# Cosmos 2014



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

This is something I've been looking forward to. Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey will premiere March 9 on Fox and Nat Geo. This is the update to Carl Sagan's work, hosted by Neil DeGrasse Tyson, produced by Ann Druyan (Sagan's widow) and Seth McFarlane. To go along with the premiere, there will also be a two hour "Live From Space" from the ISS as well as Houston.

As someone that watched the spacewalks fixing the ISS, I'll be watching both


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

Thanks for the heads-up


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

My favorite show when it ran in the 80's.

Well, tied with _Connections_.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

TomCat said:


> My favorite show when it ran in the 80's.
> 
> Well, tied with _Connections_.


Great show Connection.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Glad we agree. James Burke is as fascinating as it gets.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

And what's amazing is that for something so old, the original Cosmos is still pretty right on the science. Of course he didn't mire it down in detail, it was generally quite broad in scope, and that helps.


----------



## SayWhat? (Jun 7, 2009)

Maybe, "Cosmos Remake Premiers" rather than "Cosmos Returns"?


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

picky, picky


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Maybe "Returns" is the wrong word, but it's also not a remake.


----------



## RunnerFL (Jan 5, 2006)

SayWhat? said:


> Maybe, "Cosmos Remake Premiers" rather than "Cosmos Returns"?


It's not a remake, it's a continuation.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

This is part of an interview he did with Bill Moyers, about half an hour.

http://billmoyers.com/episode/full-show-neil-degrasse-tyson-on-the-new-cosmos/

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> It's not a remake, it's a continuation.


It's neither, it should be called, *Cosmos: TNG*


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

I was a little slow getting around to finding this August article Seth MacFarlane's Cosmos: When Good Intentions and Huge Egos Collide:



> Last month at Comic-Con, Fox premiered the trailer for Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey, a "sequel" to Cosmos: A Personal Journey, the 1980 PBS documentary series created by husband-and-wife team Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. The reboot had been announced last summer and prompted a fair amount of head-scratching, not because of its concept - Cosmos remains one of the most beloved documentaries ever created, and an update that, say, steered the Spaceship of the Imagination into a Higgs-Boson particle would be more than welcome - or even the network that would be airing it, which is more well-known for singing teenagers and evil animated babies than meditative explorations of the foundations of our universe and reality. And certainly not because of its new host, astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson, who through numerous TED talks and Colbert Report appearances has proved himself to be a captivating speaker, extremely adept at making even the most abstract concepts digestible to a layperson. Nope, the weirdness was that it was coming to you courtesy of the man who brought you that evil animated baby and an entirely different Ted, Family Guy creator and renowned boob seer Seth MacFarlane.
> 
> My initial gut reaction, which I'm sure was similar to that of many others, was mild horror, but this being America, Seth MacFarlane can do whatever he so pleases, and I'd take his Cosmos any day over Ted: The Series. The former at least hints at MacFarlane's desire to expand his horizons, and I may not be his biggest fan, but I'm loath to be one of those haters who actively roots for problematic people to stay in their rut and never try to improve as humans and creators. MacFarlane seems to be genuinely reverent of Sagan's original work: "I'm dismayed at the rejection of science that's reemerging in America. There's nothing out there that glamorizes science the way Cosmos did," he told _Wired_ last summer. MacFarlane, like everybody else, has interests outside his primary line of work, and the workings of space-time appears to be one of them (me, too, Seth!)....


The writer goes on offer some fearful skepticism. But Sagan and Druyan were of a generation that communicated to people whose attention span was longer than 144 characters. Tyson and MacFarlane have been effective at holding the attention of the Twitter generation. Well, actually, the appeal of the show back then was limited and likely the sequel will have a limited audience.

Anyway, I love this trailer:

[youtubehd]XFF2ECZ8m1A[/youtubehd]


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I was less concerned about McFarlane than Fox being involved. They are the ones that did the "documentary" on the Moon landing being faked.

