Sky at Night - am I missing something?

[DRT]

I remember watching Sky at Night as a child in the wake of the Moon landings and have a great affection and respect for Sir Patrick Moore. He was a super-enthusiastic character who was capable of thoughtful reflection and, when the circumstances required it, a solid, balanced delivery of factual science.

I have watched the current incarnation of Sky at Night half a dozen times in the past couple of years. Each time I have felt irritated and disengaged by the style of production and the presenters' delivery. The Rosetta special edition was the latest in a line of episodes that have made me wonder why anyone with a moderate interest in the subject would tune in. Geeks like us, yes, we will watch anything that seeks to promote astronomy because it is a passion we share. But would my son have watched that programme for more than 5 minutes without thinking he was watching bufoons pretending it was as exhilarating as a white water ride just for dramatic effect? No, he wouldn't.

I think if Sky at Night is to appeal to more than just people on this forum who are already hooked on the subject it needs presenters who and a format that engages with people who would not otherwise be enthrawlled by the mere thought of things to do with astronomy.

Please believe me when I say this is not an attack on the ability or reputation of Maggie and Chris as scientists. Both of them quite clearly could put all of us to shame when it comes to knowledge of the subject.

But would you put the man who invented driverless technology in a showroom to sell a Mercedes? No, you wouldn't.

We need a David Attenborough with a love for big Dobs and Naglers.

So why is it that people here on SGL seem to rally round and support the format and presenters of a programme that airs once a month on BBC 4 in the early hours of the morning? This stuff should be back where it used to be, on BBC2 before a ten year old boy goes to bed.

[Helite]

So why is it that people here on SGL seem to rally round and support the format and presenters of a programme that airs once a month on BBC 4 in the early hours of the morning? This stuff should be back where it used to be, on BBC2 before a ten year old boy goes to bed.

I am pretty sure it is shown at a reasonable hour and multiple times now to be fair. I think my Sky box records it at about 8pm but don't quote me on that.

It will never be what it once was but there is not many other options to go to for an astronomy related show in the UK. I think Stargazing live also does a fair bit to attract people with a less in depth knowledge about astronomy and may not to be to some peoples tastes but as a kid I would have loved something like that, shame it is only a once a year thing.

People were up in arms when S@N nearly got cancelled, it was saved and I am pretty happy about it. I actually don't mind Maggie's presenting style, I find it quirky, and she shows endless enthusiasm. She may not be to some peoples taste but such is life. 

Even when SPM was presenting it, and thinking back to the early 80's when I was a kid I don't recall it ever being a TV show that seemed to attract children, If I remember rightly it always seemed to be on really late and I only really watched it because I wanted to go to the moon like Neil Armstrong and Sky at night was a small window to that world I caught occasionally if  I was up late.

The Sky at night belonged to SPM, and with him gone it was never going to be or feel the same again, I don't even try to compare the two but still watch the new version because It is a program that relates to something I enjoy.

I know you are not alone in your dislike of the show, I have read many similar posts on SGL about it, I guess not everyone's taste can be catered for. If enough people complain maybe the BBC can replace it with another cookery show, they seem pretty popular right now! ;-)

[jambouk]

We've had various threads on this sort of theme, and as already said, i think Patrick was the life blood of the programme.

I'm sure the actual pay the presenters receive isn't very much, and over the last 6 months or so i've just become accustomed to Chris and Maggie. I'm starting to see past their individual quirks which annoyed me to start with - this is just they way they are.

I do think the recent special was very good; yes much of the information we already knew, but i greatly enjoyed it being presented from the control centre and in chronological order.

Like you, it frustrated me at first that the current incarnation of the sky at night was presented differently, but now i'm settling in, and seeing past that, and starting to enjoy it much more.

Long may it live.

James

[michaelmorris]

I think it's taken a while to find it's own style, but for me, in the last couple of programmes they have got it spot on.

[Paul73]

To try and recreate SPM's The Sky At Night would have been a huge mistake.

The new version is, errr 'New'. It is not aimed at the converted. It is aimed at those with a passing interest, particularly those of the younger persuasion.

It is more than possible that in 40 years time, Dame Maggie (as she may be then) will hang up her microphone having inspired a generation in much the same way that SPM has did for a lot of us.

I have recorded the Rosetta special to watch this evening with my six year old if he does his homework well. We'll see what he thinks.

Here's hoping.

Paul

[Ant]

We rally around to protect it because, whilst not perfect, it is all we have and we want to keep it.

In this day and age, the channel it's on is NOT important. Bbc4 is no different to Bbc2. Even the time is far less important what with the likes of Sky+.

We watch almost nothing "live" anymore, so we can skip the adverts.

With regard to the changes in presentation, what else where they to do? The poor bloke died for crying out loud. They had two choices...

