Sky at Night - am I missing something?

[Owmuchonomy]

I agree with Scott. Let's remember it's now 2014 and modern media has to present a new face to the public. There is nothing wrong with the S@N and I'm sure it has spawned other programmes too. There is so much on i player radio that I can listen to a new science show every day when I like. Only last night I finally understood what a Quark is. And as for children watching stuff they can watch as much or as little as they like when they like which works for mine. We have replayed for ever that marvellous five minutes of Brian Cox smiling like a child in a sweet shop when the feather and bowling ball hit the ground at the same time! Galileo, Sir Patrick, Dara etc., take your pick, that's the point.

[gooseholla]

I no longer watch it. I've given It a shot but it isn't for me now. It is never going to be what it was under Sir Patrick Moore. I'm just thinking though, 7 years ago there was a wonderful special S@N which made me want to go out and buy a telescope. I don't think any of the current S@N episodes would have inspired me to do so. 

[Mukv]

Greetings

I have not watched the last 2 episodes but did watch the special,very watchable but nothing that stands out from all the other news channels , The soul is no longer there in the programme , it lacks that special somthing there is no passion from any of the presenters , it's just another job to bring in the pennies for them! I beleve that an astonomer with passion for this hobby would dance circles around the current team, the only passion was from the solar science section in the form of Dr Lucy Green.

for me the time for an alternate channel to bring in somthing fresh is here somthing that will inspire like the early days, but please nothing like the american format factual documentries ( CRINGE ) !

bring on the Stargazing live for a few weeks.

Andy

[DRT]

Thank you for all the replies. I am delighted that I stirred up a hornets nest

As I said in my original post I am not criticising the presenters for their expertese. My comments were directed at the producers. Making a programme that is appreciated by fanatics will only ever interest fanatics. I have fond memories and great respect for SPM but it is time to let him go. S@N needs to move on and not try to replicate the eccentric style that allowed him to make it a success. The world of astonomy TV now needs something different if it is to grab the attention of people who don't feel the need to post in this thread.

[Reeny]

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

I like daft programs along the lines of Top Gear for the childish schoolyard humour, and the entertainment value.

But for me, it doesn't work so well on complicated tecky stuff like the Gadget Show.

Maybe it's just me.

I want the facts - I don't want arty camera shots in south of France, with plenty of larking around, and bogus competitions to see "which one is best"

We should be careful what we wish for.

If we were all zoologists, we would probably find David Attenborough's nature programs a bit long winded.

Sky at Night (along with Stargazing Live) is the reason I am here on the forum, and enjoying the hobby.

[DRT]

IIf we were all zoologists, we would probably find David Attenborough's nature programs a bit long winded.

That is exacltly my point, but in reverse. S@N's current format plays to geeky astrnonomy types - but I don't think it will bring new blood into the game in its current format.

[Cath]

Cosmos was a bit pedestrian in some parts. It didn't help trying not to imagine that Kermit the frog was narrating it.

oi ! .. Little Kermits OK he is

I don't think their is a problem with S@N, I do like Maggie and Chris, I like any scientist who is willing to take time out to try and pry peoples thoughts away from east flippin enders and such like, not an easy job to do! ... I mean, who wants to be educated when it's easier to vegitate?

The problem isn't with S@N, the problem is with the fact that their is so little science on TV, we have so little variety to choose from.

My question is not what's wrong with the S@N, my question is how have we gone and arrived at such a sad/silly state of affairs where you have the majority of a species become so facinated/satisfied with vegitating with the emptiness that we get given on that box in the corner? .. not to mention the fact that not only are most of them satisfied with the carp, but they like to pay for it too!

Is i just me, or am I really missing something here I wonder?

"You think too much" I often get told

[astro mick]

I think you can mix the two Cath,I,m quite an avid Enders fan,but love and practice Astronomy,and I haste to add have an enquiring mind.(I think)

Also don't forget we are talking here about one particular subject.

Other people have totally different hobbies,that engross them,and,i presume would,nt in the least interest us.

Mick.

[Cath]

Oh I know science is not all their should be, I agree. To have a hobby or other such past time other than doing nothing is a really good thing in life, it doesn't have to be sciencey, it can be anything other than vegitating with nothingness.

Not that I have anything against actual vegitables mind!

[Reeny]

Another issue is the lack of ground breaking new topics to talk about.

No Apollo / No space shuttle / No visible wow factors (now that the ISS is old hat).

Cassini is doing well / the Rosetta orbiter still has plenty of work to do / and the ISS is still up there doing excellent work.

The endurance of Sky at Night is credible.

How many house improvement programs have disappeared.

Only to be replaced by cookery programs, amateur Karaoke talent shows, and celebrity dance programs.

I know what I would rather be watching, and it ain't Robson Greens Extreme fishing.

(Sorry Robson)

[Luke]

re: "just another job":

"Dr. Maggie Aderin-Pocock studied at Imperial College London where she obtained her degree in Physics and her Ph.D. in Mechanical Engineering. Since then she has spent her career making novel, bespoke instrumentation in both the industrial and academic environments. Until recently Maggie worked at Astrium Ltd. where she led the optical instrumentation group. Here she managed a range of projects, making satellite sub-systems designed to monitor variables in the Earth's atmosphere. Maggie has since set up her own company, Science Innovation Ltd., through which she conducts "Tours of the Universe" and other public engagement activities, showing school children and adults the wonders of space. To date she has given these talks to 150,000 people across the globe."

We seem to keep getting these threads popping up about Sky at Night and presenting style etc., and we're months in now. I think I will just "switch channel" in future
 

[chris285]

I'll add my 2 pence to this subject, which obviously has brought up a lot of different opinions on this matter.

SPM started S@N back in the late 50's when the space race was starting, and from a media point of view for members of the public there was a very limited choice of sources of information. He the job for such a long time he and the show are referred to at the same time mostly, and when he passed away it would have been a bigger crime if the show died with him in my opinion.

What you also need to think is now we have such a bigger source of information rather than just S@N for our astronomy information, we have news channels covering current events not to mention the internet has grown in the last 20 years as well giving us all so much more information that we have ever had before. As mentioned I think many already knew the main points covered via news or other areas before the S@N episode was broadcast last weekend and this relates to what I have just mentioned, however for me it was more interesting seeing more behind the scenes and the interviews with the people involved and getting everyone's reactions as this was all going on.

As for the presenters I was initially skeptical about the current pairing of Maggie and Chris however I think as I have seen more episodes I like the pairing, both are very obviously very skilled in their fields and knowledgeable but the show will not be the same without SPM so you have to put that to one side. In terms of presenters I think trying to get a balance of enthusiastic scientists as well as the ability to convey this to a varied audience without going down the route of getting an experience TV presenter is a difficult task, you have to have passion for the subject in my opinion and I think Maggie and Chris are currently striking a good balance between them.