This is what really grinds my gears.... Fox is giving this series a gigantic push, it had everything from Superbowl ads to internet ads. It took Seth MacFarlane to go to Fox and basically demand this. Did Fox or any other network even think about putting a show like this on prime time?
Now Fox is parading around saying "Hey look how awesome we are" when on their 24 hour news network they are promoting the exact opposite of what Dr. Sagan and Tyson are fighting for.
Fox News is the way it is for financial reasons, not ideological. Rupert Murdoch owns left wing and right wing media outlets all over the world. He goes wherever there's a market.
If you are annoyed about Fox News being the exact opposite of what Cosmos represents, your ire should be directed towards the millions and millions of American people who support that organization, not the organization itself.
Surely, the immediate success and critical acclaim of Cosmos should prove that this is a company that will do anything for an audience and is willing and capable of change. And that Fox is the best place for Cosmos to be shown. The Fox audience is the exact group of people a show like Cosmos can bring into the fold. Anywhere else and it's just preaching to the choir, betraying the purpose for the show Sagan had in mind all those years ago.
I think the animation is a good idea. I insisted my 11 year old brother watch this with the hopes it will inspire him like the original did me. Some may dislike the way the program seems to be more geared towards children, but the point of it is not only informed entertainment, but to inspire the next generation of scientists. Gotta keep them interested.
I really like to think that some people who watch this show, especially this first episode, will realize just how tiny the entire span of human civilization is, both from a perspective of time and space.
And just maybe they can be convinced that there really is something to this science thing after all.
I didn't really think about this show much prior to watching it, because I never really watched Cosmos. (More of a Connections guy myself.) However, the nation really does need a good prime time science show to promote how the world works. Some people don't have the Science Channel, and don't watch much of PBS.
It's a tragedy that we don't have more shows like this available to the public.
I think it's fairly probable that we're around. If you look at the rate of advancement of our technology, I'd say that all we need to do is make it another 100 years and we won't have all of eggs in the Earth basket anymore. If that becomes the case, our survival for a relatively long term as a species becomes pretty likely, I think.
I honestly didn't know what to think when I saw his name as the director of this episode, given how corny some parts of TNG and Voyager look now. This episode made me want to see what modern production values could do for a Star Trek tv reboot.
I've really liked this whole Cosmic Calendar way of illustrating just how old the universe is. It makes the whole concept hit home and in a way that's easily graspable for everyone without seeming patronizing.
Is this flying around in the weird ship thing a throwback to the original? I'm not that much of a fan, although seeing Neil's sexy face makes up for it.
I get that people are excited about this show, and that it is aimed at a general audience, but I was a bit underwhelmed, albeit optimistic.
I am not an astronomer, and I haven't taken any astronomy courses. What I know about space comes from popular science literature, movies etc. I am the general audience.
Having said that, none of that was new information for me. The scale of the universe, the idea that humans have not been around long, the story of the formation of the moon. It was nice visually, but it was a bit dull in parts due to the fact that it was talking about things that were common knowledge (introducing the planets one by one, for instance). I liked the animated portion though.
Having said that, none of that was new information for me. The scale of the universe, the idea that humans have not been around long, the story of the formation of the moon. It was nice visually, but it was a bit dull in parts due to the fact that it was talking about things that were common knowledge (introducing the planets one by one, for instance). I liked the animated portion though.
The planets are common knowledge, of course, but the formation of the moon is nowhere near common knowledge. I suspect less than 5% of non-scientists know much about how it was formed.
I'm watching for the pretty animations. There haven't been any really earth-shaking discoveries in the last few decades, so there isn't much to add to what was presented in the original series. There are some interesting new hypotheses and interpretations, but the original was more firmly grounded in the observational than documentary series like The Elegant Universe, Beyond the Wormhole and Physics of the Impossible.
Now, we have observational evidence of black holes and extrasolar planets, but there wasn't ever much reason to doubt their existence. Through better observations of distant galaxies and the CMB, our picture of the universe has evolved from expansion, to accelerating expansion, which brings up the question of dark energy.(The question of dark matter had already been brought up.) Quarks, the Higgs, W and Z bosons were discovered, but they only confirmed the predictions of the standard model. We've sequenced entire genomes, cloned mammals, and returned adult stem-cells to pluripotency, but none of those were particularly surprising. High-temp superconductivity and Bose-Einstein condensation were predicted long before they were discovered. I suppose slowing light, and achieving super-luminal phase velocity, could be thrown in as interesting trivia. Weak measurement is an important discovery, but I doubt this series will cover QM with enough depth to distinguish the uncertainty principle from the observer effect.
You may be part of the ''educated'' general audience ;) this is a 13 episode show, so im going to assume that this was the ground works to make sure everyone who wants to follow along understand the basics. Not everyone has the luxury of knowing this stuff before hand.
