OT: Thoughts on Cosmos with Neil deGrasse Tyson
I remember watching the original Cosmos starring Carl Sagan when I was a kid. My family watched the "new" Cosmos last night, with Neil deGrasse Tyson. Although there were a few cheesy moments (e.g., "look at that asteroid... No, not that one... The one on the left"), overall I thought it was very interesting.
I can say this, my 17 and 13 year-old boys, and my 10 year-old daughter were absolutely riveted. There aren't many shows on prime-time TV that we can watch together, and enjoy healthy dialogue.
Knowing the education level on this board is a bit higher than others, I was wondering if any MGoBloggers watched, and if they liked it, or disliked it. Thoughts?
P.S. Please bear in mind the "no religion" tenet of this board... Thoughtful, tasteful dialogue is the goal.
you got to watch Cosmos with Carl Sagan. did he ask a lot of questions during it? my dad does that.
Ate some bad egg salad, I believe.
Did deGrasse Tyson say "beeeeeeeeyons and beeeeeeeeyons" at any point in the show. If not, it wasn't Cosmos in my book.
First off, fair observation. Understand that my comment comes from a person whose User Name is an imprecise quote that reflects most people's memory of a memorable speech. Inaccurate quotes for humor's sake - it's what I do.
Also, Sagan did say "beeeeeeyon beeeeeeyon beeeeeeeeyon" (at about 0:29) in the clip below, which is awfully close. And he dropped "beeeeeeyon" like Kanye drops obscenities - often, and to great effect.
But, I felt the same at times about the original. I feel like they hop, skip, and jump from place to place, and only skim upon certain things a bit much. But, it was just the first episonde and I will certainly be watching again next week.
A great show, really high-quality animations and amazing narration by Niel. I'm a student and I have taken mid-level astronomy classes at Michigan but I still learned a lot! I know what I'll be watching every Sunday night now!
and plan on watching weekly (though I missed the first 15-20 minutes last night). But some of the graphics and animations used (for instance, the video-game quality of flying through the asteroid belt) along with a couple of sketchy explanations on the part of Tyson, left me wanting to scream at him,
"NOW WHO YOU JIVIN' WITH THAT COSMIK DEBRIS?!!"
And while he's no Carl Sagan, I think he still overall did a pretty good job, at least in episode one.
I wasn't impressed. There are so many of these types of shows now, and there is such a limited ceiling for them. Having watched many of the original with Carl Sagan, I must admit that that show was special and I don't know that it can be captured even in part by an update.
I might be biased though, because even thoguh I know that Neil Degrasse Tyson is much, much more intelligent than me, and despite the fact that he's an interesting Twitter follow, everytime I see him I just think he looks like a dufus. That opinion probably confirms his superiority, but I just can't get over that hump.
Upon further review I am certain that I am, infact, biased.
I wouldn't call him a doofus... Even if he is using the Uncle Rico bicep push.
From this photograph, I conlude that Neil deGrasse Tyson's two main influences growing up were Carl Sagan and Shaft....which if I was an adolescent African-American coming of age in the 1970's would be totally how I would roll.
Someone above mentioned that this show is geared to end up in classrooms. While I agree that there are a bunch of these types of shows, to kind of lump it all together for a classroom setting into one show is a good idea. And while the original Cosmos is probably the best option to put into the classrooms, kids are going to check out once they see some dude who talks slow and funny* in a standard definition-VHS quality tape. Updating it will only help the cause IMO.
*All respect to Carl Sagan, but as a younger person who has never watched him on TV before yesterday as I watched some of the old re-runs, he annoyed the shit out of me the way that he talked. Slow, and deliberate, almost monotone. He put me right to sleep. Maybe that was just a first impression, and hopefully I can get the chance to have him grow on me more, and gain some of the same prestige others on this board share for him.
March 12th, 2014 at 10:42 AM ^
When can we as a society move past personal appearances and honor true intellect?I imagine it will be right around the time television programming like "Keeping Up With The Kardashians" and "The Real Housewives of Orange County" not only go out of fashion, but the mere idea of developing them seem ludicrous to TV executives. In short, never. Sadly, there are just too many stupid people in the world.
are one of my favorite things about MGoBlog.
Hard to think of another Michigan sports blog with three page debates on dark matter and the big bang....
We ate there for lunch yesterday. They have the best Bim Bop in town, Kerrytown that is.
The best not in Kerrytown is the Hot Stone BBB at Kang's on South U; it's amazing. Put the oil in, mix it up and let the rice crisp up on the bottom.
Setting aside the religious stuff, you actually touch on something that makes me uncomfortable with Neil deGrasse Tyson and other "rock-star scientists", namely that they get trotted out as the "expert" on anything sciency that comes up, when in reality they are no more experts than any other intelligent and well read person. You would think a scientist would be first to admit that, but sometimes it seems like it takes a backseat to their personal fame.
