There was a political undercurrent to the original Cosmos, but it was a different political undercurrent than what we're getting in the new series. Tyson is taking on anti-intellectualism, which is an issue in these times (and which Sagan devoted an entire book to -- The Demon-Haunted World), while Sagan took on the Cold War and humanity's capacity for self-destruction in the original. If Sagan were alive today and behind the new Cosmos, I feel confident that it would have the same criticism of anti-intellectualism.
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. 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. 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. 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 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. 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. 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. 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.
You said picking a narrator should have nothing to do with who is a worthy successor. That opens it up to whomever is popular. Your call.
No. You missed the point, which was that they might consider giving the job to a professional who's good at it. That would qualify someone like Freeman, but not Snooki. Having Tyson as the on-air talent is kind of like having Frank Perdue front his chicken ads all those years - the guy in charge gets to do it if he wants the attention, never mind whoever else is on the short list. Of course, it worked so well with Perdue not because he was the best possible pitchman but because he looked like a chicken.
Yeah, looks like it passed over my head on that last shot. Still, I think Tyson's a good narrator. Of course, I'm very biased.
Years ago, my Dad did a talk at our local astronomy club about these women, which pretty much was echoed in this episode. I suspect Tyson read many of the same books my Dad did. Nice to see though, as they definitely deserve mention.
I don't dislike him in the slightest. This series just doesn't have the pop for me that Carl's did. It's a shame, I think it could be better.
Well, "computer" had been a job for almost three centuries before Pickering first opened up the position to women, who were paid half as much as the men.
I didn't know that term was associated with a bunch of folks in a room crunching numbers. I won't miss an episode. I will struggle to stay awake at times, but I'll see every one. I went to youtube and watch Carl's first episode last night. Still a great watch.
Indeed it was, and not many people know just how much impact women have had on our understanding of astronomy. If you go even further back, I think it was Herschel's wife that wrote down all his observations.
Yeah I have to admit I've gotten somewhat bored with the show as well. Not sure if it's the lack of focus, or just the fact the novelty has worn off by now. I always find myself pretty engaged by the first 30 minutes, and then after that it's a struggle to get through.
Define "pop". What could the current host and creators possibly be doing that they haven't been to this point?
Better. Tyson's all right - he clearly likes performing and presenting material with some humor and a desire to entertain, and also seems to enjoy his little bit of celebrity in the same affable way that Sagan did. The writing is mediocre. Ideas, discoveries and scientific principles are rarely well or dramatically communicated. The writers seem to prefer superficial biographical sketches.
I think it is a novelty thing. Like the episode where they were talking about Atoms was boring to me, and felt a little rushed to the point of confusion. This last episode talking about Stars I thought would be very interesting and it could have been better. The Visual effects are great, but the presentation I wish could have a little more focus.
Pretty much what i feel like and i wish i could be a kid watching this show and be inspired by it. Sometimes when i see it i get misty eyed and how well Tyson portrays the curiosity he has about the wonders of the universe and how much joy discovery can bring. The simply don't have the time nor the desire to go deep into certain aspects of their material. Each of the episodes could be turned into a multi-episode documentary that deals with the details but that's not what Cosmos is out to achieve in my opinion. For me it seems they want to kickstart people's curiosity again which has been perhaps dampened by reality TV trash, religious intolerance other things people are preoccupied nowadays. People don't stop and look around and wonder how and why anymore.. they take things for granted and as long as their smartphones, internet connection and food supply is ok they don't feel the need to broaden their horizon. This is where Cosmos comes into play.. it doesn't tell you to become a scientist or that it's the best profession and that everybody should aspire to become a scientist. It just says.. "Hey.. this is how stuff works and came into being. Wanna know more?" I believe this show is especially useful to kids and it should be mandatory viewing in school which is why Tyson is just so perfect for this show. He really conveys that curiosity and passion for knowledge so well and he paints a brilliant big picture about how everything is connected in the universe from the biggest phenomena to the smallest particles. This is why i don't feel the need for overly detailed facts or specifics.. it is not a documentary. It shows you the path and it's up to you to crack open a book or sit down on the internet to educate yourself if your curiosity is picked. I really like Tyson and what he's out to achieve with this show and i'm looking forward to each episode.