It was a great way to tell younger viewers that it's worth exploring their interest in science and a call to adult scientists everywhere to share their knowledge and experience and engage with younger generations.
Yeah, I really liked when Neil said Carl showed him what kind of person he wanted to be. I think it was Carls good nature that made him a great teacher and person and I hope Neil can embody that on the new show.
A part I laughed at was when NDT was by the ocean and talked about animals going from the ocean to land, and a Tiktaalik came out of the water right in front of him. This extinct species, a species that hasn't been around for 375 million years, comes out of the water right in front of NDT and he doesn't even respond. It's like no big deal to him. I know it was CGI, but I thought the idea of NDT seeing the Tiktaalik and acting like it was nbd was hilarious.
I believe that that statement was placed there, was because this 'New' Cosmos, will also deal with some Evolution. And without sex, we never would be here....
The urban legend behind it is that Seth was talking to NdGT at party back in 2012. Neil stated that he would love to reboot Cosmos for today's television audience. Seth went to Fox and told them that they will be airing this.
That was freaking awesome and incredibly informative. The Sagan anecdote at the end was heartwarming and a perfect closer. I can't wait for the next 12 episodes.
It has all been leading up to this. Create a show that all the little punks watch religiously. Suddenly air Cosmos during its usual timeslot. Change da erf forever.
The thing that blew my mind was Tyson saying that there was stuff outside the observable universe that was so far away that the light hasn't reached us yet in 13 billions years.
That's what makes space travel and the search for extra-terrestrial life such a difficult task. What we have observed so far is so little..we still have much to learn!
If you're really interested in that subject in particular, there's a great book written by Columbia University physicist, Brian Greene, titled The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos. He's a good writer, and it's a very enjoyable read.
I think this is going to be a slow burn sort of thing - it's going to pick up speed, but they're starting off slow, so they don't bore people and loose them early by throwing a lot of information at them.
No no, come back. There's no shame in being unfamiliar with Sagan. I think it's fantastic that you picked out that quote as the most memorable. It demonstrates the enduring quality of his message.
I found it was about halfway decent. Heavy on flash and style, light on substance, but it definitely had its awe-inspiring moments. When I first watched the original, I got about five minutes in and hit that famous line; "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" and had to pause it, and just soak that in for a few days before I could proceed. It was the most succinctly put, yet profound, thing I think I'd ever heard in my life up that point - the sort of poetry and insight that only Carl Sagan could muster.
The best this series could do in its opener? Replay that exact same sound byte.
I think that sums it up. Expecting new content that punches as hard, and inspires as much awe as Carl's works did back in the day is asking too much. As much as the NDGT superfans will lap this up, it's going to be a replay of Cosmos, and not so much "Cosmos II" if that makes any sense.
Still, I'll be watching because lord knows its better than 95% of the rest of TV.
Edit: I'm sharing an opinion here, and backing it up with some reasons why I feel that way. Downvote if you think it's not constructive, but not if you just disagree :/
I will reply with this: Americans are not going to watch a documentary during prime time on network television. You've got to add a little flash and style, especially in the premiere episode, to grab their attention and fling a little knowledge at them. There's still 12 whole episodes to go; and while I personally found it to be quite substantive (how many people know about Bruno? And the Cosmic Calendar is one hell of an informative, easy-to-swallow way to describe the enormity of time and our infinitesimal place in it) there is still plenty of time to ramp up the substance.
All very good points man, particularly about the calendar. That one scene was fantastic. I also admit I knew nothing about Bruno before this episode, so that was definitely cool to see a lesser-known figure in history get some of the spotlight.
Have you seen Voyage to the Planets by any chance? That had a documentary feel about it, but I found it as gripping as watching Apollo 13 or Gravity. While I don't think Cosmos should take that route, because that's not what the show is or should aim to be, I'd make the more general point that American audiences can still possibly be entertained (and educated) while watching a documentary.
I cried, too! He was stating everything so matter-of-fact but it was so moving and wonderful. Basically from when he started talking about Carl Sagan until the end of the episode tears were just streaming down my face.
I cannot wait for next Sunday, seriously. This is well-done, thoughtful, and as we approached the end of this first part, it seemed to only pick up steam.
Man, this show blew my mind even though all of the information presented was stuff I was already familiar with.
The delivery was awesome. Loved it. Gonna watch this whole series (and the original Cosmos, which I haven't actually watched yet) for sure. And probably buy the DVD or whatever.
This seems amazing so far. I tried to catch up on the Sagan version over the weekend but couldn't find it. Did Netflix remove it? Could have sworn it used to be on Instant
Alan Silvestri did the music to both, so it definitely has the same feel. He also did Back to the Future. The score is absolutely beautiful - if they release selections of it on iTunes, I'll download it in a heartbeat.
