Astrogeeks! Rejoice! Our much beloved documentary, Carl Sagan's "Cosmos: A Person Voyage, is getting a "reboot" of some sort. As a science enthusiast all my life, my exposure to the documentary was already in the 2000s in the educational CDs at school. I only watched 2 episodes, but eventually Youtube finally allowed me watch them all. It really opened my mind to the majesty and awesomeness of science and space.
Now, Fox Channel is will be doing a reboot`, to be hosted by no less the f***ing Neil deGrasse Tyson! It will follow the 13-episode format of the original, and it will be produced by Seth McFarlane (Family Guy).
2014 can't come too soon. I hope this new program will have the same effect to the children watching it as it did to me when I was a kid in awe of Carl Sagan's show!
On May 14 2013 11:52 AmorphousPhoenix wrote: I was really excited when I saw this, and then I read Neil deGrasse Tyson. Fuck that guy and his LCD science.
You realize the original cosmos was also very much intended to appeal to the layman, we can't expect people to watch a science TV show where they don't understand 1/2 of what is going on. I assume by LCD you mean lowest common denominator.
Also was it too much to hope that they somehow managed to resurrect Carl Sagan?
Before anyone starts about FOX ... MacFarlane is a huge science/space nerd. He's the mind behind fox's cartoon primetime lineup, family guy, american dad, cleveland show, etc. I cant even begin to count the number of star trek references hes used in his shows. And im sure you all know about the family guy star wars parodies.
I guess hes lucky he can produce this using fox's bankroll.
I can't see how this is going to be as good as the original. Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Seth McFarlane, really? Couldn't they have gotten people whose target audience isn't 14 year olds?
On May 14 2013 13:06 iamho wrote: Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Seth McFarlane, really? Couldn't they have gotten people whose target audience isn't 14 year olds?
Saying that is a stretch but not crazy for Seth McFarlane... but Neil DeGrasse Tyson? Really? Why on Earth are you complaining that his 'target audience is 14 year olds'?
On May 14 2013 13:06 iamho wrote: Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Seth McFarlane, really? Couldn't they have gotten people whose target audience isn't 14 year olds?
Saying that is a stretch but not crazy for Seth McFarlane... but Neil DeGrasse Tyson? Really? Why on Earth are you complaining that his 'target audience is 14 year olds'?
This forum is full to the brim with reasons why. I'll let you fill in the rest.
On May 14 2013 13:06 iamho wrote: I can't see how this is going to be as good as the original. Neil DeGrasse Tyson and Seth McFarlane, really? Couldn't they have gotten people whose target audience isn't 14 year olds?
A. The original series enchanted the minds of a generation with the beauty of our universe and kindled a passion for science within many prominent scientists today. If this reboot accomplishes even half of what the original did, it will have been worth it.
B. NDT & Seth McFarlane's audience isn't 14 year old kids, it's 20-30 year old stoners I have high hopes for this!
I really loved the original cosmos, and like what was mentioned before 2014 can't come soon enough, i have high hopes for this and i really hope it trump's my favorite fan made carl sagan video!
And it better have some good quotes in it too, like "we are star stuff harvesting star light, our lives, our past and our future, are tied to the sun, the moon and the stars" can't be a tribute or have his name in it without having quote after quote in each and every sentence!
On May 14 2013 14:24 FlyingToilet wrote: I really loved the original cosmos, and like what was mentioned before 2014 can't come soon enough, i have high hopes for this and i really hope it trump's my favorite fan made carl sagan video!
And it better have some good quotes in it too, like "we are star stuff harvesting star light, our lives our future and our past, are tied to the sun, the moon and the stars" can't be a tribute or have his name in it without having quote after quote in each and every sentence!
I really didn't like that part. It's so over-dramatic that I think it's corny, but I guess it has its impacts on certain demographics, like to inspire / elicit awe/wonder/respect.
On May 14 2013 14:24 FlyingToilet wrote: I really loved the original cosmos, and like what was mentioned before 2014 can't come soon enough, i have high hopes for this and i really hope it trump's my favorite fan made carl sagan video!
And it better have some good quotes in it too, like "we are star stuff harvesting star light, our lives our future and our past, are tied to the sun, the moon and the stars" can't be a tribute or have his name in it without having quote after quote in each and every sentence!
