Yeah, and honestly, I think they've done a great job between balancing out some of the basic topics and the more obscure, like with this episode for instance, and the one about the light.
Last edited:
They could just as easily have portrayed the lead debate as one of a maverick overthrowing the scientific consensus that the levels of environmental lead posed no significant threat.
In WW-II we put so much lead in the gas that the sides of combat aircraft near the exhaust stacks were coated with metallic lead, and none of the government scientists batted an eye. Indeed, leaded gasoline is still widely used for aviation because the world is filled with aircraft engines that can't run on unleaded fuel..
Did the show happen to mention that because we removed lead from gasoline, we went back to adding toxic and carcinogenic benzene to it? (Benzene causes leukemia, spina bifida, etc.) Back in 1948 the American Petroleum Institute said the safe level of benzene in gasoline was zero. Now gasoline is chock full of the stuff (about 2%), and my house mate who is working an 8,200 gallon tanker truck spill into a delicate cave ecosystem is tracking the benzene levels in the groundwater as a tracer for where the gasoline went. One gallon of gasoline has enough added benzene to make four million gallons of water unsafe for drinking according to the EPA's 5 ppb exposure limit.
Yeah, and honestly, I think they've done a great job between balancing out some of the basic topics and the more obscure, like with this episode for instance, and the one about the light.
The animation threw me at first - but after hearing Ann explain why they chose that style instead of all live-action historical shots (which they *do* used a very few of) I understand why they chose it - not *just* because Seth MacFarlane was involved, as I first thought - but because it appeals to today's audience better - especially the kids. Still part of me misses the like action.
(I keep hoping that we will find out that the DVD release will contain longer, uncut, full 60min episodes! But part of me doubts that...but who knows, maybe there WILL at least be deleted scenes...?)
But the last thing is - and I think this decision may be part of the same thinking style tat chose animation over live action (though like I said, I'm now used to - and even *liking* - the animated segments)...is that "Cosmos" not ONLY taught me to love science (well, I think I already LOVED it - but didn't really know what it *was*, on the whole) - is that "Cosmos" also taught me to love *CLASSICAL MUSIC*. I STILL OWN the vinyl copy of the original "Music of Cosmos" (and am looking for the rare, foreign re-printed extended CD version of it!) "Cosmos" used a *LOT* of music in the show (and it had 60 minutes, not 50 0r 45, so it had the *time* - and people then had longer attention spans!) But "Cosmos" not only introduced me to classical music, but to "New Age" (the main theme for the original series was Vangelis "Heaven & Hell pt. 2") and to what we might call "World Music" or tribal music" - from Indian (India) music to sheepherders to traditional Japanese flute music....and to some Jazz and oldies. AND EVEN _PINK FLOYD_ WAS USED ON THE SHOW (but sadly, permission couldn't be secured for the record.) But especially to *Classical*!!! The Four Seasons... (A lot of it the same pieces form the Voyager Record.)
But few kids today have the patience for just...scenes of music.
Though I *do admit* - I DO like the Main Theme of the new series:
But *PLEASE* don't get me wrong - as flawed in *some areas* as I think the new series is - I do *LOVE IT* - and I watch it every week - and I am glad it's back...and, according to some parents and teachers I know, apparently inspiring a whole new generation of kids. (And I am hoping my 5 kids today...)
I just like to Imagine that he's setting at a table at "The Restaurant at the End of the Universe" next to people like Albert Einstein, Richard Feynman, Jacob Brownski, Douglas Adams...
I think some of the problems are...well, Neil deGrasse Tyson, as much as I *love* him, he's no Carl Sagan - but the video some fame made of "The Most Astounding Fact" did convince me that he could do "Cosmos" very well...he's just not Sagan (though it could be worse - this could be "Cosmos: Hosted by Michio Kaku" *shudder*.)
I think the one scientific popularizer who has Carl's similar poetic speaking style is Timothy Ferris - see "The Creation of the Universe" DVD from Netflix (clip bellow) - it's a wee bit dated, but worth it. So is "Life Beyond Earth." But Timothy, Ann, and Sagan have a...rocky history. Ann was engaged to Ferris - and I believe friends with Sagan - when he was asked to work on the Voyager Interstellar Record - which he did (though Carl often gets most the credit!) - but Ann Druyan left Timothy Ferris for Sagan (and Sagan left his *second* wife for Ann)...and Timothy and Sagan tried to reconcile as Sagan was just about to die...but never really could successfully. So I could understand why he wouldn't be chosen as a narrator for a new "Cosmos"!!!
Yeah, and honestly, I think they've done a great job between balancing out some of the basic topics and the more obscure, like with this episode for instance, and the one about the light.
Now, see, I loved the spectrum episode, because I didn't know that we could see the composition of stars just by the light spectrum itself. That really did surprise me, so I am ever thankful for that episode.
I don't dislike him in the slightest.
This series just doesn't have the pop for me that Carl's did.
Define "pop".
What could the current host and creators possibly be doing that they haven't been to this point?
I don't fall asleep watching Carl's
So you find dull, moptopped school teachers with weird speech patterns and no camera sense exciting? More power to you. I'll stick with NDT.
^ That was one of the more powerful moments of the series ... Neil wasn't just narrating, he was talking directly to the audience, about one of the most pressing issues of our time. I loved his "baton" analogy. All of it was clear and powerful, and poetic. There were some odd transitions in the episode (as Christopher noted), but this (along with last week's Sisters of the Sun) was one of my favorite episodes thus far.
On the topic of Cosmos music ... I just purchased Vol. 3 of the new series "When Knowledge Conquered Fear". And it's really a fantastic score. There is some repetition from the first two volumes ... but not much.
I loved the original Cosmos score, too (listening to it now, as a matter of fact) - especially how the New Age pieces tended to accompany explorations of space (outer and inner), while the classical pieces tended to go accompany Sagan's real-world segments. It was a nice contrast.
I do prefer that approach, but Silvestri has done a great job of mixing a symphonic score with New Age-ish sounds. And having just one composer gives a consistency to the score that is quite enjoyable.
Oh! And the "Special Haley's Comet Edition" music is present on the Cosmos DVDs menu music. Good stuff, for sure.
Now, see, I loved the spectrum episode, because I didn't know that we could see the composition of stars just by the light spectrum itself. That really did surprise me, so I am ever thankful for that episode.
I find moments like those inspiring. If it manages to convey facts and get people to learn new things, then mission accomplished.![]()
So you find dull, moptopped school teachers with weird speech patterns and no camera sense exciting? More power to you. I'll stick with NDT.
You're entitled to your opinions, of course. But there wasn't anything about Sagan or his series that I found to be "dull." And, as for "camera sense" (whatever that is supposed to mean), the fact that Sagan moved so many people because of his series demonstrates that he was an effective, compelling, and inspiring "on-screen" communicator.
So you find dull, moptopped school teachers with weird speech patterns and no camera sense exciting? More power to you. I'll stick with NDT.
We use essential cookies to make this site work, and optional cookies to enhance your experience.