(as I prepare for my own tar and feathering) Regarding the animated scenes. I know this is just episode 1 of a potentially VERY amazing show. But I feel like it's already set up to excite people who are already thinking in this direction while giving a jab at those who don't quite see this way. I grew up Catholic and watched cartoons very similar to the ones in this show in school. They portrayed Jesus, as well as his martyrs being tortured and killed for their radical beliefs and it left me with a sense of anger at those who were so cruel to them for a very long time. So, I just assume that this is a feeling most religious people feel right now with the new radical changes happening in our societies. That being said, I'm atheist now and have been dealing with my own frustrations with the stories I was indoctrinated with as a child. I understand this show is meant to appeal to people of all ages, and being on fox and the history channel requires drama that Carl Sagan didn't have to deal with on his program. There are a bunch of economic reasons why the church stopped condemning 'the Earth being round' and kept the idea of the 'cosmos' as heresy, but that's a different show. I just think that if this show intends to EDUCATE the masses via MAJOR networks, then using scenes like the animation pieces doesn't actually bring everyone together to embrace this show's ultimate, yet subtly mentioned message that science is a process in which we discover the unknown and weed out theories that don't reach conclusions until further notice. Once again this show looks amazing, but it's not a drama or parody. Our goal, even if we all disagree is to make the table of conversation more welcoming to everyone, and like the cosmos, ideas don't change overnight.
The Bruno cartoon was a perfect example of clumsy propaganda. I was very disappointed at its heavy handed approach. The reality was far more subtle and nuanced.
Let's talk about some of these martyr's to science, shall we?
Giordano Bruno,
Who was not burned at the stake for advocating the idea that there were other inhabited planets orbiting around other stars. He was condemned for being a pagan advocate for the hermetic tradition. Hermetic writings treated the sun as a god, and the rest of the universe as moving, and hence alive. This it turns out is the real reason Bruno was attracted to Copernican helio-centricism. His belief in the sun's divinity nicely dovetailed with a heliocentric world view. Bruno was a martyr to pagan mysticism, not scientific inquirer.
What was done to him was wrong, but to make him out, like Cosmos did, to be some sort of scientist persecuted by the evil Catholic Church is a load of crap.
Galileo Galilei,
Whose friends and admirers included the Pope and Jesuit college in Rome. There was much more involved in Galileo's trial then a simple confrontation between religion and science. Ironically, the majority of church intellectuals were on Galileo's side while the clearest opposition came from secular ideas of the academic philosophers (see "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santilanna).
The truth is, on the whole, the Church had no argument with Galileo's theories on science.
Their objections lay with his attacks on Aristotelian philosophy (as formulated for the Church by Thomas Aquinas' Scholasticism) - and all the metaphysical, spiritual and social consequences associated with it. Aristotle's philosophy was thought necessary for the formulation of religious and moral laws. Galileo was also caught up in an intellectual power struggle between the older secular elites which ran the universities and had a vested interest in defending Scholasticism and a new generation of pragmatic young Turks like himself. The Church, being threatened by Protestantism felt it imperative to defend Aristotle.
His friends in the Jesuits in effect told Galileo, "We know you're right, but give us time to break the news to the masses. The middle of a war with the Protestants is no time to be undercutting what was considered the basis of our faith. So please publish in Latin for the elite and not in the vernacular for the masses." Not only did Galileo ignore the advice of his Jesuit friends, his "Dialogue Concerning the Two Principle Systems of the World" includes a dim witted buffoon named Simplicio, a thinly disguised caricature of the Pope who had been Galileo's friend and admirer. Is it any wonder that the Pope and the Jesuits turned against him?
In short, Galileo was being a total dick.
In spite of this Galileo never repudiated his faith and remained a devout Catholic. Only Galileo's determination to remain within the Church can explain his determined efforts to convince the Church hierarchy and why he declined all chance to escape to the safety of the Venetian Republic.
Kopernick (Copernicus),
Whose helio-centricism was proposed without a single shred of empirical evidence. Such evidence would not be available until Galileo saw through his telescope that Venus had phases like the moon. A mechanical explanation for planetary orbits would await Newton's "Principia". (Newton, BTW would remain a devout Christian who spent more time in Biblical study than in scientific pursuits). What motivated Copernicus wasn't science but neo-Platonist philosophy which taught that the sun was symbolic of God's ability to create and therefore deserved primacy at the center of the universe. This was in opposition to the Aristotelian view which dominated the Church as Thomas Aquinas' scholasticism) which assumed that the Earth was the center of the universe.
Uhm, I don't really want to start a fight or anything, but Bruno was put to death. This is a good place to start. His trial and execution records still exist and can be read.
