This comes from the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory, i really hope this is not the case
been such a major part of my life.petition.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition
BBC are about to axe the tv show "The Sky ayt Night
- Thread starter Spook187
- Start date
This comes from the Scottish Dark Sky Observatory, i really hope this is not the case
been such a major part of my life.petition.
http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitio...utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=share_petition
Soldato
But it's not the same without Sir Patrick Moore...
Seriously, 30mins a month is too much for the beebs to keep? This is the only show that alerts me to interesting stuff to look for in the sky without having to actively go out and read and google.
Yes, it's different now without Sir Moore but the other presenters are doing a good job!
1 Less episode of Strictly come Dancing - It Takes 2 on every weekday should be enough for for 12 episode of TSAN for the year, no?
Yes, it's different now without Sir Moore but the other presenters are doing a good job!
1 Less episode of Strictly come Dancing - It Takes 2 on every weekday should be enough for for 12 episode of TSAN for the year, no?
Soldato
Get rid of The One Show and they can save a bloomin fortune
My thoughts exactly, i mean in tv terms the cost is probably very low, total disgrace from the BBC if it turns out to be true
Soldato
Of course it'll be true, why would the BBC want to male decent TV an they can shove dross like EastEnders, Homes under the Hammer and other ****e at us. Its well beyond the point where the licence fee should be scraped and they have to get advertising.
Caporegime
Haha, yeah, because advertisers will pay the big bucks for a spot in the middle of The Sky At Night.
Whatever problems the bbc has right now, moving to an advertising model is not the solution.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
The point would be, if BBC ISN'T going to actually be making good programming but has reverted to churning out the **** any other channel produces, then why the hell shouldn't they fund themselves and compete for their money like anyone else.
One of the few benefits of paying a tv licence was historically BBC's effort to produce educational/scientific programming that many other channels couldn't be arsed with. Stuff like sky at night or blue planet, any of hundreds of others of shows over the past several decades. Now it's strictly come dancing and the one show, and other complete horsemanure.... why the hell are we paying for it.
Soldato
I don't pay the TV tax anyway, but I'm still bloody appalled if this is true.
http://stargazerslounge.com/topic/195510-the-sky-at-night-the-end/
Yet sill a rumor.
There needs to be more science shows not less on the BBC.
Yet sill a rumor.
There needs to be more science shows not less on the BBC.
To be honest I think Sky at Night has run over its time, I think losing Sir P was the final blow. I think with new science shows with people like Brian Cox, the S@N became redundant; the annual Stargazing live gets far more people into astronomy than S@N has been
I just hope they replace it with something better
I just hope they replace it with something better
Man of Honour
I do hope that it is just a rumour. The Beeb show enough crap on BBC Three/Four that could be cut if the need arises so there is really no need for them to cut any show like this. As a non-profit public broadcaster they should be putting out more content like this rather than content that is geared to boosting viewing figures.
Commissario
I hope they don't cancel it, I can't imagine it would be for cost reasons if they did though (it's probably one of the cheapest shows to do!).
I wonder if they're having trouble getting someone to present it long term though, as it's the sort of thing where I suspect finding someone who knows enough about astronomy to be able to explain stuff without looking an idiot, and has experience as a presenter may be hard (IIRC Patrick Moore seemed to be doing it partly as it was a passion of his, and he was able to make it interesting to the average person).
I wonder if they're having trouble getting someone to present it long term though, as it's the sort of thing where I suspect finding someone who knows enough about astronomy to be able to explain stuff without looking an idiot, and has experience as a presenter may be hard (IIRC Patrick Moore seemed to be doing it partly as it was a passion of his, and he was able to make it interesting to the average person).
Don
Christ
The only two things I watch on TV now are this and snooker.
The only two things I watch on TV now are this and snooker.
I think the current group of presenters are doing a good job.
Soldato
Signed the petition. I need to get some value out of that license fee.
It would be a sad indictment of the current Beeb if this happens. Some regular 'serious scientific stuff' is needed.
I don't mind the current bunch presenting it, though some changes might freshen it up. As for Sir Patrick... he'd been little more than window dressing for some time.
It would be a sad indictment of the current Beeb if this happens. Some regular 'serious scientific stuff' is needed.
I don't mind the current bunch presenting it, though some changes might freshen it up. As for Sir Patrick... he'd been little more than window dressing for some time.
Last edited:
Brian Cox tweeted that he knew nothing about the show was at risk of the axe, then a while later tweeted that every show was always technically "under review". Hope that was just him being pragmatic and not because someone had had a word.