The Official "Cosmos" Thread

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I did worry that McFarlane's involvement, however insignificant he claims it is, would result in more of a... politicizing of certain things. I think ultimately it won't be worth getting bothered over though.

More likely to be Druyan than McFarlane, I think. He's just the producer assembling the talent together, doubt he'd meddle with the script. He'd be honoured to just be a part of it. since he grew up with the series.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

I havent seen this, but Religious dogma has had huge influenced when it comes to repressing scientific discovery, and persecuting those who dare look beyond what was dictated by the Church.

That should never be forgotten, certainly by those who still cling to these outdated belief systems.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I did worry that McFarlane's involvement, however insignificant he claims it is, would result in more of a... politicizing of certain things. I think ultimately it won't be worth getting bothered over though.

More likely to be Druyan than McFarlane, I think. He's just the producer assembling the talent together, doubt he'd meddle with the script. He'd be honoured to just be a part of it. since he grew up with the series.

True enough.

I havent seen this, but Religious dogma has had huge influenced when it comes to repressing scientific discovery, and persecuting those who dare look beyond what was dictated by the Church.

That should never be forgotten, certainly by those who still cling to these outdated belief systems.

No one is saying it should be. But there is an obligation to talk about those things evenhandedly, which as Blume says may not have been fully observed, and in a way that won't alienate the sort of people whose viewership would make this show more than just preaching to the choir. This is not to say things should be sugarcoated to make it more comfortable for those people, but that things shouldn't portrayed in an "us vs. them" light.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Then who object to the mention of the troubles Bruno had?

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I added something to my last post that I think clears it up.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Meh! Name and shame them, I always say!

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Any and all contact with "Stefan Cosman" should be avoided at all costs.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Are you a brony?

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

No, just human.

[Marian Schedenig 8,178]

I am no religious man, but I did cringe a little at the Giardino Bruno story. I felt ultimately it was more an attack on religion than an important storyline in science, and therefore Cosmos. Better left out than in.

Religion and the oppression of the Catholic church figured prominently in the original Cosmos where necessary, and it has to be an important element in the new one. After all, a major part of the old series has been the essence of science: Freedom of critical thought. The series was about the history of science as much as it was about the universe, and for a relevant part of it the church has been a negative influence (and partly continues to be).

As a side note, I thought the animated sequence worked better than I expected. I was a bit afraid that it would look more goofy than the live action reenactment scenes they wanted to avoid.

That said, since the show has aired the sequence has come under fire from historians for its historical...shall we say "misweighing of events." They never outright lie, but things were weighted differently for the purposes of the story,

Like what?

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Yeah, the animations worked well. I think they would have been perfect if they did the same thing as in the original live action reenactments - avoid any real dialogue.

[karelm 2,903]

I am no religious man, but I did cringe a little at the Giardino Bruno story. I felt ultimately it was more an attack on religion than an important storyline in science, and therefore Cosmos. Better left out than in.

Religion and the oppression of the Catholic church figured prominently in the original Cosmos where necessary, and it has to be an important element in the new one. After all, a major part of the old series has been the essence of science: Freedom of critical thought. The series was about the history of science as much as it was about the universe, and for a relevant part of it the church has been a negative influence (and partly continues to be).

As a side note, I thought the animated sequence worked better than I expected. I was a bit afraid that it would look more goofy than the live action reenactment scenes they wanted to avoid.

That said, since the show has aired the sequence has come under fire from historians for its historical...shall we say "misweighing of events." They never outright lie, but things were weighted differently for the purposes of the story,

Like what?

Don't forget that religious dogma has grown seriously since the original show. I personally recall Sagan as being extremely open minded. He was at my school in the early 1990's and there was a QA. A scientifically minded person asked if he would reprimand a religious zealot in the audience and Sagan reprimanded the scientist for not allowing dissent. It was a shocking moment in the audience because Sagan defended the right of the religious person to have a dissenting voice as long as they had evidence. This doesn't mean that he was a non believer but that he applied the scientific method to faith. I feel the same is true with Neil deGrass Tyson and that is what I appreciate most about him...along with the fact that he can articulate and advocate for his position to lay people.