Now obviously I think it's a good thing to have intelligent, well-spoken people willing and able to communicate science to the masses. We certainly need that when everything else is all Kardashian Swamp Shore Dynasty. And lord knows your average scientist is about as good at public communication as a tranquilized sloth that writes in hieroglyphics.
But I do cringe a little bit when NdGT, an astrophysicist, pontificates on climatology, or when Bill Nye, a mechanical engineer, is chosen as the champion of evolutionary theory. Not that I don't think they should be allowed to state an opinion or attempt to distill science into something more digestible, just that, if they really mean to support science and not a dumbed down version of pop science, they ought to work a bit harder to dispel the myth that "scientist" means "unassailable expert on everything".
A huge, huge problem with science and engineering simply comes down to the inability to communicate it well to the general public. The people currently advocating for science are often times inefficient or have ulterior motives and are extremely unqualified (government).
NdGT is an excellent communicator. He's inspiring in his speech, but he's also smart enough to get into detail when needed. Is he the best expert there is on all the subjects? Of course not. But no one is. Having a million voices discussing their expertise will simply get lost and few will actually listen. Having a common voice that can inspire and commuinicate and tell the stories that need to be told to bring about the next generations is needed. And I think NdGT does just that, and he does it extremely well.
Yeah, I think most do a great job of that, to be honest.
you should read what Feynman said about his being on the Challenger committee...
All people who practice religion do NOT seriously & publicly attack science (for a given definition of seriously & publicly attack)
All people who seriously & publicly attack science do seem to practice religion.
Long story short, there aren't a lot of "Cheaster" christians looking to get evolution out of biology textbooks.
Also, the International Astronomical Union screwed over Pluto almost a decade ago. Because the evidence was strong enough to do so.
Re: Pluto
Thats the cool thing about science, it can correct itself.
Pluto is really an American thing. A kid from Illinois found it. Disney named a dog after it.
I was kinda bummed when he (correctly) didnt include it in the planet listing but happy when he called it out by name.
...but that is a very dangerous statement to say b/c 97% of studies or people agree that there is no debate, or that it is a fact b/c of popular opinion. This in the thread that is about a show that discussed the plight of Giordano Bruno...
Also, the poster above brought up the actual quantitative effect of said warming, which there is no major consensus on.
I almost posted a thread last night, but was too tired to do it. Bravo OP. As someone who knew all of the science in the show (except the biographical stuff), there were no AH HA moments, but nonetheless, I thought the production value was excellent, the graphics very well done and the show overall was great. Yes, there a lot of shows out there (morgan freeman, etc), but this was the pilot and they had to start somewhere. Connected to the Sagan series and everything. Very well done. I hope my kids can get into, but they are a little young (5 & 8).
Wow this thread has escalated.
Never tell me the odds.
99.996% of space is just that: empty space
Give or take I would assume.
I didn't get to see much of the show - did they ever describe space as "cold"? That's the common misconception that bugs me the most, for whatever reason.
I am glad a major media source is investing in STEM education. I feel like educational programs, especially in prime time, in STEM have been missing for awhile.
Seth MacFarlane is the Executive Producer?
I thought it was allright, started slow but was much more interesting by the end.
Recorded it for my 8 year old and i think he will enjoy it a lot.
He was also the voice of Giordano Bruno.
Oh yeah... I was wondering why Bruno was jailed for putting so much emphasis on the h in Cool Whip when it hadn't even been invented yet.
Good Gravy folks making TV space shows - The asteroid belt is largely empty. Quit making it look like Star Wars.
is that it's not very cinematic if represented accurately. If you have a silent vacuum with only a single, dimly lit asteroid drifting by, no one will watch the program. So these shows tend to rely on rumbling sounds and "Star Wars" asteroid fields for the aesthetics.
Given the goals of Cosmos, that's a concession that it should be engaging, too. At least they split the difference by emphasizing the distance between comets in the Oort Cloud (Earth-Saturn distance between closest neighbors).
I actually have met Neil a few times*, really great guy. This is a great show because (in my opinion) he has the personality and charisma to make these topics down to earth and fun for a mainstream audience. I'm recording them for my boys, they love it so far.
*I worked for his sister for a long time - she is also a "rock star" in her field (Corporate Investor Relations). Really accomplished family.
"P.S. Please bear in mind the "no religion" tenet of this board."
You brought it up first, and look what happened.
March 10th, 2014 at 11:47 PM ^
not the op, but thats my bad.
It was a good show for what it is. I've been watching Tyson with my daughter since the Nova ScienceNow days, and this is a good next chapter for someone her age. Of course those of us that have read or studied astronomy, physics, etc are going to be rehashing a lot of territory we covered a long time ago. I do have to say though, no matter how many times I've had the scale of the universe or time explained to me, it continues to completely boggle my mind. Some truths exist so far beyond our day-to-day perception of existence that they continue to feel shocking for years and years after you first learn about them.