However, I have faith that Tyson would never agree to be involved with something that wasn't accurate. I found his Sagan story interesting. Someone saw something in Tyson at age 17, I'm sure Sagan even then didn't look at that many incoming applications, then to personally invite Tyson to campus and give him a tour. It can't be just that Tyson was from the Bronx and Sagan from Brooklyn.

Still wasn't enough for Tyson to choose Cornell though


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> And what's amazing is that for something so old, the original Cosmos is still pretty right on the science. Of course he didn't mire it down in detail, it was generally quite broad in scope, and that helps.


I've got the original _Cosmos_ series on DVD. Pretty bad PQ, but if you want it, send me your mailing address and I'll send it to you, if I still have it and if I can find it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

RunnerFL said:


> It's not a remake, it's a continuation.


The thing I remember most about that show is how quickly it put me to sleep. Sagan's voice was soporific (always wanted to use that word, first opportunity). It took me a long time, and many naps, to work my way thru that. I did enjoy it and I like naps, so it all worked out. At the time it was aired, it was pretty mind-blowing, I think.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Rich said:


> The thing I remember most about that show is how quickly it put me to sleep. Sagan's voice was soporific (always wanted to use that word, first opportunity). It took me a long time, and many naps, to work my way thru that. I did enjoy it and I like naps, so it all worked out. At the time it was aired, it was pretty mind-blowing, I think.
> 
> Rich


If that show first aired in '80, I must have recorded reruns on my VCRs. Seemed like I watched it "billions and billions" of times before I finally finished it.

Rich


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

phrelin said:


> Anyway, I love this trailer:
> 
> [youtubehd]XFF2ECZ8m1A[/youtubehd]


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Rich said:


> > Anyway, I love this trailer:
> >
> > [youtubehd]XFF2ECZ8m1A[/youtubehd]


The first 20 seconds almost put me to sleep. There's just something about Sagan's voice...

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Rich said:


> The thing I remember most about that show is how quickly it put me to sleep. Sagan's voice was soporific (always wanted to use that word, first opportunity). It took me a long time, and many naps, to work my way thru that. I did enjoy it and I like naps, so it all worked out. At the time it was aired, it was pretty mind-blowing, I think.
> 
> Rich


He did have that kind of voice, when he wasn't whooping at least.

I actually have a copy, but thanks for the offer.

I do wish I had met him, I did see his house once, from a distance. I was told that if you drove by with the radio on, it would go haywire. Don't know if that's true, though it was a very interesting house, the original building was for a secret society.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Many people think Carl Sagan was the "Genius of the 20th Century". After reading several of his books, I agree. His last book was a good read.

Your DVD set have a good picture? I've been wishing for a BD of the original.

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

He definitely had his critics in the academic world, he was of course too "popular" and as time went on did less and less actual teaching at Cornell.

I did run into an interesting story, of a film student getting an invitation to dinner at the Sagan house, for no reason that he knew of, he didn't even attend Cornell.

http://adaptingsideways.wordpress.com/2011/12/19/a-night-to-remember-a-personal-recollection-of-dr-carl-sagan/


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Alan Silvestri has been announced as composer.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Rich said:


> The thing I remember most about that show is how quickly it put me to sleep. Sagan's voice was soporific (always wanted to use that word, first opportunity). It took me a long time, and many naps, to work my way thru that. I did enjoy it and I like naps, so it all worked out. At the time it was aired, it was pretty mind-blowing, I think.
> 
> Rich


I won't deny the "soporific" quality, but I think that is a narrow description of what Sagan brought to the show. He had a gentle, puposeful delivery that seemed very comforting, and his boundless enthusiasm was what made listeners stop and investigate whether there was something profound behind the wall of words.

After all, this was information that could not be imparted in 140 characters; it was long and droning just in its nature, and anything less would have done it a disservice. Sagan found a way to do this without talking down to us mere mortals. He was pretty terrific at that.

Personally, I loved both the exploration and the dispense of knowledge but I also was very comforted by it being delivered by Carl Sagan, who was the perfect host for a series such as this. He felt like a "genius uncle" who you always were delighted by whenever he would visit. I was very sad when he passed.