[Wojo 2,453]

I'm sure I watched Sagan's show many years ago, but I don't have a strong memory of it. I value science and love to learn and watch educational shows, mostly on PBS because shows on Discovery or Science have too many commercial breaks that waste 45 seconds repeating themselves before moving on. But I don't have the fond sense of nostalgia for Sagan's Cosmos show that all you guys here do, so watching Tyson's new show feels like it could be a new experience.

I am no religious man, but I did cringe a little at the Giardino Bruno story. I felt ultimately it was more an attack on religion than an important storyline in science, and therefore Cosmos. Better left out than in.

I agree. Truth be told, I'm not sure why I didn't recognize Giardino Bruno's name when Tyson said that's who was in the prison. Clearly I lost my notes from the original Cosmos show, but it's more likely that my public education glossed over Tyson in favor of the biggies Copernicus and Galileo. Tyson's discussion of Bruno is flawed in two ways: not only does it attack medieval religion, it praises a man for having good ideas while glossing over the science. Here's a guy, in a time and place without freedom of thought, who decides that an "infinite" creator would have created an infinite creation, but "the system" doesn't see it that way. They expel him, excommunicate him, scorn him, and eventually imprison, convict, and execute this heretic. Certainly it's not the first time "the system" has done this to a person, does history state that the only nonbelievers in the early Renaissance were blossoming scientists?

Tyson admits that Bruno doesn't have scientific proof to support his Copernican view of the solar system, nor to explain why he believes the sun is just another star. By praising Bruno as the primary proponent of the heliocentric model, Tyson is giving undue credit to his lucky guess. That's a pretty weak platform to promote in a show that wants to show the value of science above philosophy or mythology. While Bruno's points were proven ten years after his martyrdom by Galileo and his telescopes, Tyson didn't explain how many years it still took for science and reason to operate free of the shackles of the oppressive church. On the one hand, by suggesting that Galileo vindicated Bruno's great thoughts, Tyson suggests that the telescopes and their views of the heavens were sufficient to change "the system's" attitude toward science in the 1600s, when that wasn't true. At that point, the show went to commercial, and when it came back it was time to discuss something else. On the other hand, Tyson did mention the lack of separation of church and state in 1600s Italy, so the average viewer on FOX might think that since the U.S. didn't adopt that until the late 1700s, it took that long, which is also untrue. Tyson's thesis also would have been weakened if he had mentioned that Copernicus died at the age of 70 in Prussia in bed, not at the stake. Again, different countries, different churches, different tolerances.

I did appreciate that Tyson admitted that the big bang theory itself sounds crazy, but is also supported by scientific evidence; he just didn't dive into any detail on the helium dispersion or the diverging radio waves.

[Mr. Brown 91]

I don't think the animation segment was made to exclude or push away religious viewers. It wasn't a direct attack on religion. It laid out facts and historical events, with the moral being that viewers should learn to think for themselves and be more open-minded. That's how they portrayed Bruno, too. I think that's all that Tyson and the producers can ask for, and perhaps that's the essence of COSMOS.

I liked the part of the ending, too, where Tyson said his encounter with Sagan didn't just confirm that he wanted to be a scientist, but also showed him what type of person he wanted to be like. The context being that Sagan bothered to take the time of out his schedule to meet up with some kid from Harlem and to make sure that he had a safe ride home. That said a lot about Sagan, as a person.

I bet you'd be hard-pressed to find any celebrity in the film industry, for example, who would take the time to do that.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I liked the part of the ending, too, where Tyson said his encounter with Sagan didn't just confirm that he wanted to be a scientist, but also showed him what type of person he wanted to be like. The context being that Sagan bothered to take the time of out his schedule to meet up with some kid from Harlem and to make sure that he had a safe ride home. That said a lot about Sagan, as a person.