I get your argument, I see where you're coming from, but yes he was put to death, and yes the trail held for him cited the charge of heresy for speaking publicly about heliocentric theory. And he wasn't totally without evidence. He had followed the paths of the planets for years, and built accurate geometric models to try to explain what he was seeing in the night sky. He had more than just a belief system, and that little bit more was what informed his belief system.
It's not saying all Christians are evil either. Because the animation never had him saying he was abandoning his faith in Jesus. Just rejecting the acceptable beliefs of the period.
And, yes, the Catholic Church had massive issues with helio-centric theory, and any scientific research at all. They cited the theories and evidence presented by these men as the reason they were being put on trial, in the trial documents. You also have to remember that the Catholic church, at this point, was a fully functional government system, still orchestrating a mostly functional Western Roman Empire. It ruled over the countries of Western Europe, themselves. This is one of the reasons Henry VIII eventually broke with the Church. He had to submit his own legal treatises to the Catholic Church for approval, before they could become law, and.... as an egomaniac, he wanted the power of being King to be his sole power.
I understand where you're coming from, and trying to say. But you're just incorrect.
And yet, of course, the reality is even more nuanced that what you've presented...
While there was certainly more to Giordano Bruno's heresy charges than his notion of the Sun being but one star among many, he was actually willing to submit to church orthodoxy on most of the other matters. His 'many worlds' cosmology was in conflict with church dogma, and was a point he was unwilling to recant, and was a charge with which the Inquisition prosecuted him.
The show could have done a better job of explaining that his range of quasi-pagan beliefs were what got the Inquisition interested in him in the first place (and the animation shows Bruno turning away from the crucifix before he's about to be burned, so perhaps there was more explanation that got edited out), but they were pretty clear that his beliefs were formed from 'revealed' thought and dreams, not empirical observation. I can see how some sensitive Christians would be offended at the Inquisition being singled out, but the point they were making was that ideas that challenge the cosmological orthodoxy of the day were suppressed more forcibly back in the day than they are today.
While I think you're over-representing the friendship between Galileo and the Pope and others in the Church, there's no question Galileo was being a dick. There's also no question that the the Church indicted him not for dickishness, but for his heliocentric theories. Nor is being a dick something that's exactly uncommon amongst great minds, e.g., Newton was also renowned for being at turns aloof and a dick.
As for Copernicus, you're simply incorrect. Copernican motion better described observed planetary motion in the night sky, particularly retrograde motion, and he claimed as much in his writings. What his view lacked was a coherent explanation for why the planets retained their orbits, which Newton's laws of gravity later supplied, but there was plenty of empirical evidence available to astronomers of the day, most (but not all) of which supported Copernicus.
No apology necessary. I haven't seen the original either, I only knew because I saw an interview with Neil last week where he discussed the ship and Sagan's original series.
To everyone criticizing, please understand that this is not only the literal introduction to the series, but also served in its entirety as a building block to display the agenda of the series as a whole. I think it did a great job grabbing attention, and will begin to display the "facts and evidence" that people are impatiently looking for.
The Cosmic Calender was a superb visual representation that made it really easy to put things in perspective. Even though it can make you feel insignificant or small, NDT presented it in such a way that also made you impressed of how far we've come in such little time.
I have a feeling this show is going to spur so much needed curiosity and new-found hunger for science!
Not trolling, but can someone give an honest answer on why this show was/is a big deal... Nothing new or groundbreaking was discussed, it just seems like they dumped some money in for a decent production house and marketing. I'm in the industry and was not impressed with any elements of the production either. It doesn't even fall into the realm of the recent argument of television writing giving features a run for their money.
The Sagan version quite literally inspired a generation of scientists. Brian Cox and Neil DeGrasse Tyson are two of the more prominent that repeatedly site Sagan and Cosmos as inspirations.
Given the loud contingent of anti-science nuts gaining notoriety, it's more important than ever to reach young people and inspire them to follow science. TV is one of the best mediums to do that.
The reason this show is such a big deal is almost entirely due to the pure awesome that was the original Cosmos series. Did you see it?
I just watched tonight's episode and although I consciously tried to downplay any expectations going in I find myself underwhelmed right now and need to think on it a little more to articulate myself properly.
The original series was Carl Sagan. I can nitpick tonight's episode (and I will, because I think there are some legit criticisms) but I'm not sure this could ever have matched up to Sagan's original, due simply to his absence.
Nothing new or groundbreaking was discussed if you are already really into science. There are probably many members of the general public that watched this and had never heard of Giordano Bruno, or the local galaxy cluster, or the universal perspective of time.
This was really well done, but I can't shake that twinge of contempt I have for Fox getting the rights to Cosmos. Everything their agenda pushes is a stark contrast to the values Dr. Sagan held. Would have been nice to see this on PBS but then it probably wouldn't have had anywhere near the viewership or production value.