I really didn't like that part. It's so over-dramatic that I think it's corny, but I guess it has its impacts on certain demographics, like to inspire / elicit awe/wonder/respect.
I guess its all dependent of taste, i really liked that video, it felt professionally done almost to the point where it didn't look or sound like it was just audio clips mashed with a video, that it actually had sagan narrating it, but unless you watch the whole thing i guess i can see why its corny, i think its worth watching it all the way through though, because it is very good towards the ending!
Recently watched Cosmos and read three of his books. Carl Sagan was really a fantastic human being.
I like the fact that they (hopefully) try to use this series the same way he once intended it to be viewed - as inspiration and motivation, if even for only a little fraction of the viewership, to think about what they just heard and saw, and maybe become involved with it in one way or another - and not, as is to be feared in our time of television, purely a financial viewpoint.
I like Neil deGrasse Tyson - even though he could never replace Carl Sagan for anyone thats seen the original.
If i had seen Cosmos in high school i would like to think that i wouldn't have been such a stupid dropout when i got to university. They should show the whole series instead of the first half of the year in pyhsics classes.
Awww shit, can't wait man. Carl Sagan's cosmos was prefect to fill the bong and go deep with. This should be just as good, if not better! NDT is a BAWSS
On May 15 2013 08:32 Arkless wrote: Awww shit, can't wait man. Carl Sagan's cosmos was prefect to fill the bong and go deep with. This should be just as good, if not better! NDT is a BAWSS
On May 15 2013 08:32 Arkless wrote: Awww shit, can't wait man. Carl Sagan's cosmos was prefect to fill the bong and go deep with. This should be just as good, if not better! NDT is a BAWSS
I just finished reading Sagan's "The Dragons of Eden" again the other night, you should find a copy. All about the evolution of human intelligence. Shit will blow your mind.
Also pick up "The Varieties of Scientific Experience". Published posthumously, it's kind of a summation of CS' life philosophy/perspective on different topics. It's a collection of his presentations at a prestigious natural theology forum called The Gifford Lectures, and I tend to refer to it as 'Sagan's Bible'. It's a deeply moving read.
This is a great idea. And I think NDT is the perfect choice for host, as like Carl Sagan, he is basically America's ambassador of Astronomy. Perhaps not the absolute top of his field, but definitely one of the most respected and one of the most openly-passionate in what he does.
Yes, flashy and bombastic, but heck, that was to be expected. I welcome special effects if they are used accordingly. Won't lie, i am really looking forward.
It'll never be competing with the original cosmos, but hey, if it manages to catch the attention of those young folks like cosmos did and evokes this sense of wonder and astonishment like the original did with me - i am all open for it.
On July 22 2013 00:16 Mattes wrote: So, we have our first trailer from Comic-Con.
Yes, flashy and bombastic, but heck, that was to be expected. I welcome special effects if they are used accordingly. Won't lie, i am really looking forward.
It'll never be competing with the original cosmos, but hey, if it manages to catch the attention of those young folks like cosmos did and evokes this sense of wonder and astonishment like the original did with me - i am all open for it.
Epic trailer! As if science and NdGT weren't cool enough already! :D
Can't wait for tonight's opening episode. Obama's supposed to do the intro into it, hopefully this show will reverse some of the anti-intellectual movement in America.
I watched The Elegant Universe and really enjoyed it, im about to watch the fabric of the cosmos:
Anyone else seen it?
I've never heard of cosmos, kind of turns me off that it was made in 1980, I like all the cool simulations they do to help explain stuff which obviously won't be there in the old show is it still worth seeing?
On March 10 2014 01:54 wei2coolman wrote: Can't wait for tonight's opening episode. Obama's supposed to do the intro into it, hopefully this show will reverse some of the anti-intellectual movement in America.
just read about this ... they really building the hype to even have obama up on there
On March 10 2014 02:14 Assault_1 wrote: I watched The Elegant Universe and really enjoyed it, im about to watch the fabric of the cosmos: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUtVw7NMYoY
Anyone else seen it?
I've never heard of cosmos, kind of turns me off that it was made in 1980, I like all the cool simulations they do to help explain stuff which obviously won't be there in the old show is it still worth seeing?
The best thing about Cosmos was that it was explained so clearly by Sagan that you didn't need cool simulations. Sounds kind of lame i know, but you'd understand if you watched it.