I bet you'd be hard-pressed to find any celebrity in the film industry, for example, who would take the time to do that.

That made me tear up a bit.

[nightscape94 965]

That whole Bruno sequence, I believe, was a way to connect the general audience to a historical figure who did not have scientific training but still had influence. I don’t fault Tyson and the producers in pursuing this avenue.

More importantly, I think portraying this was a good way to pull in the religious audience, not drive them away like others think. The church played a vital role in society’s pathway of knowledge for a long time; holding, censoring, or making up information to gain influence and power. Those audience members who are skeptical can see a person who was religious, and continued to be religious even after his “epiphany” of an infinite universe, and died for his beliefs. This may make the program more accessible to a religious audience and serve as a way to detach the them from biblical dogma and papal teaching and learn more critical thinking.

[karelm 2,903]

That whole Bruno sequence, I believe, was a way to connect the general audience to a historical figure who did not have scientific training but still have influence. I dont fault Tyson and the producers in pursuing this avenue.

More importantly, I think portraying this was a good way to pull in the religious audience not drive them away like others think. The church played a vital role in societys pathway of knowledge for a long time; holding, censoring, or making up information to gain influence and power Those audience members who are skeptical can see a person who was religious, and continued to be religious even after his epiphany of an infinite universe, and died for his beliefs. This may make the program more accessible to a religious audience and serve as a way to detach the them from biblical dogma and papal teaching and learn more critical thinking.

It also raises the point, who is the true religious figure? Bruno or the church since Bruno claimed god being infinite, the creation must be as well? Very valid point raised because a lot of pro-religious people are anti-science/knowledge. I'm referring to people like Palin/Bachmann/the Bill Nye debate audience, etc. I thought the point was well made and an important one.

I liked the part of the ending, too, where Tyson said his encounter with Sagan didn't just confirm that he wanted to be a scientist, but also showed him what type of person he wanted to be like. The context being that Sagan bothered to take the time of out his schedule to meet up with some kid from Harlem and to make sure that he had a safe ride home. That said a lot about Sagan, as a person.

I bet you'd be hard-pressed to find any celebrity in the film industry, for example, who would take the time to do that.

That made me tear up a bit.

Me too. It's not often you find a truly giving person who is so generous to strangers and seeks nothing in return as Mr. Sagan.

[Jay 37,322]

Cosmos 2x01 Standing Up in the Milky Way

I loved the beginning and end of the episode, but didn't understand the point of the middle!

The episode opens with Neil DeGrasse Tyson explaining what the show will be about - in his "ship of imagination", he will take the viewer on a tour of the cosmos, both through space (showing what the universe is made of and how much a small part of it can even be observed by us) and time (showing the 13.8 billion year history of the universe so far and possibilities the future brings).

Then, for the first major sequence he takes the ship on a tour of the universe. Starting with our Sun, he then goes past all the planets in our solar system, past the Voyager I (briefly explaining it's mission), our solar neighborhood, outside the Milky Way, outside our galactic group, our place in the Virgo Supercluster, and finally the possibility that our entire universe is just one of infinite multiverses. This was all extremely well done and really thought provoking, especially the fact that we can only even observe an extremely small portion of the universe, since the light from anything more than 13.8 billion light years away hasn't even reached earth yet.

I mean, you can look at a picture showing all this, like this one, but it is much more effective in the show with the motion, narration, and music, instead of just still photographs. Great stuff.

After a meandering middle sequence which I'll get to in a minute, the final major sequence was an overview of time, placing the entire history of the universe to date on a "Cosmic Calendar", with the Big Bang happening at January 1st and the present day on December 31st at midnight. it was fascinating how young our sun and galaxy are compared to the whole universe, but more important how damn young we humans are, and especially our recorded history (only the last few seconds of the cosmic calendar). Really puts everything into perspective.