1. Not replace SPM - no program

2. Find an alternitive presentation team and continue with the show

Personally I am pleased they took the bold step to continue with a different team, it would have been easier for them to have taken option 1.

If you don't like the program stop wasting the 30 minutes of your time each month and stop watching it and then moaning you don't like it! No one is forcing you to watch it.

Ant

[RichM63]

I spend 5 mins reading these threads in the hope that one of them will one day announce a change in line up to less gushing presenters.

Not yet, it seems.

Thus I follow Ant's advice above.

[Dave Lloyd]

This seems to be way of t.v nowadays. They don't have programmes any more, they have shows. Top Gear is another case in point. It's gone from an informative magazine program to a circus. Maybe those in charge these days think that we need this because of our 5 minute attention spans. Presumably if Tomorrow's World was resurrected it would follow the same format. Although I seem to remember a certain Dr Magnus Pyke in the 70s being a bit manic.

[Luke]

I love the programme and I'm surprised that we don't give it our 100% backing, given that it could have been scrapped. I think Maggie is brill (and Chris), give me someone passionate and an expert in their field any day over a slick presenter for whom it's just another job.

[Paul73]

Good point Mr Lloyd

My attention span would be cosidered short, even in goldfish circles.

Watched the much lauded "Cosmos" on iPlayer from the 80's(s). Plodding, boring, switched it off.

I like the Sky at Night.

Paul

PS. I'm glad that everyone isn't like me.

[JB80]

It's not like there is any alternative and for that reason alone it should be supported. Maybe if it was in a competitive corner of the viewing market then it would change it's approach.

I don't know, I like it still.

Plus at last check the Rosetta show was up to number 13 on the iplayer most watched list so they must be doing something right.

[astro mick]

I still like the show,always been a fan of Chris Lintott.Maggi,did take a bit of getting used to,she always seemed to be out of breath,but that is how she is.

But I did prefer the format of Chris,Pete and Lucy,but that is my personal preference.

Would still watch the show 100%.

Mick.

[ronin]

It is difficult. When SPM passed away there was always going to be a problem. New presenters would change the way it came across and also it changed from people sat at SPM's home to being a more outside format, so the production team changed, and people do like to stamp their style on things.

Throw in that Astronomy is very much a minority pastime and I suspect the BBC would really have like to let it fade away and you have a case of many changes occuring.

When Chris initially presented the format was not right, then the format changed to one I did like: Visit a University and a talk on an recent area of research then a visit to a local club for real people and what is up there to look at. To me that worked prety well. Finally Maggie joined in place of Lucy Greene, and that did not gel with me. It went off somewhere.

SPM aimed it at people who were already in the hobby, Maggie I believe operates a TV production company aimed at children. It makes me wonder if Maggie is involved in the production and is also leaning towards a production style for childern. Perhaps the program simply has no real identified target audience. It is the type that people in it will have a couple of thousands pound worth of equipment, all my scopes and eyepieces must amount to £3000-4000. So maybe a difficult sector to identify. However the Uni+Club format would mean that the "Club" bit could be directed at absolute beginners/children and equipment.

However I will say I am a person to who someones voice can put me off, and Maggies does. Another one I cannot listen to is Monty Don, anything he presents is changed channel immediatly.

I have watched less and less of S@N not helped by the fact that a remote make it easy to amble through the channels.

I will throw in that S@N has altered towards a format I do not really like, also the last time Star Gazing Live was on I watched less then half of it. May be it is just difficult to have as a TV program what is essentially a hobby, there is nothing on woodworking or photography or whatever. About the only "successful" one I know that is covered is the assorted angling/fishing programs on Quest that seem to be "right".

[Dave Lloyd]

Good point Mr Lloyd

My attention span would be cosidered short, even in goldfish circles.

Watched the much lauded "Cosmos" on iPlayer from the 80's(s). Plodding, boring, switched it off.

I like the Sky at Night.

Paul

PS. I'm glad that everyone isn't like me.

[philj]

Why did the bbc keep the s@n on after sir PMs passing when they wanted to ditch it. If I remember rightly there were petitions, debates, protests from various quarters all wanting the bbc to keep it on.

So they must be doing something right to get that amount of popular support.

I myself dont really follow s@n anymore but I dont advocate stopping it or reformatting it just because I dont like it.

I also remember getting special stop-up rights to watch it on telly when I was a lad but these days there are recorders, thus minority interest programmes like this tend to make way for the more mainstream

A scheduler putting a minority interest programme on bbc 1 at 8 o clock on a sunday night would not last long I reckon

[Dave Lloyd]

It doesn't have to be plodding. I agree, Cosmos was a bit pedestrian in some parts. It didn't help trying not to imagine that Kermit the frog was narrating it. I watched James Burke's Connections in the 70s and found it riveting. Perhaps it's a cultural thing and us oldies are a bit disconnected from mainstream media.