The graphics were extremely well done but I almost think such flash and artistry loses something in the process. The lousy grainy picture Sagan would show of Earth as the pale blue dot still gets me to this day.
Good first episode though. Nice to see a channel like Fox would show it.
That was a brilliant rundown on evolution. Dawkins would be proud. That particular episode (#2) should be required viewing by everyone in the States.
Starting with the artificial evolution of dogs, to showing the immense yet imperfect complexity of the human eye, just frames the science in such a practical yet compelling way. It deftly plants the reasoning of evolution into the viewer's head, and then NDT nails it down with a hammer. "This is not a theory."
Love that this series is happening. I know there are plenty of science-docs out there -- plenty of them with more raw information. There is no doubt more informative and in-depth docs on the topic of evolution, but I don't think there is any doc yet created that has done as good a job at advocating evolution or simply presenting the concept. I thought I'd mostly just watch this show for the theoretical astrophysics, the far-out "fun stuff", but the presentation is so well done that I'm just compelled by anything NDT wants to throw at me.
He could have done a much better job of explaining why humans share so much DNA with other animals outside of just "common ancestors", it would have been far more convincing, just a minor quip.
On March 10 2014 01:54 wei2coolman wrote: Can't wait for tonight's opening episode. Obama's supposed to do the intro into it, hopefully this show will reverse some of the anti-intellectual movement in America.
What anti intellectual movement? @@ Is it things like science should not be taught or something?
On March 10 2014 01:54 wei2coolman wrote: Can't wait for tonight's opening episode. Obama's supposed to do the intro into it, hopefully this show will reverse some of the anti-intellectual movement in America.
What anti intellectual movement? @@ Is it things like science should not be taught or something?
Just an American culture thing. Large sections of the country is high distrustful of science, and scientific education. That's why we still have like 50% of our population still not believing in evolution, and politicians who have no idea how the female reproductive system works. Here
On March 10 2014 01:54 wei2coolman wrote: Can't wait for tonight's opening episode. Obama's supposed to do the intro into it, hopefully this show will reverse some of the anti-intellectual movement in America.
What anti intellectual movement? @@ Is it things like science should not be taught or something?
Just an American culture thing. Large sections of the country is high distrustful of science, and scientific education. That's why we still have like 50% of our population still not believing in evolution, and politicians who have no idea how the female reproductive system works. Here
it could be worse, much worse. like racism and sexism in USA (it exists but tolerance/acceptance has been increasing), it could be (is) much worse somewhere else. i'm just glad we're slowly advancing in global scale compared to the medieval times and i dearly hope it continues to do so.
The heavy handed politics are getting to me. I mean talking about creation v. evolution is something that you have to do, but telling the church to go fuck itself isn't going to actually bring people in, just make those who might have been receptive get defensive instead.
That and crowbarring in weed legalization in to the last episode was just gratuitous. Seth MacFarlane is really fucking up what should be an excellent educational program.
What episode did they talk about weed legalization or say go fuck yourself church? Every episode would piss off Creationist/Young Earthers including the recent very tame one where he talks about how small the observable universe would be if it was as young as fundamentalist believe because of how slow light travels relative to the size of space. Are you talking about when he says "Scientist don't go to Church banging on their doors to teach science" because that's still a really tame line.
On April 01 2014 23:42 BlackMagister wrote: What episode did they talk about weed legalization or say go fuck yourself church? Every episode would piss off Creationist/Young Earthers including the recent very tame one where he talks about how small the observable universe would be if it was as young as fundamentalist believe because of how slow light travels relative to the size of space. Are you talking about when he says "Scientist don't go to Church banging on their doors to teach science" because that's still a really tame line.
"When Science overcame Fear" is the episode title. Correct title is "When Knowledge Conquered Fear", same everything else applies.
I don't disagree that creationists will find fault in the series, but some of the less informed ones and less fundamentalist Christians could be swayed by an even handed explanation of science's side in this debate. This series is not that. Look at the fucking episode title for christssake. Not to mention the first episode featured 15 minutes of talking about a guy condemned to death by the Church for his views on the universe. It goes well out of its way to demonize the church and the people in it where it's totally unnecessary to its stated goal of education.
