Space Odyssey BBC1 tonight

"Peter Hayes" wrote in message
o.uk...
Chris Taylor wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...
In article , Martin
wrote:
The second one's on tonight, yes?


16 Nov, 9pm BBC One

And it was an even bigger load of rubbish than the first episode.

Science fact that could have been explained in five minutes by Patrick
Moore, and science fiction that would shame a five year old.

Sheesh - what a wasted opportunity.

--

Peter

We could have had another series of Fatty and Trinny for that money.

Martin

Martin wrote:

"Jim" wrote in message
...
Paul Neave wrote:

Looking forward to this, 9pm tonight

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/3992971.stm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/prog.../spaceodyssey/

Many thanks to eveyone who let me know when it was repeated - I got it
this time :-)

Jim

What did you think of it?

Well, that was...nice.

Jim
--
Find me at http://www.ursaminorbeta.co.uk AIM/iChatAV: JCAndrew2
"We deal in the moral equivalent of black holes, where the normal
laws of right and wrong break down; beyond those metaphysical
event horizons there exist ... special circumstances" - Use Of Weapons

In ,
Martin typed:

The BBC are hopeless at most things these days.


Especially news. At least two BBC news gaffs today:

A presenter was talking about the "dark side of the Moon" this morning and
also making a complete Horlicks of describing what SMART-1 was about. She
obviously hadn't a clue what an orbit was.

Then a presentation of the NASA Scramjet launch this evening. To give them
credit, they showed it live. Well actually, they showed the launch from
the B52 live and then cut the item off. Again, the presenter was clueless.
She was talking about the successful "speed record attempt" and the item was
cut off for the next news item....while the rocket was still burning and
before the scramjet had even started up.

Jo

"Tim Auton" wrote
"Martin" wrote:
[snip]
I take your point but it seems to be aimed more at kids or Chavs than
anything else. If kids then why on at 9PM? And why not discuss the technical
issues much more? I guess the BBC management (being mainly Guardian reading
sandal wearers) can't understand anything technical and assume we can't
either.

I found it largely annoying. Except that French medical bird, she was
rather fit and had *such* a sexy voice.

Yeah and the mandatory decorative oriental - predictable.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

"Martin" wrote:
[snip]
I take your point but it seems to be aimed more at kids or Chavs than
anything else. If kids then why on at 9PM? And why not discuss the technical
issues much more? I guess the BBC management (being mainly Guardian reading
sandal wearers) can't understand anything technical and assume we can't
either.

I found it largely annoying. Except that French medical bird, she was
rather fit and had *such* a sexy voice.

The stuff about the planets wasn't bad, but quite why they had to wrap
it up in the contrived story of a single mission to almost everywhere
(yeah, right, that's the optimal solution) I have no idea. It seems to
be the trend with BBC popular science stuff though. We used to have
David Attenbrough talking quietly about the colony of bats behind him.
Now we have Bridget the Sparrow's Diary. Will she eat that huge ant?
Come back next week to find out!

The dinosaurs stuff was equally contrived (and largely speculation,
but don't let that get in the way of a good story, it's only
science!).

However, the series wasn't aimed at us (AAs) and we are a pretty small
minority. If it educated a few kids and chavs then the BBC is doing
its job. It would be doing more of its job if it also catered for
better informed viewers with something a bit more in-depth though. If
science got as much coverage as art I'd be a happy man. The Sky at
Night is good for what it is, but it's not enough.


Tim
--
Foo.

"Martin" wrote:


"Martin Frey" wrote in message
.. .
(AA Institute) wrote:

I have my own stories to contemplate over, and I certainly wouldn't
let any BBC calibre camera crew film my motion pictures!

I know this is just a wind up but where do you find better quality
camera work than the BBC? Advertising and cinema differ in budget, not
skill and usually not in quality either.

The BBC are hopeless at most things these days.

Do I here the faint sound of an axe grinding?

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

"Fleetie" wrote:

"Tim Auton" wrote

I found it largely annoying. Except that French medical bird, she was
rather fit and had *such* a sexy voice.

Yeah and the mandatory decorative oriental - predictable.

What was really odd was the arty fartys didn't even handle the drama
with any skill or clarity. They abandoned the girl in the Ring system
then had a death - but failed to reveal how she got back and managed
not to be the death. Did the guy die or kill himself? How did they get
off the comet? With one bound they were free. How did the comet lot
get into the airlock - they had one minute's oxygen left and the
mother ship bombarded worse than the Somme? One bound and they were
preparing for home.

If you can't get the fiction right, what price the fact?

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

"Jo" wrote in message
...
In ,
Martin typed:

The BBC are hopeless at most things these days.


Especially news. At least two BBC news gaffs today:

A presenter was talking about the "dark side of the Moon" this morning and
also making a complete Horlicks of describing what SMART-1 was about. She
obviously hadn't a clue what an orbit was.

Then a presentation of the NASA Scramjet launch this evening. To give them
credit, they showed it live. Well actually, they showed the launch from
the B52 live and then cut the item off. Again, the presenter was clueless.
She was talking about the successful "speed record attempt" and the item
was
cut off for the next news item....while the rocket was still burning and
before the scramjet had even started up.

Jo


Its something the BBC don't do well on News coverage. To be fair the vast
majority of BBC journalists are arts graduates and have no interest in
Science or Engineering. We should of course ask why our main Public
broadcaster employs people from such a narrow section of society, but then
again look at our political elite and they are all lawyers or arty types as
well.

Every time the BBC have some discussion programme on about Space exploration
they always wheel out a couple of sandal wearers who tell us that the
pittance that is spent on Space could solve the third world depbt and food
problem and of course the BBC presenter always (without fail) goes along
with it. BBC Radio 5 are the WORST by miles for this.

Martin

"Martin Frey" wrote in message
...
"Martin" wrote:


"Martin Frey" wrote in message
.. .
(AA Institute) wrote:

I have my own stories to contemplate over, and I certainly wouldn't
let any BBC calibre camera crew film my motion pictures!

I know this is just a wind up but where do you find better quality
camera work than the BBC? Advertising and cinema differ in budget, not
skill and usually not in quality either.

The BBC are hopeless at most things these days.

Do I here the faint sound of an axe grinding?

-----------------------------
Martin Frey
http://www.hadastro.org.uk
N 51 01 52.2 E 0 47 21.1
-----------------------------

Can you tell me what they DO well then?

Martin

Martin Frey wrote:
"Fleetie" wrote:
"Tim Auton" wrote

I found it largely annoying. Except that French medical bird, she was
rather fit and had *such* a sexy voice.

Yeah and the mandatory decorative oriental - predictable.

What was really odd was the arty fartys didn't even handle the drama
with any skill or clarity. They abandoned the girl in the Ring system
then had a death - but failed to reveal how she got back and managed
not to be the death.

I think the guy died while the girl was EVAing in the rings. Due to
the death, the crew on the ship were too upset to reply to her. At
least, that's how I read the situation. It was a bit confused.


Tim
--
Foo.