I liked the final bit where Tyson talked a bit about the type of person Carl Sagan was. Overall, it leaves you very interested in the next 12 episodes, to see more detail about some of the things only briefly brought up in this essential overview of the Cosmos episode. Can’t wait!

Nwt as mentioned about, the middle 15-20 minutes of the episode is along, meandering story about a guy named Giardino Bruno who believed that the earth revolved around the sun and that other stars were also suns before telescopes would eventually prove it a decade or so later. This would have been a nice side but it became 1/3 of the entire episode! I didn’t understand this and honestly would have just cut it entirely, or moved it to another episode that was all about the history of discovery and church vs science on Earth or something. It just didn’t fit in with the kind of “general overview” the first and last third of the episode had.

Apart from that detour, great stuff all around!

Also, I found Silvestri’s music to be extremely effective, I loved it in the show itself. Makes me want to check out that OST again now!

[karelm 2,903]

I thought the point of episode 1 was to explain both the scale of the universe (spoiler: we are small) and the importance of being open to explore. Part 1 was by showing the solar system, then galaxy. Part 2 was by showing the theory of the infinite by Bruno who was decried as a heretic by the population though was proven correct only a few years after his death (plus his willingness to die for a new concept) and part 3 was the calendar that showed everything we have known happened in the last minute of the last day of the universal calendar. That's a very powerful message.

The lecture I heard from Sagan was "Is there Intelligent Life on Earth?" (it can also be read in his book, "Blue Dot") but it had a similar point that we are a minor anomaly in the history of our planet in the history of the galaxy/universe/infinite. It's really a powerful theme.

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Second episode, a significant improvement in cohesiveness and a greater sense of wonder as well.

Still feel like Tyson is trying to get too many words in per minute before he is struck down by a commercial, which robs it of the Sagan-esque deliberate, soothing while awe-inspiring dialogue.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Agreed. Also noticed some very subtle, more ethereal music in this episode.

[A24 4,327]

I saw the first episode on Nat Geo and thought it was very shallow, ADHD-ish and American (the show element). In the end, I felt it's a docu series that wants to convince kids that science is not boring. They bring it like it's a circus. It's only interested in the spectacle and the sensational and then, without looking deeper into the material, it goes on to the next (with the music constantly on overdrive).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

It looked like that to me too. A higher budgeted version of some Discovery Channel docu.

Pity.

[Quintus 5,399]

I'll give it a go at some point, it sounds well worth a try at the very least. Tonight though we're watching The Imposter, a different sort of documentary.

Why is though that British stations never import overseas factual programing, but every foreign fucker and his Zulu cousin has seen Planet Earth and whatever else David Attenborough narrates?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

David Attenborough is a God!

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

I saw the first episode on Nat Geo and thought it was very shallow, ADHD-ish and American (the show element). In the end, I felt it's a docu series that wants to convince kids that science is not boring. They bring it like it's a circus. It's only interested in the spectacle and the sensational and then, without looking deeper into the material, it goes on to the next (with the music constantly on overdrive).

This is more a reflection of the science crisis in America than as a poor reflection on the show creators.

We are the only country in the developed world other than Russia where belief in evolution for example is declining year over year, decade over decade.

Worryingly the trend seems to be slowly spreading to the UK as well.

When you see the show in terms of the scientific climate it is tackling, it's extremely well crafted.

If you are watching this from countries like Germany, Sweden and China where things like evolution are approaching 70% acceptance and climbing, yeah it'll look very summary.

When you watch it from a country where 40% accept evolution and declining, where people openly say the world is 6,000 years old, it's another story.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

I saw the first episode on Nat Geo and thought it was very shallow, ADHD-ish and American (the show element). In the end, I felt it's a docu series that wants to convince kids that science is not boring. They bring it like it's a circus. It's only interested in the spectacle and the sensational and then, without looking deeper into the material, it goes on to the next (with the music constantly on overdrive).

