Mike Murray
Delta College Planetarium
Bay City, Michigan
“Criticism is prejudice made plausible.” – H.L. Mencken
Everyone, no matter how hard they try to avoid bias, has their own subjective expectations of what
makes for a “good show.” We argue and critique the language, pacing, density of information, musical
style, program length, and a host of visual features. While the specificity of such criteria is frequently
justified as “what our audiences here expect,” it is often influenced by personal preference and past
experience in a few select environments.
The effectiveness of a presentation is best measured by how well it can tell a gripping story, plays to its
technological strengths, educates in a way that feels entertaining, and contains a pleasing mix of science
and drama. We attempt to measure these qualities but what matters is how our audiences feel about
the overall experience. The largest factor in creating a memorable performance is how well a program
engages the emotions, followed closely by an attractive (and understandable) story.
What does it mean then to be objective in reviewing a show? It should begin with the fundamentals –
not searching out or gravitating toward the ‘bad moments’ and letting them overweigh your impression
of the entire program. No doubt the little things will have an influence, but how many of those occur,
and to what level of negative impact they have on the target audience is what matters, not what we
judge as good or bad to ourselves. As experienced presenters or producers, we can have a bias that’s
hard to ignore!
Basics to focus on:
- The effective marriage of story and visuals.
- Write to your intended audience (usually minimal pre-knowledge of the subject matter).
- Keeping the audience engaged from start to finish.
- Narration that feels natural, genuine and sincerely interested in their subject matter. “Voice of God” narration style makes audiences feel like they’re being talked down to.
- Emotive and supportive soundtrack.
- Music that enhances the context and subject matter, offering a strong “presence” without overpowering, but not so soft as to lose influence.
- Editing that allows for the script and visuals to work with each other, not compete for attention.
- Pausing points in the narration and changes in the music so people know when a subtopic is finished, providing a cue and mental “breather” so audiences can absorb what was presented and better follow the storyline.
- Professional visualizations that immerse audiences in a realistic or thematic environment that feels appealing.
- Cinematography that capitalizes on the immersive dome atmosphere – camera movements, coverage and position of the scenes, where the detail is placed, light balance, color depth, etc.
- How well the story demonstrates a human connection to the topic.
- How the show makes the viewer feel.
In evaluating the potentially harmful elements of a show, a professional review should include (but not
be limited to) a “producers eye” view – an appraisal of what (if anything) can be done to modify and
improve the weaknesses, and whether those improvements will be enough to make it appealing and
attractive to its intended audience.
How else can you get fresh perspectives on the attractiveness and effectiveness of a show? Bring in a
variety of audiences for private showings (focus groups, museum members, VIP/supporters, other
media professionals, etc.) and have them fill out carefully-worded surveys. Be sure and get professional
advice on how to word the questions and, most importantly, how to interpret the results. However, you
shouldn’t rely on surveys alone to tell you everything you need to know. Talk with your audiences and
listen carefully!
GLPA members can join the discussion on this article by visiting the Planetarium Pointers forum.