Cosmos was... a once in a lifetime experience. No matter how much effort is put into this remake, it can only be a dim reflection of the original for those of us lucky enough to enjoy it. It broke so many moulds and set so many standards for factual programming that anything else is just a derivative. Any attempt to redo it or 'extend' it just feels... wrong somehow.Consequently, this remake thus has a very faint scent of blasphemy about it that leaves many people feeling equivocal. We'll probably get over it eventually but... ah, somehow it couldn't be the same.
I understand the feeling. I felt the same as the new Battlestar Galactica aired season 1. But it didn't take long before I was completely hooked!
The people who say with disdain and disgust: "It's appearing on Fox? Their viewers don't know any science!" And I simply reply, "If true, that makes Fox the best network of them all on which to air this series."
I enjoy Tyson. My concern is that the show will most likely have to refrain from scientifically speaking on the origins of the universe and on the origins of life. One pet peeve about these shows is their depiction of black holes as actual black spheres.... in reality they would almost certainly be shrouded in million degree hellishly bright vortex of many suns worth of matter. Quite the opposite of blackness.
Just got finished reading Frank Borman's book, he was NOT kind to Sagan at all, and what I read really lowered my opinion of the man )Sagan, that is).
Quote from: p51 on 08/12/2013 07:29 pmJust got finished reading Frank Borman's book, he was NOT kind to Sagan at all, and what I read really lowered my opinion of the man )Sagan, that is).What did you read? In few lines. Thanks.
Wasn't Stephen Hawking's Universe of a few years ago something of an abridged updating of Cosmos?
I wonder how well this new "Cosmos" will play here in the UK as a lot of the ground has been covered very well and recently by Brian Cox, Jim Al-Khalili, etc . . . at the moment we seem to have a pretty decent science strand going and a good set of presenters.
Got the chance to watch the first episode today. I wasn't disappointed, but I wasn't excited. Guess you could say I was relieved more than anything else -- that they didn't make a joke of it or embarrass themselves.There were some good moments, but Tyson lacks the earnestness of Sagan. And a large chunk of the episode was a cartoon about the small minds of the Middle Ages. Seemed dark and out of place.That said, I don't know if anything could get me as excited as the original. I watched it as a very young kid and credit it with helping jumpstart my interest in science and space. I hope the follow-up episodes get better.
Cosmos premiers tonight! Time to get excited!
There were some good moments, but Tyson lacks the earnestness of Sagan. And a large chunk of the episode was a cartoon about the small minds of the Middle Ages. Seemed dark and out of place.
I'm hoping it does well. I get annoyed at people who take potshots at Tyson. Name another prime-time science show on a major network. Just one. They don't exist. Even the basic cable channels have all started to engage in pseudoscience (bigfoot, swamp monsters, ancient aliens, mermaids--MERMAIDS?!!).So we need this.
Is this going to be online? If so, when?I know I just asked this question, but just want to reiterate it. I'm excited (though keeping realistic expectations... Sagan can't be replicated... yet! ).
I'm hoping it does well. I get annoyed at people who take potshots at Tyson. Name another prime-time science show on a major network. Just one. They don't exist.
The intro by the President was unexpected plus!
For my taste it gave too much time to Bruno. The really religious were put off by it (even though it was all true). A gentler introduction would have got them hooked. Personally, I don't think that promoting one thing works by attacking the alternatives.
Once science is used to drive or enforce an idea, it is no longer science. It has become a cult, a religion. The virtual antithesis of science.
What's left is magic. And it doesn't work.— James Randi
Point well taken but:Michio KakuBrian Cox
Quote from: bubbagret on 03/16/2014 02:54 amWhat's left is magic. And it doesn't work.— James RandiPure science wouldn't say this. Far too many things that we take for granted today were yesterday's magic. Things like flight, electricity, wireless communications, televisions, alpha and beta brain waves, radiation sickness, etc, etc, etc. Magic, as opposed to slight-of-hand, is simply an event, capability or occurrence that can't be explained by the known laws of science, that appear to operate outside those laws, or in opposition to those laws. There is far more about how the universe works that we do not understand than we do understand. So-called magic eventually turns out to be such new understanding. To say magic doesn't work is to assume that we already know all there is to know. Usually magic turns into real science as our understanding increases. Just because we don't understand how something works, or can't explain it within the framework of known science does not invalidate it when it clearly works. To discount it is not science - it is ignorance. The first and most important tenet of real science is to acknowledge how much we do not understand, not to flaunt how little we do.
...
Enjoyed the second episode. Good explanation of biological processes for persons pushed through the American school system. It may be slightly less erudite than the original Cosmos, but I think part of the show's damage control must be reintroducing a great many people in this country to concepts they abandoned in lieu of nonsense their preachers have been spoon feeding them to keep money in the coffers.
Quote from: Negative Return on 02/19/2014 02:19 amThere were some good moments, but Tyson lacks the earnestness of Sagan. And a large chunk of the episode was a cartoon about the small minds of the Middle Ages. Seemed dark and out of place.Much the same could be said about the original series too. Sagan's understanding of the history of science was a caricature. from what little I have seen and read of Tyson he is no different. So I would expect more of the same unfortunately.
Ironic that you find it as a plus and I find it as a minus. Taking a factual explanation of science and the universe and injecting opinions on religion (in both episodes so far) means many people will walk away from an episode knowing they were presented both fact and opinion. From then on they will view the show knowing there is both fact and opinion presented and will try to parse the two, and many will inevitably get things wrong. Is the segment about how dogs were domesticated fact or opinion? Is the segment about the reproduction DNA fact or opinion? Is the segment about intelligent design being wrong but evolution being "spiritual" fact or opinion? It's interesting because it's something I've noticed its something people on this forum normally police rather vigorously, the presentation of opinion as fact. People will walk away from the show asking themselves this when instead they could have walked away without these being questions at all.
Good episode last night. I didnt know that Newton almost didnt get published. I hope I see Halley's comet again in July 2061 to see Halley's Comet again, but it's unlikely I'll make 86.Maybe we will have made it to Mars by then?
The show has been renewed for a second season which will air in the spring of 2019.https://www.theverge.com/2018/1/13/16888864/neil-degrasse-tyson-cosmos-second-season-fox-national-geographic-science