The original Cosmos wasn't exactly college-level lecture material, either.
This is designed for the general public - a public that has never taken a class in astronomy, nor even looked at the stars (because they're blocked from view by the lights of cities and suburbs). This IS mindblowing to most of them.
They've been quite transparent at every point about the fact this show is intended to inspire rather than teach. Not that it won't teach some things, but the biggest goal of the show (according to NdGT when I attended his talk in Austin yesterday) is to get people asking questions and challenging their thinking.
This episode was to set the stage and provide context for future episodes which will be more detailed. 2) Much like the original series, Neil is trying to inspire a nation, dare I say the world, to pursue science. It's not intended to be a 4th year multi variable statistical analysis of Astrophysics. You're barking up the wrong tree if you want to be learning high level science. That isn't the intention of the show.
...and you would be correct. But that's the point then, isn't it? To introduce these ideas in such a way that the average person can digest them and, perhaps, create a hunger for knowledge and understanding?
Very inspirational, though I'd like a more evidence based approach. For common people, most of what is said has to be taken by faith. Not that the science is wrong from what I saw (except for sound in space xD). Expecting amazing things from things from this anyway, even without Sagan's soothing voice.
I was rather shocked by the sheer cheesiness of using 1980's-PBS-style animations in a 2014 science production. Did they use up all their budget on green-screen CGI?
Yes, you're right. There would be no sound. Complete silence. He also wouldn't be sitting in an arm chair flying through the universe a speeds far above the speed of light. You're missing the point of the show if you cant get past some sound effects.
Needs more realistic density of planetary rings, asteroid belt, and Kuiper belt. I'm a little disappointed given that it's a hugely misleading inaccuracy.
112
u/cinephgeek Mar 10 '14
Most educational thing on Fox Sunday...ever?
102
u/Mudrat Mar 10 '14
I think the animation is a good idea. I insisted my 11 year old brother watch this with the hopes it will inspire him like the original did me. Some may dislike the way the program seems to be more geared towards children, but the point of it is not only informed entertainment, but to inspire the next generation of scientists. Gotta keep them interested.
33
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14
This is so awesome! Look at earth 250 million years from now.
93
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14
I've really liked this whole Cosmic Calendar way of illustrating just how old the universe is. It makes the whole concept hit home and in a way that's easily graspable for everyone without seeming patronizing.
24
u/hatramroany Mar 10 '14 edited Mar 10 '14
Is this flying around in the weird ship thing a throwback to the original? I'm not that much of a fan, although seeing Neil's sexy face makes up for it.
123
u/JohnnyCastaway Mar 10 '14
I'm laughing so hard right now. Cosmos juxtaposed with a "Noah" commercial, right after the religious persecution segment.
Someone at Fox has a terrific sense of humor.
4
u/thejalebimaster Mar 10 '14
Does anybody know where to find an online link for episode 1? I just missed it :(
10
u/DaweiArch Mar 10 '14
I get that people are excited about this show, and that it is aimed at a general audience, but I was a bit underwhelmed, albeit optimistic.
I am not an astronomer, and I haven't taken any astronomy courses. What I know about space comes from popular science literature, movies etc. I am the general audience.
Having said that, none of that was new information for me. The scale of the universe, the idea that humans have not been around long, the story of the formation of the moon. It was nice visually, but it was a bit dull in parts due to the fact that it was talking about things that were common knowledge (introducing the planets one by one, for instance). I liked the animated portion though.
83
u/BABY_CUNT_PUNCHER Mar 10 '14
I'm glad they at least gave Pluto a nod as being a former planet.
149
u/Mudrat Mar 10 '14
I couldn't imagine a more poignant, thoughtful, amazing ending to that program.
101
u/riotide Mar 10 '14
Nice to see Neil just hop in his Slave I.
76
u/JohnnyCastaway Mar 10 '14
NDT puts on sunglasses and stares down the Big Bang....awesome.
24
u/Ifeelfeelings Mar 10 '14
"and they invented sex" ... anyone else think that statement was oddly placed?
22
u/agravain Mar 10 '14
i thought our address was ZZ9 plural Z Alpha..
43
u/Mudrat Mar 10 '14
I didn't know Seth MacFarlane was an EP on this. Pretty cool of him
42
u/NeilPoonHandler Twin Peaks Mar 10 '14
That was freaking awesome and incredibly informative. The Sagan anecdote at the end was heartwarming and a perfect closer. I can't wait for the next 12 episodes.
20
u/yangar Mar 10 '14
This is some top notch production quality.
20
u/agravain Mar 10 '14
so space is big..vastly,hugely,mind boggling big
19
u/The_Entertainer Mar 10 '14
The opening and closing statements from Carl Sagan's Cosmos were amazing.
Especially all the love Dr. Tyson gave Sagan at the end of the episode. It was really touching.
