The sky at night

[todd8137]

Well after last nights effort I really think the sky at night as lost it's edge over the last 20 odd years ,it's always pointed out what to look out for in the night sky , so why loose that from a astronomy programme ?,

Things where always explained in laymans terms so every one could understand ,now days you need a degree in astro physics to understand most of what they are talking about. they have lost the plot and it seems that all the programes are just thrown together and they hope for the best

The only thing that is constant is the theme music

[ronin]

I saw it was on, forgot completely about it and missed it all, not overly bothered these days I have missed the previous 2 episodes so that is 3 now.

Was this the one that someone here said was on Little Green Men ?

If so glad I missed it.

How to agree that something has gone astray.

I would watch it simply to get information, about 6 months I started to get the idea that information supplied was not worth having.

[JB80]

I still quite like it, wish there was more of it if I'm honest.

I wonder if anyone else had noticed if they have changed the filming resolution or something, I could of sworn it looked more like the old school documentaries style.

I may of course be going crazy though.

[michaelmorris]

I think that the last few episodes have been really rather good.

[yeletah]

The BBC should promote the "The Sky At Night", for many positive reasons.

makes you question the BBC ?

[Scott]

My I'd hate to be on the scheduling board of s@n....one month it's being slated for dumbing down, the next for being too scientific. A lose/lose situation if ever I saw one

[Davey-T]

I still quite like it, wish there was more of it if I'm honest.

I wonder if anyone else had noticed if they have changed the filming resolution or something, I could of sworn it looked more like the old school documentaries style.

I may of course be going crazy though.

Too much staring at the Sun makes your eyes go funny 

Dave

[fondofchips]

I watch it, good or bad thinking that it would not be there at at all without the efforts of Sir Patrick Moore and his endless enthusiasm for Astronomy. 

[Starman]

I wouldn't normally post in these monthly threads but just to let you know, there wasn't enough space for my Star Guide in the programme this month so it's been put on the website instead. You can view it here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p02jf7dt

As for the Little Green Men comments - I guess you missed this then http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00bf0jl

Pete 

[alan potts]

Living where I do it would be nice to even see it. I have been watching some of the older ones that I used to be able to get hold of, funny as it seems they are even better second time around. Watched two on the, Summer soltice and the sounds of stars last night from just over 18 months back, good TV in my books.

Alan

[mikeDnight]

I gave up on the Sky at Night some time ago. What I find irritating about the way it is presented is that they now use two or more presenters to do the job of one person. Chris L will say a sentence, then the camera will pan to someone else who will also say a sentence, then its back to Chris. By the time they have welcomed you to the Sky at Night and told you what the programme is about you feel like you've watched a tennis tournament. Also, the false eccentricity and over enthusiastic panting of some of the presenters is stomach churning.

We don't need professional scientists at all to present such a programme, it was presented by an amateur for over 50 years and in my view should be kept that way. Pete Lawrence should have been handed the Rein's whether he wanted it or not; he has a lovely manner and is a knowledgeable amateur. The S @ N would have soared in his capable hands. Plus, his knowledge of imaging would be of real advantage to the amateur fraternity.

The trouble is that the BBC is now run by people who are incapable of understanding what makes a good science programme. They dumb down everything to the lowest common denominator. Horizon is a fine example, where they fill the programme with noisey music, flashing images and scientists stood in derelict factories for absolutely no reason. S&N is similar with its pointless banter between presenters, trying to be funny, but failing miserably. It was always a programme for amateur astronomers and over the five decades with Patrick at the helm, it introduced thousands of us to the hobby of astronomy and for which we will be eternally grateful. To see the programme fall from what it used to be to what it is now is very sad.

Mike:-(

[Paul73]

Great.

I rather look forward the the regular Sky @ Night bashing / defending threads. I never remember when it is on, so these threads remind me to fire up the old iPlayer, kick back and enjoy.

Surely a thread or two building on some of the topics discussed on the show might be worthwhile?

Paul

[coulthamst]

I have found the best way to deal with the "ping-pong" and sometimes idiosyncratic delivery is to watch with the sound turned off, and the subtitles in use. I play music as a background, and despite the visual clues that more than one person is talking, my mind is much more accepting of the content. Works for me.

