Not disputing his passion, and of course not his expertise and I'm enjoying the show as well, but his skills as a narrator are lacking.
I don't know why you think that. He's actually a more polished and experienced presenter than Sagan was when he did the original series. Sagan had an endearing and sincere delivery, but it was kind of clunky in its way, sort of an odd mix of Rod Serling and Jeff Goldblum. And
Cosmos was the only documentary series he ever hosted. Tyson has done several. His style may not feel quite as warm and personal as Sagan's, but he's certainly a talented narrator.
Besides, lots of science shows have been hosted by people who weren't polished public speakers -- Stephen Hawking being the most extreme example. It's about the substance, not the surface.
I see your opinion as a flaw and the reason this show isn't watched by a gazillion folks each week. .... and the reason that it won't be treasured like Carl's was.
To the first point, it's absurd to equate ratings with quality. Reality-TV crap gets huge ratings.
To the second point, I think you have it backward. As I said, the only way something can qualify as
Cosmos rather than a different science show is if it's personal in the same way that
Cosmos was, if it's an astronomer-philosopher offering his (or her) own vision. What you want it to be might be a good science show, but it wouldn't be
Cosmos.
Are you all saying that Shatner understood all the science behind TOS?
Are you saying that Morgan Freeman undertands everything he narrates in "Through the Wormhole"?
I'm saying that those things aren't
Cosmos. There have been lots of science shows, but
Cosmos is an archetypal example of the genre of science shows hosted by actual scientists.
But maybe the content is holding it back. The first episode contained falsehoods about Bruno. There is a "evolution v creationism" feel to it that dumbs it down.
That's ridiculous. A lot of Carl Sagan's work was about speaking out against "The Demon-Haunted World," calling attention to the dangers of anti-intellectualism and debunking superstitions like astrology, UFOs, and the like. Were he still alive, he'd surely be on the vanguard of the urgent battle against the creationists and religious nuts who are endangering scientific progress in this country. The creationists are the ones who've dumbed down the level of discourse in America;
Cosmos is trying to inject some much-needed intelligence again.
I've watched all the episodes of MF-TTWH and they covered everything under the sun, from God to the big bang and never got the feeling that I was being force fed propganda.
I haven't seen that show, but maybe that's because it's just too timid to take a stand when one needs to be taken. Speaking out frankly and aggressively
against propaganda is not the same thing as propaganda.
You don't need modern CGI etc. to sell science. Which is what this show should be doing.
Okay, now that proves you don't understand what it is you're defending. The original
Cosmos embraced cutting-edge special-effects technologies (at least, inasmuch as PBS could afford), as well as embracing the methods and concepts of science fiction such as starships and time travel, in order to visualize science in a fresh and exciting way that would captivate viewers as no previous science show ever had. Not to mention its extensive use of actor recreations of historical events. The fact that it did things in such a radically new and visually spectacular way was part of why it made such an impact. The new show is just following in the tradition of the original.
It's probably a Brandon Braga thing...
Brannon Braga was only brought in (at Seth MacFarlane's suggestion) to achieve what Tyson, Druyan, and Soter already intended to do, i.e. create visuals that were as cutting-edge by today's standards as the original's were by 1980 standards.
If Sagan's series didn't seem as politicized as the new one, perhaps it's because it was the product of an earlier time. If Sagan were alive today, maybe he'd be a bit less tactful out of sheer necessity.
As I've been saying, the original was
very politicized. Much of the series, including pretty much the entire final episode, was a protest against nuclear proliferation and Cold War politics, against the insanity of building enough nuclear weapons to exterminate all life on the planet a dozen times over just because of petty tribalistic rivalries. It was a powerful anti-war statement at a time when the hawkish mentality of the Reagan right was just beginning to dominate American politics. It couldn't have been more political.
