Sky at Night 9th March

[jambouk]

Unfortunately i found this months show a bit dry. I was interested in the theme, but it just felt too bitty and disjointed, and i didn't feel it did justice to the topic or at any stage have a good summary/conclusion. I didn't feel any warmth or sincerity from the two main presenters either. Lucie Green is great though, she is utterly encouraging/enthusiastic/sincere; and it's not because i fancy her either, i'm gay!

Anyway, i have loved the show for ages, and even enjoyed the episodes after Patrick's departure from it.

The first show in 2014 was good, and i hoped it had potential, but this one i found disappointing.

It must be hard to try and meet all viewers needs, but i feel the main target audience should be the interested active amateur. I suspect a slightly high-brow programme will have more appeal to less knowledgeable people than a "low-brow" (if that term exists) one will have appeal to more knowledgeable individuals.

I think there is scope to show more what individual regional groups and societies are doing, what kit and modifications they have done, and have a bit more in depth info on observing and imaging.

I think there is a fair amount of padding at present, which could be trimmed down to make more time for more stuff.

I hope the production team have spies who read threads like this one, and i hope other SGLers comment here and via the BBC website as i do want the programme to be a success again and inspire future generations.

James

[Si Rollett]

I never really noticed the camera wobbling about but I don't get sea sick so I think I would have been fine.

[cotterless45]

It's a big ask to try and cram everything within the time. Maybe they should try the same format which makes the magazine such a great resource.

Some science updates, night sky for the month, targets heads up, viewers pics and events. I miss the cozy big arm chair discussions, I am sure that Pete , Chris and Maggie could kick off more comfortably.

Nick.

[Si Rollett]

The programme needs to be longer to get everything in with out rush it all

[Sandraj]

I watched it on iplayer, seemed ok.

[cyborg421]

I agree with James with most aspects. I did enjoy the first programme. I think the producers need to decide who they are aiming the program at. To me it didn't seeem to know. It spent a minute trying to explain what sound was with lots of visuals, something that most people would know and then spent long parts on conversations with experts waving their hands around which was very dry when visuals were blatantly needed.

My concern is that if they produce too many programs like this then they are going to lose their key audience which has kept the show going over decades and give the BBC justification to cancel it altogether.

The Sky at Night has always been a program for interested amateurs not a program trying to get the layman interested. That was the reason for its success and must be the route for it to continue successfully.

Laymen may watch it once and not come back, interested amateurs are there for the long term.

Simon

[ronin]

Several attempts have been made at presenting the sound that stars etc make, and I guess if someone dug them all out every one would have a different sound for the same object. It is a bit like the multitude of AP images we see - someone makes up their interpretation. Many here must have looked at images of M42 in bright reds and purples. So why is the only visual descriptions of M42 is grey and a possible vague hint of green?

The sound the sun makes: Well it is a large thermonuclear fusion bomb, so I guess Handels water music is a low probability. Something makes me suspect a very loud and very unmusical BANG is the most likely. :grin:

I think they had arrived at a reasonable format at the end of the previous series, visit a university for an up-to-date report on an aspect of astronomy and a visit to a local club for information on what to look for. That as a basis seemed to be good.

Lucie Green was and is good, I am really not sure what Maggie is actually bringing to the program. I assume she has read the US Politicians Speech Book saying to speak 3 or 4 words then stop, then another 3 or 4 words then another stop and carry on like this until the end of what would have been a perfectly easy sentence to say in one go. Sorry but I can actually understand a whole sentence of English in one go. I am not overloaded by more then 4 words.

Agree that the program always was aimed at people interested in and participating in amateur astronomy, if the idea is to refocus it at people that know nothing and have little interest it will fail. I will never like biology no matter how many time they have a biology program on TV, it is the same for this.someone who has no interest will not suddenly discover that astronomy was the great gap in their reason to exist, they will change channels.

[rustyjames]

I enjoyed it,watched it with my 12 yr old because she's just covered sound in science at school,last months was good,but then again I'd watch Dr Helen Czerski on anything!

[cyborg421]

"Lucie Green was and is good, I am really not sure what Maggie is actually bringing to the program. I assume she has read the US Politicians Speech Book saying to speak 3 or 4 words then stop, then another 3 or 4 words then another stop and carry on like this until the end of what would have been a perfectly easy sentence to say in one go. Sorry but I can actually understand a whole sentence of English in one go. I am not overloaded by more then 4 words."

I would really like to have known what the interview process and criteria were for the new Sky at Night presenter. Maggie cannot seem to put a coherent sentence together and doesn't seem a natural irrespective of her qualifications. Lucie Green on the other hand seems to have a grasp of communication, sounds knowledgeable and comes across much more naturally. I sincerely hope Maggie wasn't chosen above Lucie. If so, someones made a major blooper. I also hope it wasn't for PC reasons, Sky at Night deserves better than that.

Simon