Didn't they also talk about how Robert Hooke was an asshole because he stole ideas or how Issac Newton believed in alchemy? Was there a "fair" way of talking about someone condemned to death for coming up with new ideas without not mentioning it?
Tip-toeing around these issues has gotten overly ridiculous. At this point the people who believe in a 6500 year old universe aren't going to be receptive to calm arguments, they aren't rational. Sometimes logic won't sway people, and you can either let them live in their own little universe of thought where they may perhaps indoctrinate others or you shout them down for the ridiculousness of their ideas. In this case, I applaud playing hardball. Cosmos isn't trying to change the minds of Baby-boomers and beyond, they're trying to influence the young generations.
church was the government, it was the authority until recent times. kings and peasants alike were ruled by religion. its history, quiet difficult to bypass when telling history.
On April 02 2014 04:09 zezamer wrote: Can someone give small summary what this shows about. I really enjoyed elegant universe and fabric of the cosmos. Would I like this ?
It's a reboot, of Carl Sagan's Cosmos A Personal Voyage Wiki
I haven't seen either of the shows you mentioned but if you are interested in space (the cosmos) you would likely enjoy it. Some people seem to dislike Neil Degrasse Tyson but I don't mind him, he is however no Carl Sagan.
I also recommend the original, though a little dated obviously its still very informative.
Someone else may give a better summary but I hope that helps.
On April 02 2014 04:09 zezamer wrote: Can someone give small summary what this shows about. I really enjoyed elegant universe and fabric of the cosmos. Would I like this ?
It's a reboot, of Carl Sagan's Cosmos A Personal Voyage Wiki
I haven't seen either of the shows you mentioned but if you are interested in space (the cosmos) you would likely enjoy it. Some people seem to dislike Neil Degrasse Tyson but I don't mind him, he is however no Carl Sagan.
I also recommend the original, though a little dated obviously its still very informative.
Someone else may give a better summary but I hope that helps.
I like the new version, but the original is so much better. Carl Sagan had such a clever way of explaining things, and such a clear, concise view of the world.
On April 02 2014 04:09 zezamer wrote: Can someone give small summary what this shows about. I really enjoyed elegant universe and fabric of the cosmos. Would I like this ?
It's a reboot, of Carl Sagan's Cosmos A Personal Voyage Wiki
I haven't seen either of the shows you mentioned but if you are interested in space (the cosmos) you would likely enjoy it. Some people seem to dislike Neil Degrasse Tyson but I don't mind him, he is however no Carl Sagan.
I also recommend the original, though a little dated obviously its still very informative.
Someone else may give a better summary but I hope that helps.
I like the new version, but the original is so much better. Carl Sagan had such a clever way of explaining things, and such a clear, concise view of the world.
One of Sagan's best attributes was his humility.
Many of the people who seem to dislike Neil Degrasse Tyson do so because he spends a lot of time ridiculing people who believe things that can easily be disproven by science. Whereas Carl Sagan's way was to inspire the ignorant, rather than ridicule them.
Anyway I really like the new version, and so does my 3 year old son
On April 02 2014 03:17 jinorazi wrote: church was the government, it was the authority until recent times. kings and peasants alike were ruled by religion. its history, quiet difficult to bypass when telling history.
This is so historically ignorant I really don't know where to begin.
Yes, at various times churches in different places have held significant political power. Outright theocracy with "king and peasant" ruled by religion? Pretty rare in history. A few Muslim Caliphates kinda did it, but even then a seperation existed. The Pope ruled a small territory in Europe, but other rulers routinely ignored his instructions. Popes tried really hard to ban war... how much do you think the average king listened to them?
On April 02 2014 03:17 jinorazi wrote: church was the government, it was the authority until recent times. kings and peasants alike were ruled by religion. its history, quiet difficult to bypass when telling history.
This is so historically ignorant I really don't know where to begin.
Yes, at various times churches in different places have held significant political power. Outright theocracy with "king and peasant" ruled by religion? Pretty rare in history. A few Muslim Caliphates kinda did it, but even then a seperation existed. The Pope ruled a small territory in Europe, but other rulers routinely ignored his instructions. Popes tried really hard to ban war... how much do you think the average king listened to them?
maybe i made it sound too literal? different eras are influenced by their own standards set by different sets of beliefs. isnt it apparent even today some parts of the world are lived in such deeply religious way? as in do as what "we" tell you to do, otherwise you're shunned. even north korea is deeply religious without being religious, if that makes sense. brain-washing, maybe its called in context to north korea but thats all it is.
we have creationists crying foul in usa, i'd imagine things arent so tolerable depending on when/where you live.
so church being "ridiculed" in the show isnt something about targeting religion, its just the way it was.
