Sagan's Cosmos "continues"

Decidedly, I like NDT. I've been listening to his StarTalk podcast/radio show and it's pretty rad imo

  On 3/11/2014 at 9:23 PM, LimpyLoo said:

Decidedly, I like NDT. I've been listening to his StarTalk podcast/radio show and it's pretty rad imo

Just checked this out, seems Eugene Mirman was on the latest episode. That's me sold.

Just watched the first episode on the Fox website: it's pretty good. I was worried that it would be to the original "Cosmos" as the prequels were to the original "Star Wars" trilogy. I don't think that's a fair analogy, though. Honestly, I have higher hopes for the series now. Also, anything that reminds the world of how shitty the Christian Authorities were (and how bad abuses of institutional power against human rights are) is just fine in my book.

the show is too dumbed down for me to watch e.g. he described the big bang as hard to believe

wow, tonights episode was laughably bad. the scenes with neil degrasse fighting off wolves being the apex of the hilarity. and does anyone see a striking resemblance in tyson's "ship of the imagination" with the ship from flight of the navigator?

yeah tonight was pretty dumb.

Man you guys hate a lot of stuff. I'm really happy this is a thing. It's amazing to see true things on television at all. I think he's hitting his stride with the second episode. I also think he's been great at making complex processes into simple explanations without losing too much. NDT has a quiet kind of charisma that's growing on me. It feels like he's reading you the awesomest bedtime story and then he gives you a big old bear hug and you are asleep and dreaming about that montage of eyes from this episode. Really visually beautiful show!

In a couple years I think a lot of y'all haters will come around. This is a good thing.

well let's hope it's just warming up.

The unofficial title of this episode was, " EP 2 - Fuck Christians in their Stupid Asses".

lolz, i was going to make a similar comment..

I don't believe that NDT had any input on the script, so it could probably be a lot better if he had full control over that. He's merely presenting it all and Ann Druyan probably controls what he says.

Episode 1 was okay but enough about how amazing Sagan was - it's about the ideas and information - not about the individual.

Didn't mind this episode. Looked nice and conveyed its point well enough. WATMM sure like to latch on to the most irrelevant things and continue to hate on the whole thing.

Yeah I just saw the 2nd episode, it's not really that bad, it just looks ridiculous. So much more GFX and so much less explanation than the original series. I immediately put on the second episode of the original and the same things were explained in far more sophisticated and interesting way. Like the new series is intended for little children, while the original was for adults.

I do have to admit though, I only watched Sagan's Cosmos a few years ago for the first time. Some of you guys that watched it as kids, probably see all of this differently.

To be fair, the original is quite awesome to put on and fall asleep to, and that really says something about it. This one is paced really nicely as well as having amazing graphics. The point here is to spark that interest and introduce ideas, concepts, and theories. You're not supposed to have a huge depth of knowledge fromm watching a tv show. I thought that episode 2 was interesting, and it covered a good amount of information. Just putting the information out there, and the concept of evolution and saying, "this isn't debatable" means a lot from a sociological perspective I think. Especially on the tail end of the highly publicized Nye/Ham debate.

  On 3/17/2014 at 11:27 AM, kokoon said:

Yeah I just saw the 2nd episode, it's not really that bad, it just looks ridiculous. So much more GFX and so much less explanation than the original series. I immediately put on the second episode of the original and the same things were explained in far more sophisticated and interesting way. Like the new series is intended for little children, while the original was for adults.

 

I do have to admit though, I only watched Sagan's Cosmos a few years ago for the first time. Some of you guys that watched it as kids, probably see all of this differently.

Keep in mind that the style how things are presented visually and narratively in media has changed in the last 30 years. If this new Cosmos would be like the one from the 80's it would look woefully out of date and bore the modern audience. One could also ask if Carl Sagan and his team had the technology that is available today when making his series would he have used it as we see it today? The merits and demerits of how the style has changed over the years is a whole other topic of course. Striking visual imagery and bite-sized bits of knowledge is all the modern audience can and wants to handle.