Which science shows have been up to snuff for you, Alex?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

I'll give it a go at some point, it sounds well worth a try at the very least. Tonight though we're watching The Imposter, a different sort of documentary.

Why is though that British stations never import overseas factual programing, but every foreign fucker and his Zulu cousin has seen Planet Earth and whatever else David Attenborough narrates?

Actually they had Sigourney narrate Planet Earth over here.

[Muad'Dib 1,801]

This is more a reflection of the science crisis in America than as a poor reflection on the show creators.

We are the only country in the developed world other than Russia where belief in evolution for example is declining year over year, decade over decade.

Worryingly the trend seems to be slowly spreading to the UK as well.

When you see the show in terms of the scientific climate it is tackling, it's extremely well crafted.

If you are watching this from countries like Germany, Sweden and China where things like evolution are approaching 70% acceptance and climbing, yeah it'll look very summary.

When you watch it from a country where 40% accept evolution and declining, where people openly say the world is 6,000 years old, it's another story.

Wow! How can belief in evolution be declinining? It's nuts!

Although I do think both visions could co-exist peacefully, but I don't wanna get into an ugly debate...

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Although I do think both visions could co-exist peacefully, but I don't wanna get into an ugly debate...

The problem with that is that they can't both be right.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

This is more a reflection of the science crisis in America than as a poor reflection on the show creators.

We are the only country in the developed world other than Russia where belief in evolution for example is declining year over year, decade over decade.

Worryingly the trend seems to be slowly spreading to the UK as well.

When you see the show in terms of the scientific climate it is tackling, it's extremely well crafted.

If you are watching this from countries like Germany, Sweden and China where things like evolution are approaching 70% acceptance and climbing, yeah it'll look very summary.

When you watch it from a country where 40% accept evolution and declining, where people openly say the world is 6,000 years old, it's another story.

Wow! How can belief in evolution be declinining? It's nuts!

Although I do think both visions could co-exist peacefully, but I don't wanna get into an ugly debate...

They can... except for the parts that are direct contradictions.

[Muad'Dib 1,801]

Yeah, but for example: My mother is very catholic, and I was raised in catholicism; but as I started growing up, I became very interested in animals, dinosaurs, and science. Now all the stuff about evolution, dinosaurs, the big bang and such is very against what she believes in, but she never game a hard time about me being more interested in evolution than in God. And I'm the same with her, I respect her beliefs. I like to think we both have learned a lot from each others beliefs.

All I wonder is why people can't accept each other beliefs, I don't think we should try to say what's right or wrong. If you believe something different, that's fine with me; and if the other can respect my opinion and not think down of me because of that, I don't see any reason why we can't think differently.

[Quintus 5,399]

Here in the UK the theory of evolution isn't at all in 'decline' and it continues to be the accepted mainstream theory of life on Earth. Darwinism is so accepted by my own generation and those after it that it is actually the 'normal' belief to hold, even by those who reckon they also believe in God.

Brits are sane enough to realise we all come from faeries, imps and leprechauns.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

But which came first: God or the egg?

[Quintus 5,399]

Neither. Archaeological digs and carbon dating have found and proven beyond shadow of doubt that sausages were around long before God.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Yeah, but for example: My mother is very catholic, and I was raised in catholicism; but as I started growing up, I became very interested in animals, dinosaurs, and science. Now all the stuff about evolution, dinosaurs, the big bang and such is very against what she believes in, but she never game a hard time about me being more interested in evolution than in God. And I'm the same with her, I respect her beliefs. I like to think we both have learned a lot from each others beliefs.

All I wonder is why people can't accept each other beliefs, I don't think we should try to say what's right or wrong. If you believe something different, that's fine with me; and if the other can respect my opinion and not think down of me because of that, I don't see any reason why we can't think differently.

