Posted by Steve Holmes2 at 23:45 on 2014 Feb 11
I agree that, overall, the "revamped" version was very good. I liked the way it was explicitly divided up into sections by use of the "Sky At Night" title, and the sections themselves certainly covered some excellent and high-quality material. However, I think Pete Lawrence’s guide to the skies was perhaps a little too basic, as almost all the information has been covered many times before. Still, we’ll see what subsequent programmes bring.As to the presenters, while I am not his greatest fan I must say that Chris Lintott is certainly growing into his "anchorman" role. But then we come to Dr Aderin-Pocock. I am, of course, somewhat biassed as far as she is concerned (see the forum topic "Do We Really Need The Moon") but even so I felt she looked (and, judging by her body-language, felt) completely out of place – as she did on Stargazing Live. One might call her style "intense" but equally accurate would be "gushing". While Sir Patrick was definitely "enthusiastic" in his delivery at times, one could be confident this was based on real enthusiasm rather than the "oh – wow, isn’t this cool" approach we seem to get from Dr A-P. Also, one always felt that Sir Patrick knew exactly what he was talking about. Chris also seems to give this impression, but I have severe doubts about Dr A-P. Her delivery felt more as if she had simply swotted up a few "populist sound bites" to throw into the articles. I was relieved that she wasn’t used more but the flip-side to that is – what exactly was her contribution to the programme? One could have re-dubbed the voice-overs and edited her out of a few scenes and the casual viewer would hardly have noticed.So – a great start but not 10 out of 10 yet.Steve Holmes