And, IIRC correctly, the phrase "billions and billions" was nothing more than something conceived in a SNL-type parody (but more a tribute than mean-spirited), and Sagan never actually uttered that phrase even once in the entire series.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

> ...And, IIRC correctly, the phrase "billions and billions" was nothing more than something conceived in a SNL-type parody (but more a tribute than mean-spirited), and Sagan never actually uttered that phrase even once in the entire series.


I had always attributed the _"billions and billions"_ phrase to Sagan.
If, in fact, it was from an SNL parody, at least it was ~accurate.* Can
anyone dig up that SNL episode/sketch on YouTube?

* :shrug:


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

_"Despite being known for, and frequently quoted with, his famous phrase "billions and billions...", Carl Sagan never actually said it during the entire single-season run of Cosmos (1980). The actual phrase is "billions UPON billions," and the complete quote which includes this often-misquoted phrase is "A galaxy is composed of gas and dust and stars - billions upon billions of stars.""_

_Source_


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TomCat said:


> I won't deny the "soporific" quality, but I think that is a narrow description of what Sagan brought to the show. He had a gentle, puposeful delivery that seemed very comforting, and his boundless enthusiasm was what made listeners stop and investigate whether there was something profound behind the wall of words.
> 
> After all, this was information that could not be imparted in 140 characters; it was long and droning just in its nature, and anything less would have done it a disservice. Sagan found a way to do this without talking down to us mere mortals. He was pretty terrific at that.
> 
> ...


I didn't say I didn't like the show. I said his voice put me to sleep. I never referenced anything negative about him.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Nick said:


> I had always attributed the _"billions and billions"_ phrase to Sagan.
> If, in fact, it was from an SNL parody, at least it was ~accurate.* Can
> anyone dig up that SNL episode/sketch on YouTube?
> 
> * :shrug:


So we got it screwed up because we used "and" instead of "upon"? We should be flailed. I can only hope that it is the last mistake we both make.

Rich


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Rich said:


> I didn't say I didn't like the show. I said his voice put me to sleep. I never referenced anything negative about him.


Didn't say you didn't. Go back and read, then read my sig.

Henry's source indicates it was a Johnny Carson impression that the parody sprung from.


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

TomCat said:


> Didn't say you didn't. Go back and read, then read my sig.
> 
> Henry's source indicates it was a Johnny Carson impression that the parody sprung from.


Nah, think I'll go play with my three phase DC motor.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Suit yourself, that sounds fascinating. Be sure to post something meaningless and out of context regarding that, too.


----------



## Mark Holtz (Mar 23, 2002)

Insert series premiere alert and to set your DVRs.


----------



## phrelin (Jan 18, 2007)

For all I know it could have been SNL though I couldn't find a clip, but here's Johnny:

[youtubehd]iIbbTHQmPkE[/youtubehd]

But I do believe the original "Cosmos" episode ran September 28, 1980.


----------



## gov (Jan 11, 2013)

I recall 'back on the day' Sagan being asked about his considerable amount of face time on Cosmos, and he said the answer was quite simple.

Despite the generosity of the donors and backers, the series was necessarily quite expensive to produce and it was relatively 'cheap' for him to pose in front of a set piece and go on with the monologue for a while.

(I think at the time we were then supposed to call in during the next pledge drive and bump up our donation, LOL)



:righton:


----------



## Davenlr (Sep 16, 2006)

National Geographic Channel is also showing the entire 13 Episode Original series starting 3/8/2014 at 11am Central time for those wanting to record it.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

gov said:


> I recall 'back on the day' Sagan being asked about his considerable amount of face time on Cosmos, and he said the answer was quite simple.
> 
> Despite the generosity of the donors and backers, the series was necessarily quite expensive to produce and it was relatively 'cheap' for him to pose in front of a set piece and go on with the monologue for a while.
> 
> ...


If that is indeed the case, it is only a tribute to how good Carl Sagan was at doing that. The show was absolutely spell-binding, and maybe he's why.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Mark Holtz said:


> Insert series premiere alert and to set your DVRs.


