Neil deGrasse Tyson to remake Carl Sagan's COSMOS

Because the rest of the programme is so in keeping with the teachings of the bible?

Really good 2nd episode too. The explanation of the evolution of the eye with the useful right hand side of the screen showing gradual improvement in sight was a clever way of presenting it. Can imagine that riled up a few religious folk in the USA.

I was more annoyed by the realisation that as a land animal, our eyesight evolves from a botch job! Damn fish ancestors with their eyesight adapting to underwater vision first.

Yeah, really liked that part of it. Very good episode. Can't wait for more.

mas22 wrote:Theres only one true successor to Carl Sagan

ikr, he is so strawberry floating dreamy

i'm aiming for manchester uni next year to do physics, just so i can gaze into his beautiful eyes, and experience is wonderfully greasy hair :wub:

I really enjoyed the bit about Dogs.

tweep wrote:
mas22 wrote:Theres only one true successor to Carl Sagan

ikr, he is so strawberry floating dreamy

i'm aiming for manchester uni next year to do physics, just so i can gaze into his beautiful eyes, and experience is wonderfully greasy hair

I think he would be better at this than Tyson, the "dreamy" aspect of him would fit into their "imagination spaceship" perfectly. I liked this second episode much more, I am not sure I am fan of the cartoons though.

I have never watched the original Cosmos (I wanted to for ages, but it would take too long to download), is it similar to this? Or more like one of the Cox things?

Not a fan of Brian Cox personally, bit too smug for my liking.

Anyway, watched episode 1 of this last night, very enjoyable, looking forward to getting round to watching the 2nd episode.

Both Cox and Tyson have named Sagan as a huge influence in their respective shows, and there are certainly shades of him in both. Sagan falls somewhere in between with his style though, mixing the wonder of Cox with Tyson's gravitas. I think Cox would have done a good job here, but it's better suited to Tyson I think.

1cmanny1 wrote:I have never watched the original Cosmos (I wanted to for ages, but it would take too long to download), is it similar to this? Or more like one of the Cox things?

Good job it's all on YouTube then.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dADUBcoEEHw&list=PLBA8DC67D52968201

It's a bit dated now for obvious reasons, but it's still enthralling and Sagan is incredible. The new Cosmos is essentially a new, up to date version of the original and is very similar in style. The first episodes are basically the same, even using the same calendar metaphor.

EDIT: You can get the original on DVD for about a tenner by the way, if you want it in higher quality than the YouTube rips.

I saw the first episode last night. It wasn't quite what I expected and seemed to jump around a bit but looked fantastic and I will keep watching.

The second episode is definitely better. I do wish they explained things a bit more though, it would only take a minute to say how they know about the current thing he is stating as fact.

The first episode is just an overview and touches on a bunch of stuff. The rest should all focus on one subject.

1cmanny1 wrote:The second episode is definitely better. I do wish they explained things a bit more though, it would only take a minute to say how they know about the current thing he is stating as fact.

What wasn't explained? You can always go into more detail with a subject like evolution, but I thought they covered it better than most attempts I've seen.

For example, when they showed you how the volcanoes helped extinct most of life they never said HOW they know this. Is this proven science or just a speculative theory? The same when they showed you what the fish saw, how do they know this?

1cmanny1 wrote:For example, when they showed you how the volcanoes helped extinct most of life they never said HOW they know this. Is this proven science or just a speculative theory? The same when they showed you what the fish saw, how do they know this?

God told them.

Episode 4 was very good. Preferred it to episode 3.

Do enjoy the little digs at super religious folk, Tyson easily destroying the argument that the universe is 6500 years old.

Yeah, was very good. Thoroughly enjoying this so far.

I've never heard of Cosmos before, or Carl Sagam for that matter.

Is it proper nerdy science or dumbed down for the average viewer?

I'm loving the new Cosmos show. I recently discovered Tyson's podcast, Star Talk Radio, which is awesome.

They're very funny, entertaining and insightful. Topics include the science in sci-fi movies, time travel etc. There's interviews with the likes of Laurence Fishburne, Dan Aykroyd, and Buzz Aldrin.

A few too many adverts and breaks, but well worth listening to.

Ironhide wrote:Is it proper nerdy science or dumbed down for the average viewer?

It's not dumbed down at all, but it does cover the very basics before going into more in depth stuff, and spends a good amount of time on the history of science too. Unlike most shows though, I find that even if it's covering stuff I already know it still manages to be interesting and entertaining. Tyson is a fantastic presenter and it all looks lovely.

Another good episode.

Finally caught up on the episodes, what a brilliant show.

The evolution episode was awesome, shows the power of nature. Also manages to portray the span of time for evolution to occur which I think a lot of people struggle to comprehend. Massive strawberry float you to the young earth religious whacks :lol:

The gravity episode was a low point for me, but sill enjoyable nonetheless.

Neil deGrasse Tyson to remake Carl Sagan's COSMOS

Who is online

Affiliates