Slightly OT: Sternbach's Art for Carl Sagan

[dayxday1000]

This from Wikipedia regarding previous updated versions:
Cosmos had long been unavailable after its initial release because of copyright issues with the included music, but was released in 2000 on worldwide NTSC DVD, which includes subtitles in seven languages,remastered 5.1 sound, as well as an alternate music and sound effects track.

That's surprising. Aside from the Vangelis cues, most of the music in Cosmos was public-domain stuff -- classical music, traditional ethnic music, things like that. Don't tell me they had to dump the Vangelis cues. It wouldn't be Cosmos without them.

Despite being shown again on the Science Channel, the total amount of time for the original 13 episodes (780 minutes) was reduced 25% to 585 minutes (45 minutes per episode) in order to make room for commercials.

That hardly seems fair, cutting its length by fully a quarter. Why not recut it so that it ran for 17 episodes? Then you'd only need to cut 15 minutes in total -- okay, maybe more since you'd need to cut in new titles in each one.

I recently enjoyed Brian Greene's 4 part Nova series based on his book called "The Fabric of the Cosmos".

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/physics/fabric-of-cosmos.html

Much like Sagan, he is able to convey complex ideas in a way that even someone like me (a math moron) can understand conceptually and I think he makes a very good "heir apparent" to what Sagan did for bringing science to the masses.

Actually I'm underwhelmed with Greene as a science popularizer. The superficial reason is that he's not as charismatic or pleasant a speaker as Sagan. The deeper reason is that the information he provides in his TV specials often places simplicity or flashiness above scientific accuracy. I found a number of the ideas he conveyed in The Fabric of the Cosmos to be misleading, frivolous, or outright inaccurate. Like when he was talking about a "slice through time" intersecting different parts of the universe and completely ignored lightspeed time lag, assuming a simultaneity across intergalactic distances that simply does not exist. Or when he presented vanishingly improbable fringe concepts -- like quantum teleportation being used on humans or an infinite multiverse allowing duplicate Earths -- as if they were reasonable possibilities. Sagan didn't do that. He presented science in an entertaining way, and he used science fiction conceits like a starship and time travel as rhetorical devices to escort the viewers to the places and times he wanted to talk about, but he didn't embellish the facts, didn't compromise accuracy for the sake of sounding cool.

Hmm...well I found him entertaining enough. In terms of the accuracy of the science, I just don't know enough about it to know what is considered "fringe", however, Greene made it clear some of the concepts, such as the multiverse, were not provable and not agreed upon by physicists. He explained that they crossed the line into philosophy and/or metaphysics.

Back on topic...I grew up with Sagan and Cosmos and would say that I learned much of what I know about astronomy, and physics from the show. I'd love to see a follow-up with Mr. Sternbach's involvement.

 

[Christopher]

Hmm...well I found him entertaining enough.

Sure, his special was entertaining. But it was too often at the expense of accurate information.

In terms of the accuracy of the science, I just don't know enough about it to know what is considered "fringe", however, Greene made it clear some of the concepts, such as the multiverse, were not provable and not agreed upon by physicists. He explained that they crossed the line into philosophy and/or metaphysics.

Which is exactly why it annoyed me that he devoted so much of the final episode to something that was more sophistry than science. And frankly it showed either a gross failure of imagination or a gross excess of self-absorption. With a possible infinity of other universes out there, perhaps with wildly different physics and natures than our own, he chose instead to focus on the infinitesimally small number that might be almost exactly like ours except that Brian Greene had four arms or something stupid like that? That's just lame. Why not talk about the universes that would be wildly different? That would've been far more interesting.

 

[Rick Sternbach]

Back on topic...I grew up with Sagan and Cosmos and would say that I learned much of what I know about astronomy, and physics from the show. I'd love to see a follow-up with Mr. Sternbach's involvement.

Well, I've been in touch with the production folks, so I'm trying to see what I can do for them. Had one meeting back in August, and it all looks promising. Just have to hurry up and wait on word about when preproduction might begin. There's 30 years of new material to cover, and I'm game for a whole new show.

As to the question about the original show VFX; most of it was done old school, on film. A lot of Z-axis track stuff with 27-field cels with a ton of multiple exposures and rewinds for galactic travel. A lot of vertical animation stand stuff. Tons of models and motion control film cameras. Magicam was indeed composited video with Carl on a blue stage with some furniture, like in the Alexandria library, and the slave camera with a tiny snorkel in the model. I rather doubt Blu-ray can be made from the source materials; I say we cherish the DVDs and move on.