On April 02 2014 03:17 jinorazi wrote: church was the government, it was the authority until recent times. kings and peasants alike were ruled by religion. its history, quiet difficult to bypass when telling history.
This is so historically ignorant I really don't know where to begin.
Yes, at various times churches in different places have held significant political power. Outright theocracy with "king and peasant" ruled by religion? Pretty rare in history. A few Muslim Caliphates kinda did it, but even then a seperation existed. The Pope ruled a small territory in Europe, but other rulers routinely ignored his instructions. Popes tried really hard to ban war... how much do you think the average king listened to them?
maybe i made it sound too literal? different eras are influenced by their own standards set by different sets of beliefs. isnt it apparent even today some parts of the world are lived in such deeply religious way? as in do as what "we" tell you to do, otherwise you're shunned. even north korea is deeply religious without being religious, if that makes sense. brain-washing, maybe its called in context to north korea but thats all it is.
we have creationists crying foul in usa, i'd imagine things arent so tolerable depending on when/where you live.
so church being "ridiculed" in the show isnt something about targeting religion, its just the way it was.
The North Korea comment shows your hand a bit, I think. You've defined "religion" as "an oppressive system," and yes, if you define it that way, you include much of human history. You also exclude most of religious practice throughout history, which is an earnest search for meaning in the universe.
But the on-topic point is narrower and more important: This show takes its name and inspiration from the Carl Sagan version, which was very open and respectful of religious belief, without compromising for a moment on scientific points. It didn't shy away from the history, but it went out of its way to point out that none of this conflicted with the sincere religious beliefs of most people (including scientists).
Young Earth Creationism is a fringe theory even in Christian circles. The Catholic Church doesn't believe it. No major Protestant body espouses it. Certainly hardly any clergy believe it. It's popular in the United States as a form of identity politics, but its important to remember that a lot of the U.S.'s "evangelicals" don't even go to church: it's just a way of identifying with "traditional values."
On April 02 2014 03:17 jinorazi wrote: church was the government, it was the authority until recent times. kings and peasants alike were ruled by religion. its history, quiet difficult to bypass when telling history.
This is so historically ignorant I really don't know where to begin.
Yes, at various times churches in different places have held significant political power. Outright theocracy with "king and peasant" ruled by religion? Pretty rare in history. A few Muslim Caliphates kinda did it, but even then a seperation existed. The Pope ruled a small territory in Europe, but other rulers routinely ignored his instructions. Popes tried really hard to ban war... how much do you think the average king listened to them?
maybe i made it sound too literal? different eras are influenced by their own standards set by different sets of beliefs. isnt it apparent even today some parts of the world are lived in such deeply religious way? as in do as what "we" tell you to do, otherwise you're shunned. even north korea is deeply religious without being religious, if that makes sense. brain-washing, maybe its called in context to north korea but thats all it is.
we have creationists crying foul in usa, i'd imagine things arent so tolerable depending on when/where you live.
so church being "ridiculed" in the show isnt something about targeting religion, its just the way it was.
The North Korea comment shows your hand a bit, I think. You've defined "religion" as "an oppressive system," and yes, if you define it that way, you include much of human history. You also exclude most of religious practice throughout history, which is an earnest search for meaning in the universe.
But the on-topic point is narrower and more important: This show takes its name and inspiration from the Carl Sagan version, which was very open and respectful of religious belief, without compromising for a moment on scientific points. It didn't shy away from the history, but it went out of its way to point out that none of this conflicted with the sincere religious beliefs of most people (including scientists).
Young Earth Creationism is a fringe theory even in Christian circles. The Catholic Church doesn't believe it. No major Protestant body espouses it. Certainly hardly any clergy believe it. It's popular in the United States as a form of identity politics, but its important to remember that a lot of the U.S.'s "evangelicals" don't even go to church: it's just a way of identifying with "traditional values."
i see religion as a tool to govern, so it really does depends on who holds the tool. it can be used for good or evil. i think you're jumping the gun on my view of religion from few little comments. its something i've thought a lot of and i share a lot of similar views with sagan and tyson. when i saw tyson's interview one time, i was shocked to find out how he explained everything i thought of so articulately, thats when i became a fan of his.
