Cosmos: A spacetime odyssey
Discussion
Not a patch on the original but it's a good effort.
Sagan took his time to explain a point, and wanted to make sure it was understood. There was always a romanticism to his descriptions of the subject, he didn't need to be flash or fancy as he was confident that the subject matter was fascinating.
Sagan took his time to explain a point, and wanted to make sure it was understood. There was always a romanticism to his descriptions of the subject, he didn't need to be flash or fancy as he was confident that the subject matter was fascinating.
qube_TA said:
Not a patch on the original but it's a good effort.
Sagan took his time to explain a point, and wanted to make sure it was understood. There was always a romanticism to his descriptions of the subject, he didn't need to be flash or fancy as he was confident that the subject matter was fascinating.
How much, if anything, did Sagan's Cosmos get wrong? Considering how long ago it was surely some of the assumptions broadcast at the time have since been shown to be wrong, no?Sagan took his time to explain a point, and wanted to make sure it was understood. There was always a romanticism to his descriptions of the subject, he didn't need to be flash or fancy as he was confident that the subject matter was fascinating.
Nothing, there are lots of bits where they speculate about future discoveries but the principles are always bang on.
It's interesting to watch as it talks about how extra-solar planets could one day be discovered and speculates on the method that would be used, which was the exact method used to eventually find them.
There's certainly been additional discoveries since the original programs aired but non of the information in them is incorrect or invalid.
It's interesting to watch as it talks about how extra-solar planets could one day be discovered and speculates on the method that would be used, which was the exact method used to eventually find them.
There's certainly been additional discoveries since the original programs aired but non of the information in them is incorrect or invalid.
On the whole, the original Cosmos still stands up well. I bought the DVD boxed set a few years ago and it includes an introduction by Ann Druyan outlining some of the newer ideas that have emerged since 1979/80. Also, there is a subtitle option on the DVD which, when activated, makes comments on where modern interpretation may differ from the original.
One example is his assertion that the Tunguska Impact of 1908 was caused by a piece of a comet. The more modern interpretation is that it was a meteorite and was mainly rock, not ice.
One example is his assertion that the Tunguska Impact of 1908 was caused by a piece of a comet. The more modern interpretation is that it was a meteorite and was mainly rock, not ice.
Watched this last night as I'd recorded it on Sunday and was blown away by it if I'm honest. The vast scale of the universe fascinates me. I've seen the scale wbsite, but somehow the show brought it home more for me. Never saw the original as I was too young really.
The extra-solar planets I thought were amazing, hadn't even thought about the possibility before.
Also, if we are surrounded between the astroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, how have our expolorer probes gone through the field, is not very dense in real terms or is only on one plane and we sen the probes "over-the-top", apologies if that's a really duff question.
Looking forward to the rest of the series.
The extra-solar planets I thought were amazing, hadn't even thought about the possibility before.
Also, if we are surrounded between the astroid belt between Mars and Jupiter, how have our expolorer probes gone through the field, is not very dense in real terms or is only on one plane and we sen the probes "over-the-top", apologies if that's a really duff question.
Looking forward to the rest of the series.
The asteroid graphics were wrong, they don't just bounce about randomly like Star Wars (they'd have all destroyed themselves by bashing into each other if they did), they're in orbit around the Sun as everything else.
When they first sent probes beyond Mars it was a worry that they'd just get smashed as they crossed that area, however they're not that densely packed and they can be tracked so flying through that area is yet to cause a problem.
When they first sent probes beyond Mars it was a worry that they'd just get smashed as they crossed that area, however they're not that densely packed and they can be tracked so flying through that area is yet to cause a problem.
We have been discovering extra-solar planets now for almost 20 years. However, the rate of discovery is increasing rapidly as new techniques and new technologies come into play which allow smaller planets to be discovered.
The asteroid belt has proved not to be a problem for space probes heading to the outer solar system. As of this year, around ten probes have sailed through the belt with no issues.
The asteroid belt has proved not to be a problem for space probes heading to the outer solar system. As of this year, around ten probes have sailed through the belt with no issues.
l got to see part of an episode last night.
It was the episode where the age of the universe is laid out as the Cosmic Calender - and it essentially repeats pretty closely what Carl Sagan did in the original series. The graphics were almost identical - although obviously a lot more sophisticated.
What did strike me though was a lack of "core authenticity" about the whole enterprise. I have no doubt that Neil DeGrasse-Tyson is an excellent science communicator (I've seen some of his other programmes before) but when watching the original series you really did feel you were hearing Sagan's deep felt personal thoughts on the topics covered. He did write much of the script himself.
I feel on this occasion that Mr DeGrasse-Tyson is reading from someone else's script and is merely delivering lines rather than innermost thoughts.
I'm sure for anyone who never saw the original series, this new version is perfectly adequate - but I will always think Sagan's original stands as a landmark in American TV documentary making.
It was the episode where the age of the universe is laid out as the Cosmic Calender - and it essentially repeats pretty closely what Carl Sagan did in the original series. The graphics were almost identical - although obviously a lot more sophisticated.
What did strike me though was a lack of "core authenticity" about the whole enterprise. I have no doubt that Neil DeGrasse-Tyson is an excellent science communicator (I've seen some of his other programmes before) but when watching the original series you really did feel you were hearing Sagan's deep felt personal thoughts on the topics covered. He did write much of the script himself.
I feel on this occasion that Mr DeGrasse-Tyson is reading from someone else's script and is merely delivering lines rather than innermost thoughts.
I'm sure for anyone who never saw the original series, this new version is perfectly adequate - but I will always think Sagan's original stands as a landmark in American TV documentary making.
I thought the program was pretty good. And Degrasse comes across as a very amicable/friendly guy in his presenting rather than the typical sheldon types usually trotted out, and hopefully this series will spark the interest in the next generation of kids growing up. (Plus being the non-stereotypical scientist also helps with the whole 'intelligence is gay' found in certain communities).
Although I have a lot of interest in science, I have noticed that Degrasse is getting lots of airtime in the US, and long may it continue.
I wish there were more scientists/engineers that could appeal to the masses like Degrasse and Cox as someone to look up to.
Although I have a lot of interest in science, I have noticed that Degrasse is getting lots of airtime in the US, and long may it continue.
I wish there were more scientists/engineers that could appeal to the masses like Degrasse and Cox as someone to look up to.
As a kid, the first series of Cosmos blew me away to the extent that I ended up at uni combining my primary subject (Psychology) with Astronomy and Astrophysics - a combination that in 20 years I gather has yet to be repeated.. I hope that the current series does the same for others watching it, but so far not quite for me - but then I'm probably not the average viewer 
Certainly worth watching though for anyone with a passing interest in, well pretty much anything on or beyond this pale blue dot we inhabit temporarily.
Certainly worth watching though for anyone with a passing interest in, well pretty much anything on or beyond this pale blue dot we inhabit temporarily. 
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff