OK, Phil’s role was fine.

However, I was actually annoyed by the frequent use of artist’s conceptions and animated sequences that do not result directly from telescopic views. Many naive viewers may think that these representations correspond more closely to measured reality than they do. I would have far less problem with the fancy graphics had they been introduced with remarks that called attention to the added animation effects (e.g., the 3D ‘cruising’ through space) and the artistic interpretations. To add to my frustration, the producers were so enamored of these artistic flights of fancy that these were the graphics that they were repeating frequently during the show. (Personally, I would have much preferred if, during many segments of the narration for which they did not have relevant Hubble pictures or relevant new animations to show, that they would have just patched in a slide show of irrelevant Hubble shots. The real Hubble shots consistently looked very good in HD!)

Some of the points that were made were stretching things a bit. E.g., the segment on Shoemaker-Levy made it seem that Hubble played a critical role in observing the event. However, that event was observed adequately by numerous ground-based scopes. The show also implies that Hubble played a critical role in establishing the existence of black holes (even that that was a primary motivation for its construction). However, it is my impression that we have learned a lot more about the reality of black holes from infrared telescopes.

In my opinion, this was less a science show than a PR job for the venerable Hubble. However, I would grant that Hubble deserves and can benefit from the good PR.

I hope the ratings were good. The public needs to know just how important the HST is to science.