This show, as with the original, is merely there to wet the appetite of young minds watching it and otherwise convey the grandeur of what scientific inquiry has allowed us to know about the cosmos and our place in it. It's rather amusing earlier in the thread when someone pointed out that new science documentaries always seem to push in the hosts own personal feelings on the subject and the personality cult in these shows, when the much vaunted original Sagan series was called Cosmos: A Personal Voyage and internet nerds keep sperging about Carl Sagan every chance they get, but I digress. If you expected this new show to slab cold hard scientific facts on the table in rapid succession with little fanfare then it's probably not for you then. And I don't know if there is any documentaries and shows that would do it, mainly because explaining really complex things in a TV format isn't ideal and it would simply make bad TV as a whole.

The new Cosmos is not for us who watch every science show there is and have at least a rudimentary understanding on the various subjects that it will cover. From some quick reading about this new show around the internets it seems that kids today that have seen it think it's awesome and that's good enough for me.

  On 3/17/2014 at 9:20 AM, Bread said:

I don't believe that NDT had any input on the script, so it could probably be a lot better if he had full control over that. He's merely presenting it all and Ann Druyan probably controls what he says.

Episode 1 was okay but enough about how amazing Sagan was - it's about the ideas and information - not about the individual.

not only was the sagan stuff a sincere and well-tempered homage but of course the individual is massively important. if it's about the ideas, well, it was carl motherfucking sagan who formed them, synthesized them, articulated them in his exceptional way, approached the world with his unique and compassionate insights etc etc. the reason cosmos was so succesful had a great deal to do with carl sagan as a unique individual, it's not simply bc suddenly people really cared about contemplating science. Carl's genius had a lot to do with the unique way he got people excited about science and religion. bc no one gives a fuck about "information."

  On 3/17/2014 at 11:56 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

To be fair, the original is quite awesome to put on and fall asleep to, and that really says something about it.

Agreed - I have done this occassionally.

  On 3/17/2014 at 2:17 PM, Alcofribas said:

 

  On 3/17/2014 at 9:20 AM, Bread said:

I don't believe that NDT had any input on the script, so it could probably be a lot better if he had full control over that. He's merely presenting it all and Ann Druyan probably controls what he says.

Episode 1 was okay but enough about how amazing Sagan was - it's about the ideas and information - not about the individual.

not only was the sagan stuff a sincere and well-tempered homage but of course the individual is massively important. if it's about the ideas, well, it was carl motherfucking sagan who formed them, synthesized them, articulated them in his exceptional way, approached the world with his unique and compassionate insights etc etc. the reason cosmos was so succesful had a great deal to do with carl sagan as a unique individual, it's not simply bc suddenly people really cared about contemplating science. Carl's genius had a lot to do with the unique way he got people excited about science and religion. bc no one gives a fuck about "information."

 

Don't get me wrong - I really like Sagan. He was a great communicator. I just think worship of the individual is not necessary.

I still have some disagreements over Sagan's approach to things though - e.g. attempting to communicate with other life forms in space when countries can't comminicate well with each other. There are communication problems between nations on Earth (politically) that need to be addressed first before we go and try talking to other life forms out there. His priorities were sometimes screwed up in my opinion.

Anyone else like the part while in the Hall of Extinction with the unnamed corridor and NDT saying that he'll get back to that later? Will probably be the last episode about how we are fucking up Earth.

  On 3/17/2014 at 8:09 PM, azatoth said:

Anyone else like the part while in the Hall of Extinction with the unnamed corridor and NDT saying that he'll get back to that later? Will probably be the last episode about how we are fucking up Earth.

Definitely figured it was in reference to us.

[youtubehd]jSHNyppwS5w[/youtubehd]

  On 3/17/2014 at 6:52 PM, Bread said:

 

  On 3/17/2014 at 11:56 AM, AdieuErsatzEnnui said:

To be fair, the original is quite awesome to put on and fall asleep to, and that really says something about it.

Agreed - I have done this occassionally.

 

I haven't made it through a whole episode of the original without falling asleep!

I've been enjoying the new one. A lot of you guys are hating on it for unnecessary reasons.

  On 3/17/2014 at 11:10 AM, azatoth said:

WATMM sure like to latch on to the most irrelevant things and continue to hate on the whole thing.

Yep.

You were probably stoned so you don't get to vote.