Done ... thanks for the reminder.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

I am a little curious.

The episode titles for the eps that will be on FOX do not match the ep titles for the shows on Nat Geo on 3-8. Are there two different new _Cosmos _products out there (not including the 1980 version)?

Guess I'll just record it all and sort it out later.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

No, it's the same. The first episode is being broadcast on more channels, then will settle onto Fox on Sundays, Nat Geo on Monday.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

No, they were not. The 3-8 eps on Nat Geo were actually the 1980 series.

There was a prologue by Ann Druyan; it is easy to see how a genius scientist would be attracted to another genius scientist like her, she is a very impressive person. Still kinda hot, too.

I had little time, but I watched the first 5 minutes. Just that lucious orchestral music took me all the way back to 1980, and Sagan was everything I remembered, if not more.

Sadly, it was not retelecined to HD, but was an old SD copy (on an HD network). I would almost rather buy the DVDs.

Word on the street is that Obama will intro the show tonight on FOX.


----------



## pablo (Oct 11, 2007)

Not real HD but better than DVD. Wonder if the original series could be restored fir bluray along with the sequel?


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

TomCat said:


> No, they were not. The 3-8 eps on Nat Geo were actually the 1980 series.
> 
> There was a prologue by Ann Druyan; it is easy to see how a genius scientist would be attracted to another genius scientist like her, she is a very impressive person. Still kinda hot, too.
> 
> ...


Thanks for the warning. I'll make sure to skip the first few minutes.


----------



## armophob (Nov 13, 2006)

Of course I liked the whole thing, but I puckered up during the cartoons in the beginning.
I get that they are trying to walk the public gently over the creation story using a picture board type idea.
But I suspect that is going to be a real sticking point the next day.
The cartoons even gave the impressions that.....
Never mind, I am sure this will be overblown in the morning to explain what i am saying here.

Damn it. I really wanted this show to work. But it made a bad start and now it is doomed.
John Stewart and Bill Maher can get away the facts on cable.

I hope I am wrong about this, but ironically, a show about our evolution may get killed due to our lack of it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

TomCat said:


> No, they were not. The 3-8 eps on Nat Geo were actually the 1980 series.


Right, but your question excluded the 1980s series. Now, supposedly there is extra content on Nat Geo, will have to see if it's worth anything.

Over all, I really liked it. My main beef, and only because Tyson has called others out on the same thing, is the showing of the asteroid belt and Oort Cloud was very inaccurate. He should have passed at most one asteroid, not dodging them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Right, but your question excluded the 1980s series. Now, supposedly there is extra content on Nat Geo, will have to see if it's worth anything.
> 
> Over all, I really liked it. My main beef, and only because Tyson has called others out on the same thing, is the showing of the asteroid belt and Oort Cloud was very inaccurate. He should have passed at most one asteroid, not dodging them.
> 
> Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk


I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, the series can stand alone and be grossly entertaining. On the other hand I find it falling short of the standard set by Sagan. I found myself continuously comparing the two to the point of mental distraction.

Could you expand on your asteroid/Oort Cloud dislike?


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Henry said:


> I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, the series can stand alone and be grossly entertaining. On the other hand I find it falling short of the standard set by Sagan. I found myself continuously comparing the two to the point of mental distraction.
> 
> Could you expand on your asteroid/Oort Cloud dislike?


Carl Sagan was incomparable, in my opinion. Probably not fair to make comparisons, no? I didn't expect to see anyone of Sagan's caliber on the show.

Rich


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Henry said:


> I'm ambivalent. On the one hand, the series can stand alone and be grossly entertaining. On the other hand I find it falling short of the standard set by Sagan. I found myself continuously comparing the two to the point of mental distraction.
> 
> Could you expand on your asteroid/Oort Cloud dislike?


