Sagan's Cosmos "continues"

yeah, seemed disorganized and shallow, like they were really afraid of losing people's attention. of course, that's not an unreasonable fear in this age.

tyson was serviceable, although he obviously doesn't convey that sense of wisdom and wonder like Sagan did.

take it easy on the show, though, guys, it's impressive that it was made at all, and by FOX, no less.

i'll be watching the next episode before i call it quits.

the animations were cool, but too long, especially for the first episode. i give them credit for being bold enough to Church-bash right from the start, though.

  On 3/10/2014 at 10:38 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

Is there an internet acronym for "Too Long, Didn't Watch"?

Are you saying you are in agreement with me, or does this video cast doubt on his viability as a more suitable host for Cosmos, or as a scientist in general?

  On 3/10/2014 at 4:48 PM, kokoon said:

It is really lacking information, compared to Cosmos. I watched the first ep of the original series right after this and it's such a difference. Just like lumpenprol said, planet earth an the bbc life series are so fun to watch, this is just not as good as it should/could be.

What the fuck did you guys expect? Information? Is that a joke?

This is aimed toward stupid people. And thats fine.

Until people with brains decide to stop trying to oretend that this garbage is good enough, then we will keep getting it. Just because there are a lot of poor, stupid, uninterested people doesn't mean there isn't also a market for people who are very interested, already educated, and looking for high quality educational entertainment that actually lives up to the title. And i promise you that this market is soon going to be taken advantage of by someone. And it aint gonna be on cable shit fucking tv.

  On 3/10/2014 at 10:23 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 3/10/2014 at 9:21 PM, azatoth said:

I don't think Tyson is one of those adamant atheists that love yammering on about how all religion is bad. I guess he's an agnostic or something.

 

'Agnostic' is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. Regardless of what you know, you either believe that God exists or you don't.

 

If you don't know whether God exists, then you don't believe in God.

 

Just like if you don't know whether unicorns exist, you don't believe in unicorns.

The fuck you talking about? Not knowing is just that... Not knowing. Is the thing is the box black or white? If i say i dont know that doesnt mean that i think its black. Or that i think its white. It means i dont know, and nobody can tell me either way.

holy shit limpyloo stop watching pen and teller videos

"One other thing.....they invented Sex."

derr herrr herrr thx neil, derr herrr i like dicks and pussies, herr derr.

  On 3/10/2014 at 7:54 PM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 3/10/2014 at 1:09 PM, AsylumSeaker said:

Yeah.. fuck that shit. Give me a dude in a turtle neck and tweed jacket staring out of an imaginary spaceship, childlike wonder in his smiling face, glowing in the light of nebulae and supernovae as he incants big numbers and superlatives.

That may sound slightly sarcastic but it's not.

 

 

my commentary is totally irrelevant since I haven't watched the new show... but, damn, that gif makes me cry :( I wish everyone was as special as Sagan was. tru hero

  On 3/10/2014 at 10:41 PM, Al Hounos said:

the animations were cool, but too long, especially for the first episode.

you do realize the reason for that is that this show wouldn't be on fox if it wasn't for seth mcfarlene being involved. and i'm sure part of the selling point for that was that "don't worry. there will be animation" hence getting that prime time slot on a sunday.

btw: i hate when people say that this show is for the stupid people that don't know anything about science. really? are they going to check the tv schedule and go "oh look. a show about science. i topic i've never been interested in, but i guess i'll check it out and learn something new"

why not make a show for people that love science and make it so good that those people start raving about it, then it eventually trickles down and people not into science decide to check it out for themselves to see what all the fuss is about?

  On 3/10/2014 at 10:42 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 3/10/2014 at 10:38 PM, John Ehrlichman said:

Is there an internet acronym for "Too Long, Didn't Watch"?

 

Are you saying you are in agreement with me, or does this video cast doubt on his viability as a more suitable host for Cosmos, or as a scientist in general?

 

The latter.. he made a few decent points I guess, but his heated argumentation was embarrassing and uncomfortable to listen to.

I had no idea he was like that.

  On 3/10/2014 at 11:06 PM, vamos scorcho said:

 

  On 3/10/2014 at 10:23 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 3/10/2014 at 9:21 PM, azatoth said:

I don't think Tyson is one of those adamant atheists that love yammering on about how all religion is bad. I guess he's an agnostic or something.

'Agnostic' is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. Regardless of what you know, you either believe that God exists or you don't.

 

If you don't know whether God exists, then you don't believe in God.

 

Just like if you don't know whether unicorns exist, you don't believe in unicorns.

The fuck you talking about? Not knowing is just that... Not knowing. Is the thing is the box black or white? If i say i dont know that doesnt mean that i think its black. Or that i think its white. It means i dont know, and nobody can tell me either way.

 

Exactly. If you don't know whether it's black or white, you can't believe that it's black. Or white.

And atheism is the lack of belief in a God. It is not the assertion that God doesn't exist (that would require evidence).

So we agree.

  On 3/10/2014 at 7:47 PM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 3/10/2014 at 2:55 PM, kokoon said:

What's the big deal with this deGrasse guy anyway, is he a famous physicist or something? Cause as a show host, he's average at best.

 

he became popular by giving these lectures and discussions where he gets super hyped and suddenly got a large twitter following. because he met sagan as a kid, seth mcfarlene decided "good time to reboot cosmos and have this guy host it" so he got ann druyan and (of all the fucking people in the world) brannon braga and pitched the idea to this shmuck.

 

 

Yeah, that and being a very good communicator in astrophysics and the like. Some of his discussions with Dawkins and others are pretty interesting, and plenty of other prominent scientists seem happy to enter into serious discussion with him. I wouldn't judge him off the back of this, nor just cause he pops up on Colbert/The Daily Show a lot being - god forbid - excited about the subject matter. Not sure about as a presenter but his general efforts seem to infuse more than just a passing few people with an interest in science.

