Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey

[Valka D'Ur]

The third episode is coming up on Sunday and there are NO threads about this series here yet?

For those of you who have been watching it, what do you think of it? Is it living up to your expectations?

I like that we have the opportunity for up-to-date information. I like that the episodes (so far) seem to be mirroring the general structure of the first series, in that the first episode was a general introduction to what we can expect from the rest of the series, and the second episode didn't hesitate to tackle evolution, and natural & artificial selection. The homages to Carl Sagan are wonderful, and very appropriate.

What I don't like... are the cartoon segments. I realize it's cheaper to do a cartoon (I suppose a purist would say "animation" but the quality is not worthy of that) of Giordano Bruno, but it would have been far more effective with live actors, as the original Cosmos did in its historical sequences.


One thing I ask of the participants in this thread: Please leave Star Trek and any complaints you might have about Brannon Braga's work on that franchise out of the discussion. It's not relevant here. Thank you.

 

[Kyriakos]

I haven't watch any of those episodes yet. (But i also barely watched any video of the original series).

Do they have the same theme?


Link to video.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

You mean music? No, it has different music. It's nice, but nowhere near as majestic and soaring as Vangelis. Of course that's a subjective opinion from one who clearly remembers the original series music (and I've been rewatching those episodes online).

 

[warpus]

I got 2 people over for the premiere and we watched the first episode. And one of them didn't like it because "it was dumbed down to appeal to stupid people", his own words. My other friend generally likes sciencey shows, and especially spacey ones, and most especially ones where you learn stuff bout space.. And he liked it, but didn't appear to be too thrilled.

I personally enjoyed it.

 

[classical_hero]

What I don't like... are the cartoon segments. I realize it's cheaper to do a cartoon (I suppose a purist would say "animation" but the quality is not worthy of that) of Giordano Bruno, but it would have been far more effective with live actors, as the original Cosmos did in its historical sequences.

I didn't like them either, since they had spectacular graphics elsewhere and yet the cartoons looked cheap and nasty. They should have done a better job.

I spent so much of the time yelling at the TV when I watched it. There is so much philosophical stuff in this for a science series.

 

[warpus]

What philosophy did you find in the show? I've only seen the first ever episode and have never watched the original.

 

[Glassfan]

...one of them didn't like it because "it was dumbed down to appeal to stupid people", his own words.

Unfortunately necessary to create a general appeal to the great mass of scientifically illiterate people in North America. I would suppose the show's writers must often wrestle with NdGT over the level of content.

You know, Carl Sagan was not universally approved-of back in the day. My snobby professors always nitpicked and criticized - as they usually did for any popular or commercially successful "communicator" (i.e., Sagan, Tuchman, Burke)

Carl Sagan's popularity began with young people who watched "educational television" (- first shown on PBS).

 

[Synobun]

Does the show increase interest in the sciences among large percentages of the population?

If yes, then the show is great.

If no, then the show is nothing more than pretty words and pictures. In which case, the producers should rethink what they're doing and see what they can do to change that.

That's pretty much the only view I deem valid for a science-oriented individual to possess. If you're watching Cosmos for superbly technical content then you'd be better off going to a seminar dedicated to it, not a show meant to reach as wide an audience as it can.

 

[Bulldog Bats]

I like it. I do think it is dumbed down a little, but I like how they approach things. Great choice for a narrator (much better voice and demeanor than Sagan).

I think the animation/cartoon are as much a stylistic choice as economic, although I think it could have been done better.

Remember also it is being done for network TV rather than PBS, so the target audience is not as select.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

What philosophy did you find in the show? I've only seen the first ever episode and have never watched the original.

The original Cosmos is available on YouTube. I've been re-watching it, partly because I love it so much, and partly to see how the new series differs from it.

For example, the original Cosmos' third episode is "Harmony of the Worlds" and examines the lives and work of Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler. The new series (according to my TV listings) intends to examine the work of Sir Isaac Newton and Edmund Halley ("When Knowledge Conquered Fear").

 

[warpus]

The original Cosmos is available on YouTube. I've been re-watching it, partly because I love it so much, and partly to see how the new series differs from it.

For example, the original Cosmos' third episode is "Harmony of the Worlds" and examines the lives and work of Tycho Brahe and Johannes Kepler. The new series (according to my TV listings) intends to examine the work of Sir Isaac Newton and Edmund Halley ("When Knowledge Conquered Fear").

But that's all science, where's the philosophy?

 

[Cutlass]

It was enjoyable. But I thought that it was... I'm not sure the right words to use, light and fluffy? I just didn't feel like the presentation was 'adult' enough. Now I know a lot of that is to appeal to a science illiterate audience. Still, seemed to go too far.