He's called out other shows and movies for moving through the asteroid belt dodging asteroids. But it's just not like that. The total mass of the entire belt is about 4% of the Moon. For the Oort Cloud, he mentions that the objects are at least as far apart as the Earth is to Saturn, yet his ship is dodging them left and right.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> He's called out other shows and movies for moving through the asteroid belt dodging asteroids. But it's just not like that. The total mass of the entire belt is about 4% of the Moon. For the Oort Cloud, he mentions that the objects are at least as far apart as the Earth is to Saturn, yet his ship is dodging them left and right.


 :grin: I guess the producers saw fit to take artistic license.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Rich said:


> Carl Sagan was incomparable, in my opinion. Probably not fair to make comparisons, no? I didn't expect to see anyone of Sagan's caliber on the show.
> 
> Rich


So true, Rich. Serves me right for falling for Fox's hype.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Tyson really is the best one for the job.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Henry said:


> :grin: I guess the producers saw fit to take artistic license.


It wouldn't bother me if he didn't call out others for doing the same thing. I can see why they'd do it though.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Tyson really is the best one for the job.


+1

I was taken by Tyson's account of Sagan's mentoring. In this case, Tyson is the best person for the job, but in so doing, he exposes his inability to equal Sagan's wit, sense of wonder, ease of expression, and other "stuff". It was the gentle teacher in Sagan that opened our eyes to the immensity around us and its impact on our very lives.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Ouch, John C. Dvorak is definitely not a fan, though he's rarely a fan of anything...

"I found Cosmos to be uninformative pretentious dreck. Wasn't the director of this the guy responsible tfor the death of Star Trek? Good pick"


----------



## Rich (Feb 22, 2007)

Henry said:


> So true, Rich. Serves me right for falling for Fox's hype.


I've recorded it on a couple HRs but I might just wait until Netflix gets it.  Shouldn't be long and the PQ will be a lot better.

Rich


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

dpeters11 said:


> Right, but your question excluded the 1980s series...


Actually, I referred to the 1980 series by name right there in that same post. I'm not sure how whether I referenced it or not would have any bearing on how incorrect your answer was regarding my simple question as to whether those shows were the same ones to start the next evening on FOX. They still were not.

I loved the first ep (new series). Did anyone else notice the human face in the red storm on Jupiter?

I thought the animation lived up to the hype and the shot of the mars rover-type vehicles with Tyson's "spaceship" going by in the background was cleverly done. And I am still a fan of the cosmic calendar analogy, which still blows my mind.

And I am now an even bigger fan of Tyson. I had heard how he wanted to try to "channel" Sagan and make his narration as close to his as possible, which he exceeded brilliantly at, but the story of a 17-year-old Tyson visiting Sagan at Cornell (?) really tied that all together.

At first I thought, OK, get the biggest name in TV-exposed scientists you can find and ask him to host, but now I see how good at this he really is, which is pretty serendipidous. The perfect scientist also turns out to be the most-skilled host you could imagine. Go figure.

But as much as I liked this first ep, the 5 minutes of the original series that I watched Saturday in crappy SD had an even stronger emotional impact on me.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Those last few minutes in which Tyson shared with us his visit with Sagan did the trick for me. Up until that point, I could take this new show or leave it. To me Tyson lacked Sagan's charisma and ease of expression. While I agree that the visuals were state-of-the-art-excellent, the presentation just didn't follow. Of course, I know now that my ambivalence was caused by my expectations ... how could Tyson ever satisfy my Sagan addiction? Well, he couldn't. Instead he offered Sagan credentials that were good enough for me. Those last few minutes made Tyson relevant in my book.

Now I'm looking forward to next week's episode at ease in the knowledge that this sort of success was what Carl wanted for Neil, and that Neil isn't just another Fox-anointed opportunist trying to steal Carl's thunder.

p.s. That cosmic calendar is still my favorite. I hope Tyson does the Drake equation.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Somehow Tyson pulled that [I have an actual Sagan connection] off without sounding like he was in need of shoring up his credentials for us due to him feeling the pressure to validate them. If not he would have been like Fredo in _The Godfather_: "I'm smart, I can do things!" (maybe that was GFII)

And it is likely that with all of his TV experience as "guest scientific expert", hosting/narrating something this big for network television is probably very new for him, which means as good as he was, at least in my mind, he will probably only get better as the series goes along.