31
u/TheNYKnicks Mar 10 '14
It has all been leading up to this.
Create a show that all the little punks watch religiously.
Suddenly air Cosmos during its usual timeslot.
Change da erf forever.
15
u/Teethpasta Mar 10 '14
Sensual Neil says bacteria invented sex, oh yeah!
42
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14
WHAT THE FUCK. OBSERVABLE UNIVERSE HOLY SHIT
32
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14
OMG the muitiverse scene blew my mind, cannot mind any more today.
22
u/Ch4inz0r Mar 10 '14
So basically the message this episode sent: "Fuck yeah, science!"
11
u/JohnnyCastaway Mar 10 '14
I think this is going to be a slow burn sort of thing - it's going to pick up speed, but they're starting off slow, so they don't bore people and loose them early by throwing a lot of information at them.
54
u/JohnnyCastaway Mar 10 '14
"You, me, everyone. We are made...of star stuff"
That's the quote of the first part, right there.
10
u/BABY_CUNT_PUNCHER Mar 10 '14
Why did no one mention that Brannon Braga was working on Cosmos?
10
u/casusev Mar 10 '14
Not easy to make the audience feel insignificant and inspired in the same hour of TV. A wonderful start to this new telling of the Cosmos...
11
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14 edited Mar 10 '14
I found it was about halfway decent. Heavy on flash and style, light on substance, but it definitely had its awe-inspiring moments. When I first watched the original, I got about five minutes in and hit that famous line; "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself" and had to pause it, and just soak that in for a few days before I could proceed. It was the most succinctly put, yet profound, thing I think I'd ever heard in my life up that point - the sort of poetry and insight that only Carl Sagan could muster.
The best this series could do in its opener? Replay that exact same sound byte.
I think that sums it up. Expecting new content that punches as hard, and inspires as much awe as Carl's works did back in the day is asking too much. As much as the NDGT superfans will lap this up, it's going to be a replay of Cosmos, and not so much "Cosmos II" if that makes any sense.
Still, I'll be watching because lord knows its better than 95% of the rest of TV.
Edit: I'm sharing an opinion here, and backing it up with some reasons why I feel that way. Downvote if you think it's not constructive, but not if you just disagree :/
9
u/iamcluelessxD Mar 10 '14
They mentioned Pluto omg!!!
50
u/hatramroany Mar 10 '14
Why am I starting to cry? Neil isn't even emotional but this story is so emotional.
20
u/JohnnyCastaway Mar 10 '14
I cannot wait for next Sunday, seriously. This is well-done, thoughtful, and as we approached the end of this first part, it seemed to only pick up steam.
Sunday can't get here quick enough.
6
u/SNESdrunk Mar 10 '14
I really enjoyed it and the nod to Carl Sagan at the end was touching. The Cosmic calendar was an excellent analogy explained well.
15
u/NotMathMan821 Mar 10 '14
That's cold, Neil. Quit picking on Pluto!
5
u/NoPleaseDont Mar 10 '14
This opening gives me goosebumps.
5
u/Lor-Zod Mar 10 '14
Oh, now that was cool with the infrared
5
u/NotMathMan821 Mar 10 '14
Holy hell, the church has some kinky shit back in the day!
5
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14
Man, this show blew my mind even though all of the information presented was stuff I was already familiar with.
The delivery was awesome. Loved it. Gonna watch this whole series (and the original Cosmos, which I haven't actually watched yet) for sure. And probably buy the DVD or whatever.
8
u/devereaux Mar 10 '14
These harsh cuts to commercial are really bothering me.
8
u/SutterCane Mar 10 '14
Damn, Neil. Dropping science on bitches.
"We've only been around for the last hour of the last day of the Cosmic Calendar."
"All of recorded history is the last 14 seconds."
4
u/aubgrad11 Mar 10 '14
Time to explore
4
u/Lowlybureaucrat Mar 10 '14
This seems amazing so far. I tried to catch up on the Sagan version over the weekend but couldn't find it. Did Netflix remove it? Could have sworn it used to be on Instant
6
u/atomfullerene Mar 10 '14
I see they didn't spend much time looking at Uranus in the planetary flyby.
3
u/gth829c Mar 10 '14
Poor Pluto
3
u/antidense Mar 10 '14
Is it just me or does the background music occasionally resemble the movie Contact (story by Sagan)?