[ScottS]

I have found the best way to deal with the "ping-pong" and sometimes idiosyncratic delivery is to watch with the sound turned off, and the subtitles in use. I play music as a background, and despite the visual clues that more than one person is talking, my mind is much more accepting of the content. Works for me.

I do something similar. It's called reading the Sky at Night magazine.

[ronin]

I liked Chris Lintott doing the technical/professional astronomy side and then Pete Lawrence at a club doing the what to observe bit. To me it worked pretty well. A university got coverage and a local astronomy society also got coverage.

Will say I find that even a professional presenting "simple" bits helps, they have the background knowledge to sound like they know what they are talking about.

So it was UFO's??

Not sure if that is better or worse then LGM. :grin:

Going to settle for the LGM driving the UFO's. :rolleyes:

I am afraid that S@N is now something that if I stumble on it and there is nothing better then I will watch it, but with about 30 channels available it has meant that I do not end up watching it. It also seems to mean that if I stumble on it then I still go looking for something more entertaining.

[Robbie688]

The sky at night should be on saturday night prime time......not that Im biased  

Still get that flutter when the music starts even now.

[Craig_]

I have some good memories of The sky at night from the late 80s. Back then it seemed more accessible and entertaining to my teenage eyes.

I remember getting the monthly star charts and newsletters through the post and I still have a handwritten letter from sir Patrick Moore somewhere in my loft.

I've tried to watch it recently but it just ain't the same.

[sbooder]

I still like it!

[ronin]

Not sure about the way it is going, I neither actively go looking for it nor do I actively avoid it. So my approach to it has altered - I would try and watch it if possible even if the last chance was some odd time of the night/morning, and it did appear at odd times.

Strangely it has altered even on SGL.

It used to be that people would post when it was due to be transmitted, and a flurry of posts the day it came out.

That seems to have gone.

I think I am right in saying this was the first post about the just gone episode and this was posted after the event.

No-one posted prior for when it was due to be shown.

So some general change in how it is considered.

[spike95609]

The Sky at Night has always had to walk that very difficult line between pleasing experts and not utterly losing those whose astronomical knowledge is restricted to knowing which one is the Sun and which one is the Moon. I remember watching some episodes 10 years ago, trying to understand but not really knowing what anyone was going on about. Whether an episode wins or loses, I'm just happy that it's on TV at all. Maybe they could do a red button edition after the main programme for some real fans-only talk?

[goodricke1]

Yes I have to agree the last episode was an anti-climax, I'm certainly no wiser about possible ETI now then I was before. Although the brilliant Jocelyn Bell is always worth listening to, I don't really see the relevance of the 50-year-old pulsar story to present-day search attempts.

I'd agree with the above poster who said Pete Lawrence would be the better choice, he bridges the divide between amateurs and experts, and has a natural presentational style -  unlike the other two who, no offence, leave me squirming in discomfort.

[And the panning back to see the presenter nodding in agreement is so grating]

Also the theme tune has always left me cold, it must be Sibelius' worst ever dirge

[Tomjo59]

I still like it, and it has improved of late, though there is a tendency to go for the 'gee-whizz' style of presentation - all that toing and frow-ing between the presenters is irritating.

I think the program needs to maintain a balance between news of the latest advances in astronomy, and practical items for backyard astronomers.

[Paul M]

I just iPlayered it.

I was nodding off in the first half but sat up when the piece about Beagle 2 came on.

Overall then, worth watching.

iPlayer now just chose to play me a documentary about the Voyager probes. Excellent stuff! 

[Scott]

Yes I have to agree the last episode was an anti-climax, I'm certainly no wiser about possible ETI now then I was before. Although the brilliant Jocelyn Bell is always worth listening to, I don't really see the relevance of the 50-year-old pulsar story to present-day search attempts.

I'd agree with the above poster who said Pete Lawrence would be the better choice, he bridges the divide between amateurs and experts, and has a natural presentational style -  unlike the other two who, no offence, leave me squirming in discomfort.

[And the panning back to see the presenter nodding in agreement is so grating]

Also the theme tune has always left me cold, it must be Sibelius' worst ever dirge

Just curious as to how this can be construde as anything other than offensive. Especially as at least one of "the other two" is a member here.

[davedownsouth]

I saw this last night and thought it was pretty good.  Would always prefer a bit more about what is best to see over the coming month, but I guess this is what I get the Sky at Night magazine for