It is also very likely that he has no say in whatever creative license the visual effects department chooses to use, even if their incorrectness might annoy him.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

+1


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

And from the story I've read elsewhere about the kid who was accidentally invited to a dinner party at Sagan's house, there is no doubt in my mind that this is exactly something Sagan would do.


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

Hmmm. Someone at USA Today (?) maybe somewhere else said he thought that while Tyson has a great on-screen persona, Sagan never had that.

While I agree that Sagan was more of a nerd and did not have the conventional telepresence expected, I strongly disagree that any of that was of any handicap to him hosting the show in 1980. If anything, it may have worked in his favor. Charisma comes in a lot of flavors, and isn't always about what you look like. I'm pretty sure many of you agree with me, as this thread has been mostly a well-deserved Sagan lovefest.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Some detractors are missing a screw or two. To say that Tyson makes a better on-screen persona than Sagan, proves it. I bet he/she won't put it to a vote.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

You're comparing apples and oranges.

Sagan was revolutionary for his time. He didn't wear a white lab coat. He spoke in English. He had the *unheard of* ability to translate complex scientific topics into understandable discussions, often finding the perfect analogy for a given subject. The last scientist who got this kind of press was Einstein. But Sagan looked like a family member - not some sterile scientist.

Tyson is different. We now have the Discovery Channel, History Channel, Bill Nye, Michio Kaku, the other guy on specials who has the Russian name that I can't remember but I see him all the time. Before this we ONLY had "Nova" on PBS. Tyson had Sagan's skill for "translating" theoretical physics into "English" and does it with a passion and energy that is quite appropriate for this day and age. Likewise, Tyson comes across as a real human being..

Saying that Tyson is somehow inferior because "he's no Sagan" is like saying Louis Armstrong is somehow inferior because "he's no Beethoven".


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Alex Filipenko?


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

I like Filipenko, Krauss and Kaku as much as the next guy, but Tyson just feels right for this.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

I like Filipenko, and I like Tyson ... just not as much as Sagan. Tyson is right for this series because of his personal ties to Sagan. That's not to say he's Sagan's replacement ... he's not, not by a mile.

That's my opinion anyway.

Besides, from the looks of it, Tyson has a fan club of his own.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

Filipenko! That's the guy! Just a mental block on his name. 

Even Tyson will speak self-deprecatingly of the shoes Sagan left behind. He's not trying to replace Sagan - it's just that, after over 30 years, it's time to update the story. I've been watching the original series and things like "we suspect other stars have planets" really stand out in an era where we've confirmed 1700 of them and new ones are confirmed every week.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Agree, updating is in order.

The qualities of the messengers are subjective. We can afford to differ on those.

[Edited to add:] My apologies, apparently it's Filip*p*enko, not Filipenko.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Though, it is amazing on how much of the original Cosmos is still fairly true. It's probably more because he stuck to the basics and in fairly general terms but still impressive.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Though, it is amazing on how much of the original Cosmos is still fairly true. It's probably more because he stuck to the basics and in fairly general terms but still impressive.


Might be too early to tell. Some of the classic scenes from the original series are being repeated (albeit updated) in the new one, but to what extent they emulate the original remains to be seen. But, like dj says,_ " ...it's time to update the story." _I'm hoping they'll explore newer areas in the weeks to come that will benchmark this series as a true continuation or stand-alone entity.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Too bad it won't include the new discovery regarding the Big Bang.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Too bad it won't include the new discovery regarding the Big Bang.


I'll bite ... what discovery is that?


----------



## TomCat (Aug 31, 2002)

The combination of being great communicators along with the subject matter being something worth knowing is mostly what Sagan and Tyson have in common here. Any one of us may have a gut feeling preferring one or the other, and that's allowed.