 

[Quackers]

Does the show increase interest in the sciences among large percentages of the population?

If yes, then the show is great.

Why does that matter?

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

But that's all science, where's the philosophy?

Dude, it's CH. Anytime anyone would have mention the Big Bang or something like that, it's philosophy. And it's CH, so he'll drop that comment and not discuss it. It's in the line of: all nations that endured gay marriage have been destroyed. Name some. Tumbleweed. (edit: well, that didn't take long. "Here is Earth 250 million years ago" would have CH yelling: "No, void without shape!", and it talks about the emergence of life.)

Anyway, thank you thread for the heads-up. I am calling my auntie in America right now. She tapes all the shows so I can watch them in these backwaters as well. She's fast as well. I think it'll take her less than an hour.

edit 2: Watched it, liked it. I don't understand the upset about the cartoony parts. It's just illustration for telling a story.

 

[El_Machinae]

I kinda liked the "Stuff that molecules do". Like people say, for those with any conception of natural history or biology, this might be too shallow. Ehn, I can't judge what a less scientifically oriented person would think.

 

[classical_hero]

What philosophy did you find in the show? I've only seen the first ever episode and have never watched the original.

The very first statement i a philosophical statement when Sagan say "The Cosmos is all there was, is and ever will be." The only way he can know that is if he is God and knows there are no other alternatives.

One thing i did like about the first episode is how honest he was about the origin of life. Th fact that he said we don't know how life came to earth was what i wasn't expecting, but all that was done about the issue was basically hand waving about the issue and not address it head on, since the rest of the story is dependent on life and if life isn't here, then the rest of the story doesn't make any sense. Basically life to come from dumb chemicals is simply impossible and they know it, but won't allow that to be known, lest it destroy the whole story.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Anyway, thank you thread for the heads-up. I am calling my auntie in America right now. She tapes all the shows so I can watch them in these backwaters as well. She's fast as well. I think it'll take her less than an hour.

edit 2: Watched it, liked it. I don't understand the upset about the cartoony parts. It's just illustration for telling a story.

Did you see the original series? When they did segments involving historical figures, they used real, live actors, either shot on real sets or on location. This time around they use cartoons - and badly-done ones, at that. Giordano Bruno's enemies did everything but twirl their mustaches. That's cheap, tawdry, and disrespectful, both the the original show and to the viewing audience.

The very first statement i a philosophical statement when Sagan say "The Cosmos is all there was, is and ever will be." The only way he can know that is if he is God and knows there are no other alternatives.

One thing i did like about the first episode is how honest he was about the origin of life. Th fact that he said we don't know how life came to earth was what i wasn't expecting, but all that was done about the issue was basically hand waving about the issue and not address it head on, since the rest of the story is dependent on life and if life isn't here, then the rest of the story doesn't make any sense. Basically life to come from dumb chemicals is simply impossible and they know it, but won't allow that to be known, lest it destroy the whole story.

If you're going to deliberately misinterpret and denigrate Carl Sagan's words, at least have the courtesy to get the quote right. It's a rather well-known one: "The Cosmos is all that is, or ever was, or ever will be."

 

[Ziggy Stardust]

The very first statement i a philosophical statement when Sagan say "The Cosmos is all there was, is and ever will be." The only way he can know that is if he is God and knows there are no other alternatives.

One thing i did like about the first episode is how honest he was about the origin of life. Th fact that he said we don't know how life came to earth was what i wasn't expecting,

The show is productive already. It introduced you to science.

By the way, well done for proving my prediction wrong when I said you'd not return to discuss. Please continue to prove me wrong in that regard.

@Valka. I usually dislike real actor re-enactments in documentaries.

 

[Kozmos]

The very first statement i a philosophical statement when Sagan say "The Cosmos is all there was, is and ever will be." The only way he can know that is if he is God and knows there are no other alternatives.

One thing i did like about the first episode is how honest he was about the origin of life. Th fact that he said we don't know how life came to earth was what i wasn't expecting, but all that was done about the issue was basically hand waving about the issue and not address it head on, since the rest of the story is dependent on life and if life isn't here, then the rest of the story doesn't make any sense. Basically life to come from dumb chemicals is simply impossible and they know it, but won't allow that to be known, lest it destroy the whole story.

Dumb chemicals like to form life or things akin it. There's even a TED talk on it.

 

[El_Machinae]

One thing i did like about the first episode is how honest he was about the origin of life. Th fact that he said we don't know how life came to earth was what i wasn't expecting, but all that was done about the issue was basically hand waving about the issue and not address it head on,

It's not hand waving. We don't know. We don't know lots of things. The Theory of Evolution can only be so powerful, and it cannot dial back further than 'once there is life -> evolution'.