  On 3/10/2014 at 11:07 PM, Deer said:

holy shit limpyloo stop watching pen and teller videos

I kinda despise Pen Jillette.

Also, if you're gonna be a twat then just get up offa my shit.

If you wanna be cool, though, then we good.

  On 2/1/2014 at 12:59 AM, luke viia said:

as far as brians hosting things goes, cox > greene, at least

I've been to a few of his lectures and was pretty impressed, but I never watched that series he did. Is it bad? Isn't it based around the book The Elegant Universe (which somehow I actually managed to understand all the way through)? I liked that.

Speaking of Brian Cox, the latest Charlie Brooker absolutely nailed that style which seems to have become so prevalent these days.

He's far from a scientist, but I really wish directors would throw Louis Theroux into whimsical inquisitive science documentaries where he pretends to know nothing and continuously gets his mind blown being taught by scientists throughout the episode.

I have a man crush on Louis.. no homo.

they should have CGI carl sagan host the show

  On 3/11/2014 at 2:25 AM, Deer said:

they should have hologram tupac host the show

  On 3/11/2014 at 2:25 AM, Deer said:

they should have CGI carl sagan host the show

I have a feeling this could have actually popped up at some point when developing this new show. Someone blurted it out during a meeting, it got really quiet as everyone thought of actually going with it and then snapped back and quickly moved on to other topics, embarrassed to even have thought about it seriously even for a second.

  On 3/10/2014 at 10:23 PM, LimpyLoo said:

 

  On 3/10/2014 at 9:21 PM, azatoth said:

I don't think Tyson is one of those adamant atheists that love yammering on about how all religion is bad. I guess he's an agnostic or something.

 

'Agnostic' is not a middle ground between theism and atheism. Regardless of what you know, you either believe that God exists or you don't.

 

If you don't know whether God exists, then you don't believe in God.

 

Just like if you don't know whether unicorns exist, you don't believe in unicorns.

 

What are you on about. My point was simply that Tyson doesn't seem to engaged in the question of gods existence or not. This is called a casual discussion, without the unnecessary sperging.

I am well aware of the differences between atheism, theism and agnosticism. But that is not what was discussed here.

  On 3/10/2014 at 10:36 PM, Joyrex said:

 

  On 3/10/2014 at 7:47 PM, Nebraska said:

 

  On 3/10/2014 at 2:55 PM, kokoon said:

What's the big deal with this deGrasse guy anyway, is he a famous physicist or something? Cause as a show host, he's average at best.

 

he became popular by giving these lectures and discussions where he gets super hyped and suddenly got a large twitter following. because he met sagan as a kid, seth mcfarlene decided "good time to reboot cosmos and have this guy host it" so he got ann druyan and (of all the fucking people in the world) brannon braga and pitched the idea to this shmuck.

 

did anyone notice when he was going through the planets in our solar system he didn't mention pluto? that's because he was one of those people that wanted pluto removed as an official planet.

 

also, the ship of the imagination now looks like a star trek communicator (thanks brannon braga. how did you get that idea?) and the fx when he opens windows to show us stars, meteors etc were so loud and cheesy. the gripe: the animation. this is a case of too many cooks in the kitchen. the story of copernicus and giordano bruno was reduced to this sill 'disney like' animated sequence that made me feel like i was watching the baby channel.

 

anyway, the best part of the episode was the end when he talked about meeting sagan and getting a ride to the train station etc otherwise: fail

 

I think Michio Kaku would have been a better host.

 

Michio Kaku is horrible and I dislike him. He is one of those guys that they book on news shows to comment on some vaguely scienc-y stuff even when he is not an expert on the matter at hand. He talks a lot of shit.

They're in the TV business, they don't get embarrassed. And even if they did, they have to bump a line of coke before executive meetings, which usually solves all self identity issues.

actually i agree michio kaku would've been a great host (definately better than neil degrasse tyson) but i still think he's a little different from sagan in that: imagine sagan is a teacher. he'd be teaching kids from elementary to jr high whereas kaku would be teaching high school to college.

sagan tapped into the child in all of us whereas kaku would be more on the high school interest in us. neil degrasse tyson is more like the cool nerd who can carry a conversation with your crew during lunchbreak but doesn't really hang out with you guys because he's too much of a nerd and you can't beat him up after class lets out because he gets better grades than you.

It was OK. It was a brief introduction to cosmology and the scientific process. I didn't expect anything any more than that. However, it should have been aired earlier for kids since they probably would have enjoyed it a lot more.

  On 3/11/2014 at 7:41 PM, Nebraska said:

actually i agree michio kaku would've been a great host (definately better than neil degrasse tyson) but i still think he's a little different from sagan in that: imagine sagan is a teacher. he'd be teaching kids from elementary to jr high whereas kaku would be teaching high school to college.

 

sagan tapped into the child in all of us whereas kaku would be more on the high school interest in us. neil degrasse tyson is more like the cool nerd who can carry a conversation with your crew during lunchbreak but doesn't really hang out with you guys because he's too much of a nerd and you can't beat him up after class lets out because he gets better grades than you.

Wow, totally cool analysis, dude.

I find kaku banal, certainly not that insightful.

its all about who is better at hyperbole

He's quite full of himself, lost the appeal long time ago imo:

[youtubehd]40YIIaF1qiw[/youtubehd]

Cosmos would never live up to Carl Sagan's series, anyone who even entertained this idea was just setting themselves for disappointment, so to me it doesn't matter too much who hosts the show, it's something different from the original series and done with a different type of audience in mind.