Rick

 

[Christopher]

As to the question about the original show VFX; most of it was done old school, on film. A lot of Z-axis track stuff with 27-field cels with a ton of multiple exposures and rewinds for galactic travel.

You mean it was an in-camera composite? Cool. I always find it fascinating when that sort of thing is done in-camera, because it requires such meticulous planning and care, and doesn't have the drawbacks of optical mattes, the generation loss and such.

Tons of models and motion control film cameras.

Yes, I remember the use of miniatures for the flyovers of the Martian landscape.

Magicam was indeed composited video with Carl on a blue stage with some furniture, like in the Alexandria library, and the slave camera with a tiny snorkel in the model.

That was a really impressive technique back in the day. I was surprised it didn't catch on more.

 

[Maurice]

[Magicam] was a really impressive technique back in the day. I was surprised it didn't catch on more.

It was supposed to be used on Starlost (but I see conflicting info on what happened). It was also used on George Pal's War of the Worlds TV pitch (video), and I think it was used in the Mork in Wonderland episode of Mork and Mindy.

 

[Christopher]

The one big use of Magicam I remember other than Cosmos was the Sean Connery film Outland.

 

[Maurice]

The one big use of Magicam I remember other than Cosmos was the Sean Connery film Outland.

That wasn't Magicam. That was the Introvision process, which works on an entirely different principle (Link: article concerning Introvision in Outland).

 

[Christopher]

Oh yeah, that's right. I get those mixed up because they were both cool new FX technologies that were developed around the same time.

 

[Starship]

I also grew up with Sagan and Cosmos. I learned much of what I know about astronomy, and physics from the show. I still have that big book in my library, and I'd love to see a Cosmos II.
I loved to read Isaac Asimov´s Extrarrestrial Civilizations book too. Good times! As Sagan, Asimov is a great miss.

 

[Wingsley]

Having just viewed the 13th and final installment of COSMOS for the first time since it was first broadcast in 1980, I thought I would share this thought with you. The noted late astronomer Carl Sagan (1934-1996), along with Ann Druyan and Steven Soter, created a masterpiece of history, analysis and conjecture, with some remarkably prophetic editorializing. The last part is probably most true in Chapter 13, "Who Speaks For Earth?" in which Sagan sharply rebukes world leaders during the Cold War for their nuclear arms race escalation. And ironically, his "Cosmos Update: Ten Years Later", sounds an optimistic note that seems strangely dated in this paranoid, post-September 11 world we live in.

On this Martin Luther King Day with social media such as Facebook crowded with quotes of wisdom, many from Rev. King himself, perhaps we owe it to ourselves to remember Sagan's warning. For the full hour, Sagan makes the case that human society has stumbled into war, blood purges and dark ages before. He also points out that in the nuclear age there are some mistakes we cannot afford to make because the ultimate mistake is one in which there are no survivors.

May both Martin Luther King and Carl Sagan rest in peace, and may we learn from the wisdom so we can assure a brighter future.

 

[Christopher]

And ironically, his "Cosmos Update: Ten Years Later", sounds an optimistic note that seems strangely dated in this paranoid, post-September 11 world we live in.

Or maybe it's a lesson we could stand to be reminded of. We live in paranoia, but we're in a lot less real danger now than we were during the Cold War. That was true even when al-Qaeda was a serious threat, but now bin Laden is dead, al-Qaeda is more marginalized in the Muslim world than it's been in a long time, and America's relations with the rest of the world are a lot better than they were four years ago. Our remaining fears are largely in our own heads. (Which basically means we're doing the terrorists' job for them even though they're barely doing it themselves anymore.) So it would help us to realize that we're not as mortally threatened as we imagine ourselves to be.

 

[Wingsley]

Maybe we're not threatened by nukes as we used to be, but I'd still say we have plenty of other problems that could destabilize countries around the world. A nuclear Pakistan is scary, but if climate change rears its ugly head and starts creating international population pressures, that could be a serious crisis. I would say one of the worst disasters that is just now starting to become a concern would be hydraulic fracturing. Mix millions of gallons of water with highly toxic chemicals and injecting them into the ground is insane, and we shouldn't be surprised when landscapes are ruined and fresh water supplies are jeopardized by this practice. If we keep repeating those mistakes all around the world, we could cumulatively have a long-term problem on our hands.

 

[Christopher]

^Oh, definitely the environmental threats are genuine, but that's just my point. We're so preoccupied with our paranoia about terrorism and other outdated concerns that we're blinding ourselves as a society to the issues that are actually pressing. Worst of all, we're letting our mentality of fear turn us against one another at a time when it's more urgent than ever to work together for our mutual survival.