sky at night on tonight

[LukeSkywatcher]

I watched a recording of it yesterday. Dear oh dear, what have the Beeb done to the show!!!!!!!!!!!. I watched the extended show and the actual content only filled about 6 mins out of 35 mins. It was paper thin with content. Also the verbal tennis between Maggie and Chris is annoying. Half a sentence from one of them and then the other one finishes the sentence.

Fast forwarded through the JC part of it and that was pretty much the whole show over.

Chris and Maggie looked more like twitchers with their bins around their necks and their wellies. I'm pretty sure even Pete's monthly run-down of what to see in the night sky was shortened and watered down.

Disappointing.

[teleaddict]

I didn't realise it was on. Working shifts I loose track of my days (but then again, that might just be age catching up on me) and I could always rely on my recorders series link. Without the series link, its a  bit of pot luck if I get to view it.

I'll try and fire up I-Player to see what every body are on about...

[astro mick]

I,ve watched the last two episodes,and have to admit,as much as I admire and like Maggie,i think she is wrong for this programme.

Chris should be the only front man,and he has been with it the last 10yrs.

He,s clear and articulate,and presents well.

Mick.

[nebogipfel]

I watched a recording of it yesterday. Dear oh dear, what have the Beeb done to the show!!!!!!!!!!!. I watched the extended show and the actual content only filled about 6 mins out of 35 mins. It was paper thin with content. Also the verbal tennis between Maggie and Chris is annoying. Half a sentence from one of them and then the other one finishes the sentence.

Fast forwarded through the JC part of it and that was pretty much the whole show over.

Chris and Maggie looked more like twitchers with their bins around their necks and their wellies. I'm pretty sure even Pete's monthly run-down of what to see in the night sky was shortened and watered down.

Disappointing.

Yes it was dreadful, I can't remember the Sky at Night ever sinking to this level.

I'm distressed and annoyed to see that Patrick's team, particularly Chris are being side-lined in favour of MAP who just cannot present TV.

Did MAP actually audition for the Job? Were  they asleep at the time? I say again, I'm sure she's a sweetheart, my sister is too, but I wouldn't want her presenting the S@N!

I'd contact Points of View or write to the Radio Times but the BBC never listen or indeed care what audiences think.

The good ship S@N is sinking fast

[reddoss]

I was at the Star party when they were filming. I think the problem with the new program may not be the presenters so much as the new production team. I guess most of them have just left University (media studies graduates I guess). There wasn't one who looked much over the age of 24 and they seemed to be a bit wet behind the ears and have very little life experience. At one stage they were interviewing people in 'vox pop' style getting them to say what there favorite object was, what was you greatest astronomy moment etc etc.... Thankfully this was not shown on the TV. 

John Culshaw was hilarious , he had a small group of us in stitches  doing his Ozzy Osbourne impressions whilst waiting for the cloud to clear. 

[DaveS]

I think reddoss has hit it on the head, too many media studies graduates fresh out of uni (And fresh out of ideas). We need a production team who've been round the block a few times, who remember how S @ N used to be and give the program a shake up.

Bring back Chris and Lucy as main presenters, don't sack Maggie but use her for her speciality, and get rid of ping-pong editing. It may be hip-and-happening-man and fashionable in media studies, but has no place in a grown up science program.

[callump]

I spoke with the 'girl' doing the vox-pops, and she was one of the script-writers too (or perhaps *the* script-writer), and she said she had an astro-physics degree or phd (don't quite recall which) - so I guess not quite your normal 'media studies' grad...

I think the programme could have been a lot better if they had filmed/shown more chatting with the amateurs rather than using it as a location for their to-camera pieces

Callum

[Nillchill]

the BBC have tried to make it "POP" and yeah its been dumbed down, I've actually started watching all the past episodes on CD just to compare.

take a look at this from You tube, one whole episode discussing a  topic no popping about,

 this is the format that got us all into this science / Hobby / Obsession

I would like to see Chris (L)  and Pete (L) as the main presenters,(if that is what they want of course) with add ins from the others as contributors. Mad Maggie P, is an enthusiastic presenter and is very knowledgeable, but her style can be somewhat difficult, and i find I dont listen to her. 

The reason why SPM was able to run with this for so long was because TV was his profession and Astronomy his passion, that's why it worked!

maybe the pull of lots of commitments in the profession of astronomy is pulling the presenters away

[nebogipfel]

.............. Mad Maggie P, is an enthusiastic presenter and is very knowledgeable, but her style can be somewhat difficult, and i find I dont listen to her. 

Yes, and it is precisely that, given that she now seems to get a large proportion of the presenting which will lose the audience and ultimately kill a very special TV programme.

S@N didn't need fixing, it was fine under the care of Chris, Lucie and team. I 'd be interested to learn what they (privately) think of the improvements?

[LukeSkywatcher]

Ironic really. Thousands of people (including all of us and our pets), signed a petition to keep the show going and now we (the same people and pets) are moaning about it. Thats ok though as its our tv licence money that is paying for these shows. 

[Stridor]

She's nothing like Patrick. She may be clever, she may be enthusiastic, she may be a talented space scientist but in my opinion she is an ineffective TV presenter who doesn't .......appear......... to have.......a clue ......how to talk...... to a TV........ audience. It's painful to watch and detracts from what was an excellent astronomy programme.

Yes, it could be argued that she comes across as somewhat excentric and it that way could be vaguely compared to Patrick but he was an engaging talented fascinating teacher/broadcaster who could speak unscripted and with authority and pitched his delivery at exactly the right level much of the time.