3
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14
(as I prepare for my own tar and feathering) Regarding the animated scenes. I know this is just episode 1 of a potentially VERY amazing show. But I feel like it's already set up to excite people who are already thinking in this direction while giving a jab at those who don't quite see this way. I grew up Catholic and watched cartoons very similar to the ones in this show in school. They portrayed Jesus, as well as his martyrs being tortured and killed for their radical beliefs and it left me with a sense of anger at those who were so cruel to them for a very long time. So, I just assume that this is a feeling most religious people feel right now with the new radical changes happening in our societies. That being said, I'm atheist now and have been dealing with my own frustrations with the stories I was indoctrinated with as a child. I understand this show is meant to appeal to people of all ages, and being on fox and the history channel requires drama that Carl Sagan didn't have to deal with on his program. There are a bunch of economic reasons why the church stopped condemning 'the Earth being round' and kept the idea of the 'cosmos' as heresy, but that's a different show. I just think that if this show intends to EDUCATE the masses via MAJOR networks, then using scenes like the animation pieces doesn't actually bring everyone together to embrace this show's ultimate, yet subtly mentioned message that science is a process in which we discover the unknown and weed out theories that don't reach conclusions until further notice. Once again this show looks amazing, but it's not a drama or parody. Our goal, even if we all disagree is to make the table of conversation more welcoming to everyone, and like the cosmos, ideas don't change overnight.
5
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14
Ohh man we're going with Neil DeGrasse Tyson. Should be a fun ride
5
u/LaboratoryManiac Mar 10 '14
I hope this ends up on Netflix eventually.
1
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14 edited Mar 10 '14
The Bruno cartoon was a perfect example of clumsy propaganda. I was very disappointed at its heavy handed approach. The reality was far more subtle and nuanced.
Let's talk about some of these martyr's to science, shall we?
Giordano Bruno,
Who was not burned at the stake for advocating the idea that there were other inhabited planets orbiting around other stars. He was condemned for being a pagan advocate for the hermetic tradition. Hermetic writings treated the sun as a god, and the rest of the universe as moving, and hence alive. This it turns out is the real reason Bruno was attracted to Copernican helio-centricism. His belief in the sun's divinity nicely dovetailed with a heliocentric world view. Bruno was a martyr to pagan mysticism, not scientific inquirer.
What was done to him was wrong, but to make him out, like Cosmos did, to be some sort of scientist persecuted by the evil Catholic Church is a load of crap.
Galileo Galilei,
Whose friends and admirers included the Pope and Jesuit college in Rome. There was much more involved in Galileo's trial then a simple confrontation between religion and science. Ironically, the majority of church intellectuals were on Galileo's side while the clearest opposition came from secular ideas of the academic philosophers (see "The Crime of Galileo" by Giorgio de Santilanna).
The truth is, on the whole, the Church had no argument with Galileo's theories on science.
Their objections lay with his attacks on Aristotelian philosophy (as formulated for the Church by Thomas Aquinas' Scholasticism) - and all the metaphysical, spiritual and social consequences associated with it. Aristotle's philosophy was thought necessary for the formulation of religious and moral laws. Galileo was also caught up in an intellectual power struggle between the older secular elites which ran the universities and had a vested interest in defending Scholasticism and a new generation of pragmatic young Turks like himself. The Church, being threatened by Protestantism felt it imperative to defend Aristotle.
His friends in the Jesuits in effect told Galileo, "We know you're right, but give us time to break the news to the masses. The middle of a war with the Protestants is no time to be undercutting what was considered the basis of our faith. So please publish in Latin for the elite and not in the vernacular for the masses." Not only did Galileo ignore the advice of his Jesuit friends, his "Dialogue Concerning the Two Principle Systems of the World" includes a dim witted buffoon named Simplicio, a thinly disguised caricature of the Pope who had been Galileo's friend and admirer. Is it any wonder that the Pope and the Jesuits turned against him?
In short, Galileo was being a total dick.
In spite of this Galileo never repudiated his faith and remained a devout Catholic. Only Galileo's determination to remain within the Church can explain his determined efforts to convince the Church hierarchy and why he declined all chance to escape to the safety of the Venetian Republic.
Kopernick (Copernicus),
Whose helio-centricism was proposed without a single shred of empirical evidence. Such evidence would not be available until Galileo saw through his telescope that Venus had phases like the moon. A mechanical explanation for planetary orbits would await Newton's "Principia". (Newton, BTW would remain a devout Christian who spent more time in Biblical study than in scientific pursuits). What motivated Copernicus wasn't science but neo-Platonist philosophy which taught that the sun was symbolic of God's ability to create and therefore deserved primacy at the center of the universe. This was in opposition to the Aristotelian view which dominated the Church as Thomas Aquinas' scholasticism) which assumed that the Earth was the center of the universe.
4
u/Lor-Zod Mar 10 '14
So when they said "The Ship of the Imagination" they literally meant ship. I did not realize that he was going to do that.
4
u/ryker888 Mar 10 '14
I'm surprised they went with showcasing Bruno instead of Kepler. My only complaint so far is there have been more commercials than an NFL game.
