The Official "Cosmos" Thread

[Jay 37,249]

Is it better or worse then the season from 5 years ago? 

[karelm 2,901]

11 hours ago, Jay said:

Is it better or worse then the season from 5 years ago? 

 

I thought better than season 2.  Like all previous versions they mix other topics like the episode with Seth and Viggo was a tragic story of a Soviet era scientist.  The point wasn't about the science but the sacrifice he made for scientific and moral integrity so it covers history, philosophy, art, social topics, and science like the others.  None did this as well as the Carl Sagan series but there are definitely lots of interesting segments and conclusions.

[Jay 37,249]

Cool, thanks!

Hopefully I can find time to watch it soon

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

I still haven't seen the new series (I figured rather than trying and failing to catch up with downloads, I'll just wait for the Blu), but today is an important anniversary for the original. Here's what I posted to Facebook & Twitter to mark the occasion:

 

On this day in 1980, the first episode of Carl Sagan's landmark series "Cosmos" premiered on PBS. 40 years later, it is still, in my view, the best thing ever made for TV - in any genre. Some of its science is now outdated, but "Cosmos" is much more than a mere presentation of scientific facts: Through the combination of Sagan's passionate narration, (then) groundbreaking special effects, and a carefully selected soundtrack (including music by Vivaldi, Beethoven, Shostakovich, Hovhaness, and most importantly Vangelis), it keeps the viewer informed and entertained in equal measure, hooking them on the wonder and inherent "spirituality" of science (which nobody has ever been able to convey better than Sagan), charting a course that takes them from an introduction to the scientific method on to astronomy, evolution, and relativity, and culminating in a powerful plea for humanity and the importance of scientific literacy for our responsibility for ourselves and the world we inhabit. I believe it should be required viewing in every school.

 

 

[Jay 37,249]

Aw that's awesome - I still need to see that season!  I think I was shown some episodes in science class when I was a kid, but haven't revisited it as an adult.

 

I really liked the season from 5 years ago, so really should check out the new season as well as that original one!  Some day...

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

The Sagan original is now available on Blu-ray. Much of it was shot on video, but I hope at least the exterior scenes are notably improved (those were shot on film).

[Jay 37,249]

Ooh, excellent!

[Datameister 2,034]

We're watching the new season as episodes show up on Hulu. Four episodes in, I can't shake the feeling that it's just not as special as the previous season. We're still enjoying it, but the storytelling isn't quite as engaging. Another thing I really appreciated about Neil's first season is the quality of the visual effects - makes a big difference with this sort of subject matter. But there've been a number of VFX shots of distractingly poor quality this time around. I'm also puzzled by some of the stylistic choices, such as introducing stop motion animation after a season-and-a-half of effective 2D animation. I mean, I love stop motion, but it just seemed like a distractingly odd choice.

 

I guess it also doesn't help that the previous season covered so many interesting major topics. I don't get the impression that they were, like, saving some of the "good stuff" for a hypothetical future season.

 

@Thor, you mentioned having issues with this season in another thread. Are your feelings similar, or have other things interfered with your enjoyment?

[Thor 7,451]

22 minutes ago, Datameister said:

 

@Thor, you mentioned having issues with this season in another thread. Are your feelings similar, or have other things interfered with your enjoyment?

 

There were a number of things that irritated me a bit in the second season. One is of course Degrasse-Tyson himself; this season was more of a "Degrasse-Tyson Show" with himself up front-and-center, even in acted sequences. That doesn't sit well with me; I far prefer Brian Cox in that regard - he doesn't let his person come in front of the issue quite the same.

 

Another irritation was the endless fawning over Carl Sagan - likening him to the actual scientists, and even (at one point) crediting him with basically the dawn of contemporary astronomy and collaborative sciences. Yes, he created the original show, and he was a great, passionate communicator that no doubt helped public interest in space, but please - let's tone down the deification a little bit, shall we?

 

Yet another point was the endless stream of 'big, empty words'; very pompous. This was a problem in the first season as well, but seemed pumped up to 100 here. And what's with the endless reiterations of the cosmic calendar?!

 

Finally, some of the stories (animated or otherwise) and actual topics were less interesting to me this time around. I liked the first few episodes, but then it kinda dropped from there, as topics were getting closer to Earth.

 

There was also less to latch on to in Silvestri's music this time. Seemed less inspired somehow, but I haven't listened to the soundtrack yet (I have more than enough getting through the four discs and the 2 hours, 48 minutes of music from the first season).

 

All that being said, I was still entertained. The effects are great, and the 'pop scientific' approach is always worth watching. But as I mentioned earlier, I'd much rather have a BBC documentary on the same issues. Combine a BBC documentary with the eye-popping visual effects of Hollywood (like in COSMOS), and you have my ideal show about astronomy and related sciences. I mean, I love Brian Cox' series on The Planets, for example, but the effects aren't quite as impressive. 