What I find missing from the new series is the emotional timing, how the show was edited and produced. The old show was done under a limited budget, and that is actually a chief reason why we saw Sagan's "talking head" as much as we did. The new, big-budget version shows a lot more whiz-bang graphics, but somehow the older approach seemed more effective to me.

The communication qualities they have are what you would like to see in every teacher. Being professors is part of why they are good at it, IMHO.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Henry said:


> I'll bite ... what discovery is that?


Gravity waves existence confirm.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/03/17/tech/innovation/big-bang-gravitational-waves/


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> Too bad it won't include the new discovery regarding the Big Bang.


Thanks, yosoyellobo.

I'm thinking the same, dpeters11.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

TomCat said:


> The combination of being great communicators along with the subject matter being something worth knowing is mostly what Sagan and Tyson have in common here. Any one of us may have a gut feeling preferring one or the other, and that's allowed.
> 
> What I find missing from the new series is the emotional timing, how the show was edited and produced. The old show was done under a limited budget, and that is actually a chief reason why we saw Sagan's "talking head" as much as we did. The new, big-budget version shows a lot more whiz-bang graphics, but somehow the older approach seemed more effective to me.
> 
> The communication qualities they have are what you would like to see in every teacher. Being professors is part of why they are good at it, IMHO.


You are so right, TomCat.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Old thread and the series is over now, but I was listening to Tyson's podcast from yesterday, where he talks to Seth MacFarlane. One interesting thing of note is that Ann Druyan and Tyson had been trying to get a new Cosmos done, and had pitched it to both PBS and Discovery, but they wanted control. MacFarlane got involved later and pitched it to Fox, they went for it and with no control over the content.


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Now being at the end of the series, I'll say that I still find the older one more satisfying for several reasons. I think the reliance on animation in the new one was a distraction, not an asset, and the other thing that struck me was a sort of defiant attitude that the original lacked. In Dr. Sagan's day it was "look at the wonderful future that science will bring us, and how we got there" and the new one was more "seriously, you pinheads still don't believe in science?" 

Whether or not you feel that attitude was necessary is probably the subject for a different forum, so I simply put it out there that there was less childlike wonder and more educated finger-wagging in the new one.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

They go into the use of animation in the podcast, but part of it was they felt that to do full re-enactments with set design etc would take up too much of the budget.

They also touch on the other subject, but as you say, this forum isn't appropriate for that particular subject.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Sagan's successor should have been Physicist Brian Cox. Tyson was OK, but IMHO, not memorable or convincing. Tyson delivered his lines well, but they seemed to lack passion and that sense of amazement.

Like Sagan, Brian can be mesmerizing and explain complex ideas very well. The same wonderment that Sagan was so fond of showing can be seen in Brian's quirky smirk.










I'm always on the lookout for reruns of "Wonders Of The Universe".


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Not convincing as in not believable? If someone doesn't agree with what Tysons said, they wouldn't believe Cox. Then of course there would be those that wouldn't watch because he's British. Kind of like Dreamworks wanted an American accent for Wallace in Wallace and Gromit.

Sent from my Z10 using DBSTalk mobile app


----------



## mrro82 (Sep 12, 2012)

Stuart Sweet said:


> Now being at the end of the series, I'll say that I still find the older one more satisfying for several reasons. I think the reliance on animation in the new one was a distraction, not an asset, and the other thing that struck me was a sort of defiant attitude that the original lacked. In Dr. Sagan's day it was "look at the wonderful future that science will bring us, and how we got there" and the new one was more "seriously, you pinheads still don't believe in science?"
> 
> Whether or not you feel that attitude was necessary is probably the subject for a different forum, so I simply put it out there that there was less childlike wonder and more educated finger-wagging in the new one.


For some of the material covered I would say the same thing about the above in quotation marks. Climate change for one. Anyone with 5 functioning brain cells knows it's happening yet it's still being denied.

Sent from the jaws of my Hammerhead!


----------



## TXD16 (Oct 30, 2008)

mrro82 said:


> Climate change for one. Anyone with 5 functioning brain cells knows it's happening yet it's still being denied.