If they wanted a female co-presenter (and why not) why not continue with Lucie Green or employ Helen Czerski both of seem so better suited to the job. As I have commented previously, there was no reason to radically change the S@N as it had continued after we lost Patrick.

I do quite like her, she obviously knows her stuff but I don`t think she is suitable as a S@N presenter; she doesn't really make it a relaxing programme to watch.

[ronin]

Ironic really. Thousands of people (including all of us and our pets), signed a petition to keep the show going and now we (the same people and pets) are moaning about it. Thats ok though as its our tv licence money that is paying for these shows. 

It very much is ironic.

I suppose that the change has been such that it has little resemblance to what it was.

SPM was a little eccentric but the program was aimed squarely at amateur astronomy, I wonder at present if that is still the ultimate aim of the program.

Can really offer very little other then aspects I have said earlier, I liked the arrangement at the end of 2013 - university visit covering a research area and visit to a local astro club and/or what to look for. That seemed a fair base format and allowed variation, as in drop the Uni visit and have a club visit and information on imaging the most interesting object.

That basic format showed prospective students which universities covered astonomy+astrophysics and got a local astro club some TV time.

Equally ChrisL and LucieG came across well, I suppose hey were in their "natural element". They spoke in whole sentences and the level of information was appropriate.

[nebogipfel]

Ironic really. Thousands of people (including all of us and our pets), signed a petition to keep the show going and now we (the same people and pets) are moaning about it. Thats ok though as its our tv licence money that is paying for these shows. 

Yes, the petition was save the S@N not start slowly choking it to death. 

We are indeed the licence payers, but that doesn't seem to worry the BBC these days.

[Umbraldot]

Sir Patrick was a serious astronomer.  He presented his programme seriously and I was engrossed as an 8 year old, as a teenager, as an adult and as an old foggie.  This Blue Peter approach does nothing for the programme or the subject.  We need some serious astronomy. Facts and what to see and how to see it.

The inability of the series record function is a major problem as I miss it more often than I watch it, but maybe that's no bad thing these days.

[kirkster501]

I have deleted my series link for S@N.  I used to get excited when I had a new episode to watch.  Now I think what rubbish are they trying to fill half an hour.  Sorry to be so brutal.

The main presenter on this program should be Pete Lawrence - he is more than qualified to present this program and he has handcuffs on in the current format.  Pete is the one who talks about astronomy to astronomers.

[jambouk]

I probably agree with most of what has already been said.

The ping-pong thing doesn't float my boat as a means to present most of the show.

Maggie is better as a presenter when she is on her own.

I suspect Chris has university/work commitments and would struggle to juggle that with being the only S@N presenter.

I am not sure who used to design and plan each show when patrick was at his peak, i suspect he had massive involvement in that. I get the impression now, that the presenters are just reading an auto-cue from a script that a researcher has written.

I have emailed the producer, saying i felt the content has been overly watered down and is at risk of making the amateur astronomer uninterested in the show, whilst maybe having transient appeal to the passing "generalist" viewer. I also asked if any members of the production team kept an eye on the astronomy forums to see what amateur astronomers were saying about the show, and i pasted some URLs into the email - i got a "read receipt" but no reply. Fair enough as he probably gets lots of annoying emails, but i tried.

I still record the show and watch it, but it lost so much more than patrick when he passed away.

Jd

[ChrisLX200]

It seems the show does not take amateur astronomers seriously, and assumes they should be 'entertained' rather than 'informed'. There is no serious content, nothing to hold my interest at all.

ChrisH

[RogerTheDodger]

I can't bear to watch it now, if they had continued as it was when SPM passed away I'd still be watching now - nothing needed changing.

[Paul M]

I skipped through the last episode on iPlayer because I wasn't finding the content interesting

But then I have never been an avid S@N fan. I was hoping the new era would revitalise it but after a promising start I'm not sure it's got the legs for a long run....

[LukeSkywatcher]

After SPM passed and the show was presented by Chris and Lucy and Pete and Paul etc...........................it still worked.

Its NOT the same show now. Its as if the Beeb want it to be on the same level as astronomy shows which are on Discovery etc. 

Its not on that level, and we dont want it to be on that level. For 50 yrs, its been a show presented by amateurs aimed at amateurs.

Personally i think Chris,Lucy worked brilliantly and then Pete,Paul etc also worked brilliantly.

JC is my only real gripe. I dont see the need for him on the show.

Essentially, i never REALLY watched it religiously, and i shant do so in the future, unless there is a special celestial event due which i have an interest in and want info on it. 

[Kropster]

How about repeating all the old SPM S@Ns at the appropriate time of year.

It wouldn't cost the BBC much and there would be a big audience for it, for sure.

[LukeSkywatcher]

How about repeating all the old SPM S@Ns at the appropriate time of year.

It wouldn't cost the BBC much and there would be a big audience for it, for sure.

That is only gonna be for sentimental reasons and not cost effective for the Beeb.

Maybe the new format of S@N will drag in a new audience, but i fear it has lost most of the audience it had over the last 50 yrs.

[gooseholla]

How about repeating all the old SPM S@Ns at the appropriate time of year.

It wouldn't cost the BBC much and there would be a big audience for it, for sure.

It often amazes me that the BBC has such a large archive of quality programming but never shows it. Not just S@N, but drama spanning the decades etc. Seems such a waste. At a time when they are complaining of lack of money, why not show stuff that has already been paid for. But, alas, they seem content to repeat a few programs 10x a week.