[Jurassic Shark 12,008]

5 minutes ago, Thor said:

I far prefer Brian Cox in that regard - he doesn't let his person come in front of the issue quite the same.

 

Yeah, but Cox has an annoying voice.

[Thor 7,451]

Just now, Jurassic Shark said:

 

Yeah, but Cox has an annoying voice.

 

A little bit, maybe, but if the choice is between an annoying voice and an annoying 'presence', I'd rather have the annoying voice.

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

As I mentioned somewhere, I've only seen the first two (or so) episodes of the new season, but there are two points that I must comment on:

 

49 minutes ago, Thor said:

Another irritation was the endless fawning over Carl Sagan - likening him to the actual scientists, and even (at one point) crediting him with basically the dawn of contemporary astronomy and collaborative sciences. Yes, he created the original show, and he was a great, passionate communicator that no doubt helped public interest in space, but please

 

I guess I see what you mean, but I have to object to the phrasing "likening him to the actual scientists". Sagan *was* an *actual scientist*, even if most of his legacy is not so much in academia but rather in science communication.

 

Quote

Finally, some of the stories (animated or otherwise) and actual topics were less interesting to me this time around. I liked the first few episodes, but then it kinda dropped from there, as topics were getting closer to Earth.

 

That was something I was afraid of myself for the new season, but I get the same impression after viewing the rest, I expect it's more because of the presentation rather than any potential "non-astronomical" content. The original Cosmos, as the title says (but it's easy to mis-interpret it) isn't just about astronomy, but about all the sciences (basically, life, the universe, and everything). One of its greatest achievements was that it could take you on a journey that started in cosmology, but the emotional and "dramatic" climax of the whole series is very much Earth-bound. Yet it never makes me miss the astronomy stuff, because it's just so well made and couldn't possible end up in any other place.

 

Which doesn't mean that a series can't (very easily) lose my interest by shifting focus from what I'm originally interested in, or perhaps even by switching to topics that I find decidedly less interesting. But that's then more down to the execution or choice of specific topics. The original series could pull it of because it succeeded in *making* me interested in whatever branch of science it (seemingly inevitably) moved its attention to.

[Thor 7,451]

10 minutes ago, Marian Schedenig said:

I guess I see what you mean, but I have to object to the phrasing "likening him to the actual scientists". Sagan *was* an *actual scientist*, even if most of his legacy is not so much in academia but rather in science communication.

 

Well, sure, in a way. But by that reasoning, Michael Chrichton is a scientist too - and I doubt anyone would credit him with anything beyond 'science communication', even if he has the required background! Just wait untill you get to that episode (I think it's the second to last or thereabouts), and you'll see what I mean in regards to lifting Sagan WAY beyond his actual feats. It's pillow-in-front-of-face-level embarassing -- and kinda coming out of nowhere just because they want to pay tribute to the creator of the original show (they solved this far more reservedly in the first season, btw). I'm curious to hear what you think once you get there.

[Jay 37,249]

12 minutes ago, Thor said:

It's pillow-in-front-of-face-level embarassing

 

I've never heard this expression before - what does it mean and where does it come from?

[Thor 7,451]

Ha, ha. Tried to sorta translate from Norwegian there. We have a term called 'pillow TV', which means it's very embarassing to watch (usually used for inane reality shows).

[Jay 37,249]

Why is an inane TV show referred to as pillow TV?  Implying you still watch it, but for some reason hold up a pillow when doing so?

[Thor 7,451]

1 minute ago, Jay said:

Why is an inane TV show referred to pillow TV?  Implying you still watch it, but for some reason hold up a pillow when doing so?

 

Yeah, whenever embarassing confrontations and the like occur, you reach for the pillow and put it in front of your face. Shows like EX ON THE BEACH etc. There's one on in Norway right called FIRST DATES. That's classic pillow TV too.

[Jay 37,249]

Interesting.  That expression has never been used over here that I've ever heard

[Marian Schedenig 8,153]

22 minutes ago, Thor said:

Well, sure, in a way. But by that reasoning, Michael Chrichton is a scientist too - and I doubt anyone would credit him with anything beyond 'science communication', even if he has the required background!

 

I'm not aware of Crichton being an active scientist, or doing significant science communication, other than writing popular novels with varying degrees of scientific depth ((and apparently hugely varying degrees of correctness). But Sagan, aside from being a very active science communicator (in a very personal and emotional way, of course, but still communicating the science - his one novel is more of a sideshow to that), also had an ongoing active career as a scientist and was involved in many projects including the NASA space programme and co-founding the Planetary Society.

 

22 minutes ago, Thor said:

Just wait untill you get to that episode (I think it's the second to last or thereabouts), and you'll see what I mean in regards to lifting Sagan WAY beyond his actual feats. It's pillow-in-front-of-face-level embarassing -- and kinda coming out of nowhere just because they want to pay tribute to the creator of the original show (they solved this far more reservedly in the first season, btw). I'm curious to hear what you think once you get there.

 

I'm sure I'll post my comments here whenever I get a good deal on the Blu.