On April 02 2014 03:17 jinorazi wrote: church was the government, it was the authority until recent times. kings and peasants alike were ruled by religion. its history, quiet difficult to bypass when telling history.
This is so historically ignorant I really don't know where to begin.
Yes, at various times churches in different places have held significant political power. Outright theocracy with "king and peasant" ruled by religion? Pretty rare in history. A few Muslim Caliphates kinda did it, but even then a seperation existed. The Pope ruled a small territory in Europe, but other rulers routinely ignored his instructions. Popes tried really hard to ban war... how much do you think the average king listened to them?
maybe i made it sound too literal? different eras are influenced by their own standards set by different sets of beliefs. isnt it apparent even today some parts of the world are lived in such deeply religious way? as in do as what "we" tell you to do, otherwise you're shunned. even north korea is deeply religious without being religious, if that makes sense. brain-washing, maybe its called in context to north korea but thats all it is.
we have creationists crying foul in usa, i'd imagine things arent so tolerable depending on when/where you live.
so church being "ridiculed" in the show isnt something about targeting religion, its just the way it was.
The North Korea comment shows your hand a bit, I think. You've defined "religion" as "an oppressive system," and yes, if you define it that way, you include much of human history. You also exclude most of religious practice throughout history, which is an earnest search for meaning in the universe.
But the on-topic point is narrower and more important: This show takes its name and inspiration from the Carl Sagan version, which was very open and respectful of religious belief, without compromising for a moment on scientific points. It didn't shy away from the history, but it went out of its way to point out that none of this conflicted with the sincere religious beliefs of most people (including scientists).
Young Earth Creationism is a fringe theory even in Christian circles. The Catholic Church doesn't believe it. No major Protestant body espouses it. Certainly hardly any clergy believe it. It's popular in the United States as a form of identity politics, but its important to remember that a lot of the U.S.'s "evangelicals" don't even go to church: it's just a way of identifying with "traditional values."
i see religion as a tool to govern, so it really does depends on who holds the tool. it can be used for good or evil. i think you're jumping the gun on my view of religion from few little comments. its something i've thought a lot of and i share a lot of similar views with sagan and tyson. when i saw tyson's interview one time, i was shocked to find out how he explained everything i thought of so articulately, thats when i became a fan of his.
See, religion as a "tool to govern" is not only objectionable, it's wildly historically inaccurate. Religious movements are frequently deeply subversive of governing structures. Whether you're talking about the modern Christian Right (or Left), the Anti-Nuclear movement, Civil Rights (both the Judeo-Christian version and the Nation of Islam kind), Temperance/early Feminism, Christian Socialism, Wahhabism, Abolitionism, romantic Pacifism, and so on, deeply subversive movements are everywhere. (You'll notice I even restricted myself to the last two centuries. Religion as subversive of state goes very far back, from Las Casas through Jan Hus and as far back as the Old Testament Prophets preaching against the Kings of Israel's disregard of the poor and powerless.)
Even in the Middle Ages, supposedly the great moment of power for the church, church power was constantly being derided and even openly attacked by secular authorities. Popes and bishops could pressure Kings and dukes, but often lost the contests they sought. (Even though, in most cases, the church was "right" by our modern way of looking at things).
Just got up to date with Deeper and Deeper, and this show continues to be fantastic. It is a welcome break from a lot of the usual network programming. Almost like playing an ambient video game but actually learning.
I don't mind this show, I'll watch any doc that's passable, but the writers are really obsessed with global warming. There seems to be a CO2 segment 2 out of 3 shows. As someone who knows what it is, and would like to see nice graphics along with some science, its a fairly big downer that they waste so much time on something only mildly related to, you know, the cosmos.
That's great news! StealthBlue if you're interested in good science docs I would highly recommend watching PBS Spacetime on Youtube. Its much more in depth than Cosmos and more complicated but its full of fascinating physics, astrophysics and quantum theory. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC7_gcs09iThXybpVgjHZ_7g