[Dave Lloyd]

I must find out how to get quotes and replies in the same box.

[Paul M]

I just watched the Rosetta special and thought it was quite fun.

They knew it was going to be old news by the time it aired so they built up the drama of what they did have. The lack of imagery being made public due to the possessive nature of certain groups in the project mean that very little new stuff would have been available for the programme even if they wanted to bring us breaking news.

So I thought the special was good. But...it's a long time since I was a regular watcher of S@N. Even for some time while SPM was still at the helm. I really didn't like format of it being recorded in SPM's study while he was clearly infirm.

I'm just not motivated by much of the current research in Astronomy. It would be more interesting if it was all field based, digging into amateur astronomy. Like Pete Lawrence's contributions, even though it's stuff I already know. That's where my interest lies. The Night Sky!!

[jnb]

I remember watching Sky at Night as a child in the wake of the Moon landings and have a great affection and respect for Sir Patrick Moore. He was a super-enthusiastic character who was capable of thoughtful reflection and, when the circumstances required it, a solid, balanced delivery of factual science.

I have watched the current incarnation of Sky at Night half a dozen times in the past couple of years. Each time I have felt irritated and disengaged by the style of production and the presenters' delivery. The Rosetta special edition was the latest in a line of episodes that have made me wonder why anyone with a moderate interest in the subject would tune in. Geeks like us, yes, we will watch anything that seeks to promote astronomy because it is a passion we share. But would my son have watched that programme for more than 5 minutes without thinking he was watching bufoons pretending it was as exhilarating as a white water ride just for dramatic effect? No, he wouldn't.

I think if Sky at Night is to appeal to more than just people on this forum who are already hooked on the subject it needs presenters who and a format that engages with people who would not otherwise be enthrawlled by the mere thought of things to do with astronomy.

Please believe me when I say this is not an attack on the ability or reputation of Maggie and Chris as scientists. Both of them quite clearly could put all of us to shame when it comes to knowledge of the subject.

But would you put the man who invented driverless technology in a showroom to sell a Mercedes? No, you wouldn't.

We need a David Attenborough with a love for big Dobs and Naglers.

So why is it that people here on SGL seem to rally round and support the format and presenters of a programme that airs once a month on BBC 4 in the early hours of the morning? This stuff should be back where it used to be, on BBC2 before a ten year old boy goes to bed.

Perhaps you should watch some of the old Sky At Night programmes. They were tucked away in the graveyard slot on BBC2, in many ways far worse than the current version of the programme (just a bundle of talking heads on a room with a few diagrams if you were lucky) and were tucked away in the graveyard slot on BBC2, not exactly inspiring outreach and I suspect it only survived because it was cheap and there was no expectation of needing to compete for viewing figures which was much easier to do when there were only three channels and no catchup TV. What it had, that the current version doesn't, is SPM and that you can't easily replace. There are presenters who do manage that Brian Cox and Neil deGrasse Tyson spring to mind but they don't do TS@N and Maggie and Chris don't manage quite the same appeal and enthusiasm though I suspect Maggie could give it a go.

I'd agree that there is nothing worse than fake excitement (or fake anything for that matter) but that's something that so many programmes in so many subjects are guilty of these days not just S@N. Why do we rally around the programme? because it shows support for programming on the subject.

[Reeny]

It's a good job Sky at Night don't listen to the general public.

The program is at risk / petitions are successful / BBC keep the format / it gets criticised.

We want our kids to become interested / the gravity demonstration is criticised for being too basic. 

We want entertaining and enthusiastic presenters / John Cullshaw and Maggie are criticised.

Some people want to be informed with the facts (in the style of 1980's Top Gear) / other people want to be entertained with witty opinions (Gadget Show etc)

You can't keep all the people happy all of the time.

I think the Rosetta episode was one of the very best Sky at Night shows.

It had the drama, the emotion, the entertainment value, and most importantly - it had the facts, accurately presented.

[dwc]

For the first time in a long time I've had friends, family and colleagues engaging with me on space science thanks to Rosetta/Philae. Whilst they are amazed at the actual science, a common theme has been the passion and enthusiasm that comes across from the coverage, and the "larger than life" players that feature in the interviews and live broadcasts. I thought S@N captured that perfectly in the latest edition, far better than a cold looking back analysis program might have done.

S@N has always been a mix of detail for those "in the know" and explanations for the general public, and that's how it should be. The fact that they may or may not target either group in any single episode should be irrelevant. I can imagine a future program where they discuss the results coming out of the mission, which will undoubtedly be too much detail for the general public, but of great interest to "science buffs".