No arguing with that, but then anyone with six or more...


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

And that's why that particular example (and a few others) should be left alone on the forum


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

dpeters11 said:


> *Not convincing as in not believable? *If someone doesn't agree with what Tysons said, they wouldn't believe Cox. Then of course there would be those that wouldn't watch because he's British. Kind of like Dreamworks wanted an American accent for Wallace in Wallace and Gromit.
> 
> Sent from my Z10 using DBSTalk mobile app


Almost. More like _"I'm not convinced of your conviction". _I have no reason to think he'd lie to me --- I mean, it's not a political show. To me he comes across as one who doesn't believe in what he's saying.

I wonder if the universe works differently in England?


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Henry said:


> Almost. More like _"I'm not convinced of your conviction". _I have no reason to think he'd lie to me --- I mean, it's not a political show. To me he comes across as one who doesn't believe in what he's saying.
> 
> I wonder if the universe works differently in England?


Yes. Also in California.


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

yosoyellobo said:


> Yes. Also in California.


Ah-hahh!! Just as I suspected. :righton:


----------



## Stuart Sweet (Jun 19, 2006)

Speaking from the state of California, yes the laws of physics work differently here. For example, you get on the freeway to go slower and get off it to speed up.


----------



## James Long (Apr 17, 2003)

mrro82 said:


> Anyone with 5 functioning brain cells knows it's happening yet it's still being denied.


The trouble is the why. It seems some people use all five of their brain cells to blame everything on mankind and push for political changes to prevent warming. It seems the whole argument boils down to "love/hate" just like anything else that goes political.

There are things that the planet could do better ... but I prefer to do them because I do not want to live in a trash heap - not because some unproven scientific THEORY that the opposite choice will kill everyone on the planet long after the planet has killed me.


----------



## Nick (Apr 23, 2002)

global warming 
global cooling 
climate change 
weather


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

Just remember that weather and climate are not the same thing


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

Get a room, guys ... or better yet, start a weather thread.


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

Got off the fence last Sunday. My fault for not keeping up on the issue.


----------



## toobs (Oct 10, 2012)

Are they renewing the show? I really liked it.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

It was a mini series, like the original. It's done.

I've never actually known Tyson and his background is as controversial as it is.


----------



## djlong (Jul 8, 2002)

I'd often said that Neil De Grasse Tyson was a modern-day Carl Sagan. When the Cosmos reboot was announced and they said HE was going to do it, I was rejoicing. This series turned out just about as good as I could have expected. I watched the original in the weeks before the reboot started. My wife made the comment that Sagan's verbal cadence could put her to sleep even though the subject matter was fascinating. I have to say, I saw her point - and that was something since I'd described Sagan as FAR more engaging and exciting that the previous lab-coat droners that usually did science shows. With the job Tyson did on this series - color me very satisfied. Despite it being on subjects I'd already known about, I still learned a lot!


----------



## Henry (Nov 15, 2007)

toobs said:


> Are they renewing the show? I really liked it.


Renewal?


----------



## yosoyellobo (Nov 1, 2006)

toobs said:


> Are they renewing the show? I really liked it.


They will be exploring the Fringe Universe.


----------



## dpeters11 (May 30, 2007)

djlong said:


> I'd often said that Neil De Grasse Tyson was a modern-day Carl Sagan. When the Cosmos reboot was announced and they said HE was going to do it, I was rejoicing. This series turned out just about as good as I could have expected. I watched the original in the weeks before the reboot started. My wife made the comment that Sagan's verbal cadence could put her to sleep even though the subject matter was fascinating. I have to say, I saw her point - and that was something since I'd described Sagan as FAR more engaging and exciting that the previous lab-coat droners that usually did science shows. With the job Tyson did on this series - color me very satisfied. Despite it being on subjects I'd already known about, I still learned a lot!


In terms of non astronomical science shows, you can't get much better than Julius Sumner Miller, and of course Mr. Wizard though I don't think Mr. Wizard had a Doctorate in the sciences.


----------