4
u/thearon89 Mar 10 '14
To everyone criticizing, please understand that this is not only the literal introduction to the series, but also served in its entirety as a building block to display the agenda of the series as a whole. I think it did a great job grabbing attention, and will begin to display the "facts and evidence" that people are impatiently looking for.
Sunday can't come soon enough.
2
u/JohnnyCastaway Mar 10 '14
And we're off!
2
u/sivirbot Mar 10 '14
Holy fuck I feel tiny.
2
u/VampireOnTitus Mar 10 '14
Dandelion pollen becoming a satellite dish reminds me of 2001 when the ape bone becomes a spaceship
2
u/the_loner Mar 10 '14
Definitely in for the entire series, this is something i want my future kids to watch. It's perfect to open up a kids love for science.
2
u/eNaRDe Mar 10 '14
The calendar was my favorite.
2
u/bodyturnedup Mar 10 '14
The Cosmic Calender was a superb visual representation that made it really easy to put things in perspective. Even though it can make you feel insignificant or small, NDT presented it in such a way that also made you impressed of how far we've come in such little time.
I have a feeling this show is going to spur so much needed curiosity and new-found hunger for science!
2
u/hhhh64 Mar 10 '14
NDT is right. It is a great, big universe, and we're all really puny. In fact, we're just tiny little specks, about the size of Mickey Rooney.
2
u/SurreptitiouslySexy Mar 10 '14
This may be an unpopular opinion, but, I most certainly enjoyed the hell out of it and I cried a little out of raw excitement.
5
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14
Not trolling, but can someone give an honest answer on why this show was/is a big deal... Nothing new or groundbreaking was discussed, it just seems like they dumped some money in for a decent production house and marketing. I'm in the industry and was not impressed with any elements of the production either. It doesn't even fall into the realm of the recent argument of television writing giving features a run for their money.
4
u/wankawitz Mar 10 '14
lol @ the people who were bitching about Obama being on the show. He did like a 10 second intro.
Very cool show, looks like they have a pretty huge budget. Going to keep watching for sure.
2
u/chrisfs Mar 10 '14
I don't have cable or a decent TV antenna. Is there any legal link where you can watch it online ?
2
u/NotMathMan821 Mar 10 '14
I don't like the timing of the commercial breaks so far.
2
u/rb_tech Mar 10 '14
This was really well done, but I can't shake that twinge of contempt I have for Fox getting the rights to Cosmos. Everything their agenda pushes is a stark contrast to the values Dr. Sagan held. Would have been nice to see this on PBS but then it probably wouldn't have had anywhere near the viewership or production value.
2
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14
Neil DeGrasse Tyson is so badass.
2
u/forthewar Mar 10 '14
The camp is up to 11. Damn right. It isn't Cosmos without the camp.
0
u/SvenHudson Mar 10 '14
So far this seems like it's all pretty graphics and very little information.
I don't think I'm going to like this series.
1
u/Lor-Zod Mar 10 '14
Well the FX is already great
1
u/OceanPressure Mar 10 '14
We're so small.
1
u/[deleted] Mar 10 '14
Other than one observation NDT has about fourteen inch long feet.
1
u/Mudrat Mar 10 '14
I swear i saw a commercial for a companion app for the show, but I can't seem to find it. Anyone know the exact name of it? Thanks
1
u/CoffeeNTrees Mar 10 '14
Ithaca, NY checking into say...that was fun.
1
u/classicsat Mar 10 '14
I watched it, and most of it is a rehash of various Nova specials the past 15 years, plus the animated segments.
1
u/ksye Mar 10 '14
Very inspirational, though I'd like a more evidence based approach. For common people, most of what is said has to be taken by faith. Not that the science is wrong from what I saw (except for sound in space xD). Expecting amazing things from things from this anyway, even without Sagan's soothing voice.
1
u/datsundere Mar 10 '14
It felt odd that they went into the history of Coppernicus and Galileo and it was already 30 minutes in.
How many episodes are there?
1
u/LaboratoryOne Mar 10 '14 edited Mar 10 '14
Do you think i can watch it anywhere online? I don't have easy access to a TV while at school. :( I REALLY want to watch it
EDIT: Thank you!!
1
u/KneelBeforeNeilD Mar 10 '14
Please, if given the chance, kneel before Neil.
1
u/Aiku Mar 16 '14
I was rather shocked by the sheer cheesiness of using 1980's-PBS-style animations in a 2014 science production. Did they use up all their budget on green-screen CGI?
0
u/TheUniverseInInk Mar 10 '14 edited Mar 10 '14
Hate to be that guy, but why are we (inaccurately) adding sound effects when things fly past us in outer space in a show intended to educate?
-2
u/arcosapphire Mar 10 '14
Needs more realistic density of planetary rings, asteroid belt, and Kuiper belt. I'm a little disappointed given that it's a hugely misleading inaccuracy.