[AndyWB]

... He was a super-enthusiastic character who was capable of thoughtful reflection and, when the circumstances required it, a solid, balanced delivery of factual science.

...

So why is it that people here on SGL seem to rally round and support the format and presenters of a programme that airs once a month on BBC 4 in the early hours of the morning? This stuff should be back where it used to be, on BBC2 before a ten year old boy goes to bed.

I don't know, they all seemed enthusiastic enough to me in the last episode! That was one of the things that came over in the show - you felt like everyone - project, presenters, press, hell, probably cameraman too - was really excited!

I remember that the Sky at Night used to be on at REALLY awkward times on BBC2 - either really late at night, or on a morning at the weekend, when I'd occasionally catch it when at school/university, depending on the level of hangover (too little, and I'd be doing something already. Too much, and I'd still be in bed). I actually think it has a much better slot now, though with iPlayer, such things matter less.

And the think I liked about it (through the fog of last night's beer) was the science. You'd get some funny looking guy (the weird looking ones were all guys) describing mindblowing stuff on the other side of the universe. I was fascinated by that long, long before I even thought about looking up through a scope. It didn't need Brian Cox in the Namibian desert - the wonder was in your head, from some plain studio somewhere. Incredible. 

I'm just not motivated by much of the current research in Astronomy. It would be more interesting if it was all field based, digging into amateur astronomy. Like Pete Lawrence's contributions, even though it's stuff I already know. That's where my interest lies. The Night Sky!!

I'm not sure how much field based amateur astronomy content there is. They did do an episode from Astrocamp in Wales, but it's kind of dark, and how much film do you want of other people looking at the sky? I mean, it definitely needs a bit - if only to send the message "You can see this stuff too" - but I think there already is (last episode being an exception).

And I'm not sure I'd want it to become just a sky-guide. Although reasonably inexperienced, I can spot a certain amount of repetition in the sky-guides. The one approach to a guide like that which might work would be a short guide focussing on a single object - say, something from the Messier or Caldwell catalog - and tie a little in a little science. I heard Pete Lawrence at a star party talking about Epsilon Aurigae and it's oddly long dim cycles, and that was fascinating. I could see it, and he was talking about the science, putting it in context. And I suppose there's the thought that over time, the Beeb could build up a little library of videos on iPlayer about 'stuff in the night sky'. Just a thought.

Anyway, I thought the coverage of Rosetta was brilliant. Fascinating, exciting, and immediate. Bravo! I must confess, I've watched it twice.

It might not be perfect, but I'm glad that S@N isn't another 'Celebrity come dine with me dancing on ice in the jungle' show.

[Scott]

SPM did more for televised astronomy/stargazing than anyone past or present. That said (and at the risk of being lynched) I defy anyone to say his presentation style over the last five or more years was anything more that tolerable only because of his history with the show. 

Of course I realise that this was down to ill health and I'm sure it was harder for him to bare than anyone. As an amature astronomer, particularly with regards to lunar, he was arguably unrivalled and for that he has my utmost respect

Please don't think that my remarks are in any way meant to be derogatory. I'm merely pointing out that if not for other commentators I seriously doubt whether S@N would have lasted as long as it did, even with SPM at the helm

As a foot note, I do find it curious that SPM's passion is what endeared him to many yet it's precicely that which poor Maggie seems to be condemned 

Anyway, I'm sure many of you are reaching for the pitchforks so I'll get my skates on and be gone 

[Paul M]

I'm not sure how much field based amateur astronomy content there is. They did do an episode from Astrocamp in Wales, but it's kind of dark, and how much film do you want of other people looking at the sky? I mean, it definitely needs a bit - if only to send the message "You can see this stuff too" - but I think there already is (last episode being an exception).

It might not be perfect, but I'm glad that S@N isn't another 'Celebrity come dine with me dancing on ice in the jungle' show.

Very true, that has always been a criticism directed towards the magazines.

There is no perfect solution. Perhaps the best they can is what they do now. A bit of a mixture. Keep most of us happy some of the time

Just so long as they don't harp on about the 15 million most recent exoplanets to be discovered each month and give them names.

I got bored with exoplanets before any had even been identified...

[Paul M]

SPM did more for televised astronomy/stargazing than anyone past or present. That said (and at the risk of being lynched) I defy anyone to say his presentation style over the last five or more years was anything more that tolerable only because of his history with the show. 

Of course I realise that this was down to ill health and I'm sure it was harder for him to bare than anyone. As an amature astronomer, particularly with regards to lunar, he was arguably unrivalled and for that he has my utmost respect

I have to agree.

I found it uncomfortable initially and upsetting in later years.

His last ever episode, as he said his "goodbye", was very difficult to watch. It was only watchable at all because I didn't doubt that he needed to be there and not let the side down.