I agree.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Neither. Archaeological digs and carbon dating have found and proven beyond shadow of doubt that sausages were around long before God.

A devout Christian would never acknowledge the existence of carbon dating, since it's not mentioned in the Bible.

Yeah, but for example: My mother is very catholic, and I was raised in catholicism; but as I started growing up, I became very interested in animals, dinosaurs, and science. Now all the stuff about evolution, dinosaurs, the big bang and such is very against what she believes in, but she never game a hard time about me being more interested in evolution than in God. And I'm the same with her, I respect her beliefs. I like to think we both have learned a lot from each others beliefs.

All I wonder is why people can't accept each other beliefs, I don't think we should try to say what's right or wrong. If you believe something different, that's fine with me; and if the other can respect my opinion and not think down of me because of that, I don't see any reason why we can't think differently.

Very nice. But the thing is. You can agree to disagree. But one side is probably wrong. (unless both evolution and creationism are bull and humanity has been getting it wrong for thousands of years)

[Jay 37,322]

Unfortunately guys, political and religious talk is banned on JWFan, so we'll have to change the subject back to the TV show now. Thanks!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Can't we have a sub forum with Politics & Religion?

[Koray Savas 2,251]

Yeah, but for example: My mother is very catholic, and I was raised in catholicism; but as I started growing up, I became very interested in animals, dinosaurs, and science. Now all the stuff about evolution, dinosaurs, the big bang and such is very against what she believes in, but she never game a hard time about me being more interested in evolution than in God. And I'm the same with her, I respect her beliefs. I like to think we both have learned a lot from each others beliefs.

All I wonder is why people can't accept each other beliefs, I don't think we should try to say what's right or wrong. If you believe something different, that's fine with me; and if the other can respect my opinion and not think down of me because of that, I don't see any reason why we can't think differently.

I agree.

The issue is one stifles progress and the other doesn't.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Are you saying Michael's mother is stiffling?

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Anyways back to the show, Alexcremers, I would recommend you watch the second episode. It's a marked improvement in eliminating the ADHD.

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Does it have depth of content?

[BLUMENKOHL 1,068]

Yes. I actually learned information I did not know this time.

[Jay 37,322]

Can't wait to watch the second episode!

BTW, I listened to the Volume 1 OST again today. I noticed that the track titles seem to all refer to Episode 1 scenes. But the OST is 40 minues long, like the episode was, and it's not like every single second of the entire episode had score. And even if that was the case, that would mean they'd need 13 volumes to release all the music, and they are planning 4. Did some music from fuiture episodes make it's way onto the V1 OST, or no?

[Muad'Dib 1,801]

I don't know, but the first volume is missing the end credits reprise of the main theme.

[KK 3,307]

I watched the first episode of this show. I've never actually seen Sagan's Cosmos, so I'm a newcomer with no bias. Having said that, the episode was a bit underwhelming to me. It had some great moments, but seemed to favour a ore generic approach to some of its storytelling that was mildly disappointing. It's still enjoyable stuff though and I look forward to watching the second episode soon.

Favourite part was the touching ending where Tyson talks about the kind of man Sagan was.

[Jay 37,322]

The first episode is definitely a mixed bag of great moments and some meandering stuff. Like you I am excited to watch Episode 2 regardless.

[ST-321 4]

Details on Volume 2:

http://filmmusicreporter.com/2014/03/18/cosmos-a-spacetime-odyssey-volume-2-soundtrack-announced/

Edit: Oh, sorry it is already in the other Cosmos thread.

[Dixon Hill 4,233]

Good discussion going on here about Bruno/historical accuracy as we talked about earlier.

http://www.reddit.com/r/Cosmos/comments/200idt/cosmos_a_spacetime_odyssey_episode_1_standing_up/cfyon1d?context=3

http://www.reddit.com/r/bestof/comments/20u44a/ufellowsparrow_what_i_really_expect_from_the_new/

Also found on Reddit this evening; not exactly surprising.