his function in the programme, though I agree it would often be far more interesting to allow people to continue.  That's the nature of the medium.  The people appearing on-screen make very few decisions about what happens and do as they're told if they want continued employment.

Putting him in the "vomit comet" etc. may seem unnecessary when BC has done the same, but there may be any number of reasons for doing so.  Perhaps the BBC wanted to avoid showing viewers something they'd already seen.  Perhaps the production company wouldn't have been allowed to use the video because of copyright issues (I've not looked to see how much of this stuff is done "in-house").  Using the short clip of BC might be considered "fair use" when the entire piece wouldn't.  Perhaps the commentary in the BC version wasn't considered relevant to the way the topic was being presented in Stargazing Live.

James

Hello James,

I don't think the BBC have any problem with repeating material these days, however you may well be right about copyright issues.

I agree Dara is tasked with moving things along but I'm sure others could do the same job perfectly well.

I emphasise that I did enjoy all three episodes with just a few reservations and since this thread seems to be a follow-up discussion it seemed reasonable to express them here.

[nebogipfel]

Well done BBC.  We want more.  We want more.  We want more!

     Can't argue with that ..........but not at the expense of S@N.

[andyman]

+1 for dara...he breaks the program up from serious discussion with a little bit of humour...making for a nice mix

[x6gas]

Thoroughly enjoyed the three shows this year. I thought they were the best yet. Everything from Saturn to the aurora to the discovery of the galaxy with its gravitational lensing. The knowledge and enthusiasm of the presenters and guests is just so inspiring. I liked the comment at the end about our bodies being made of hydrogen atoms that were formed only 3 million years after the big bang!

It's even more impressive than that Mr Fibble!  According to Gerry Gilmore hydrogen atoms formed just 3 minutes after the big bang.

I would have thought that hydrogen atoms would be being ionized all the time - which turns them into a proton - so I'm not sure how literally true that statement is.  Anyone know more?

[Mr Flibble]

By jove x6gas! If that's true I'll have no option other than to pickle my walnuts!

[Beulah]

+1 for dara...he breaks the program up from serious discussion with a little bit of humour...making for a nice mix

I like Dara too. He may not be your conventional dreamboy presenter but I think he and Coxy make a great pair on the series. The contrast between Brian and Dara is deliberate and works for me.

A bit of humour goes a long way and my family thought the Zero G Flight and the Centrifuge segments were very funny, especially how Dara introduced clips of how Brian looked like in the chamber when he was being whizzed around at 5 gee. 

I like the 'head' stuff but am not ashamed to have a laugh, which after all, is good medicine.

My family are very disappointed that they have to wait another year to see the programme again.

[YouCannotBeSirius]

The only part of the show I'm not keen on is the outside segments when we have to look at people standing in a field with their telescope (and make constellations with torches)... I understand why they include these parts but I'd personally rather have more time for interesting discussion, such as that during 'Back To Earth'.

[JamesF]

I like Dara too. He may not be your conventional dreamboy presenter but I think he and Coxy make a great pair on the series. The contrast between Brian and Dara is deliberate and works for me.

A bit of humour goes a long way and my family thought the Zero G Flight and the Centrifuge segments were very funny, especially how Dara introduced clips of how Brian looked like in the chamber when he was being whizzed around at 5 gee. 

I agree.  BC is hardly lacking a sense of humour, but as someone who is clearly passionate about science he needs someone to lighten the mood now and then or he risks losing some of the audience.  I think Dara works better than most would in that role precisely because he has a "hard science" background and can be more sensitive to the situation rather than someone who can't follow what is being discussed.  I also get the impression that they both have a respect for each other that leads to a natural-feeling on-screen chemistry which all helps the programme flow.

James

[Cath]

It's amazing how just four and a half hours of live sciencey TV programming can fully justify a £145 yearly TV fee to some people

Glad they aired the show though. But I need to see a great deal more than just 4.5 hours worth of watchable TV a year from them for our £145 pounds!

[JamesF]

It's amazing how just four and a half hours of live sciencey TV programming can fully justify a £145 yearly TV fee to some people

Glad they aired the show though. But I need to see a great deal more than just 4.5 hours worth of watchable TV a year from them for our £145 pounds!

Very true.  Three episodes of Sherlock every couple of years doesn't exactly make a huge difference to the total either.

James

[hippie]

I thought this years series was a great improvement on last year's,  On walking out there are lots of people talking about it this year all remarking how good it was from check out girls to fellow dog walkers,  All are interested that I have my scopes and  a few people have even asked about buying there first scopes advice from me,

Got Clear skies hear tonight so I'm of out shortly with my 6" refractor  looking north due to the moon being up hopefully finding some distant galaxies around  Ursa Major   M51, M101, M82, M81, M94,  Jupiter, Orion, ETC,   .

[Beulah]

I agree.  BC is hardly lacking a sense of humour, but as someone who is clearly passionate about science he needs someone to lighten the mood now and then or he risks losing some of the audience.  I think Dara works better than most would in that role precisely because he has a "hard science" background and can be more sensitive to the situation rather than someone who can't follow what is being discussed.  I also get the impression that they both have a respect for each other that leads to a natural-feeling on-screen chemistry which all helps the programme flow.

James

You explained exactly what I was trying to express, but in a much more eloquent way.

[mickshere]

Re the license fee.... dont forget that Coronation st and eastends is on four or five times a week 

Loved the Stargazing Live and enjoyed discussing it with people who would never normally tune in to this sort of show 

[mickshere]

I think one of the beauties of astronomy is no matter how many people join in it doesnt get crowded 

[LukeSkywatcher]

Having watched all 3 nights of SGL2014, i have to say the first night was top notch. I didnt think i'd be much interested in the second night, and i wasn't (apart from the aurora watch).The third night really didnt do anything for me apart from the aurora watch.

It was nice to find out about the new co-host of S@N. I cant remember her name, but i have seen her on Discovery etc and she really knows her stuff and has a great manner about herself as a tv host/presenter.

I'm excited about the return of S@N next month.

Forget my opinion..................we all know the show brings new blood to the hobby and for that reason alone......................i salute it.

p.s.~~~where can i get myself one of those glowing globes?

[rory]

It's amazing how just four and a half hours of live sciencey TV programming can fully justify a £145 yearly TV fee to some people

Glad they aired the show though. But I need to see a great deal more than just 4.5 hours worth of watchable TV a year from them for our £145 pounds!

Although there is the argument that if it wasn't funded the way it is , programmes like this wouldn't make it to our screens at all . Sky @night would probably been shelved years ago.

I'm not agreeing or disagreeing , just an observation.