What did y'all think?

I'm adoring the updated information (planets everywhere!) and slicked up presentation (holy shit the multi-verse). It's going to be a cool couple of weeks.

Not gonna lie too - got a bit teared up when they reached Pluto. Everything before that is home, guys.

I'm adoring the updated information (planets everywhere!) and slicked up presentation (holy shit the multi-verse). It's going to be a cool couple of weeks.

Not gonna lie too - got a bit teared up when they reached Pluto. Everything before that is home, guys.

My eyes were teared up before we even left Earth. Views from orbit always slay my feels and the rest of the trip throughout our system gave me chills.

Beautiful CGI, but DAT LENS FLARE!

I'm adoring the updated information (planets everywhere!) and slicked up presentation (holy shit the multi-verse). It's going to be a cool couple of weeks.

Not gonna lie too - got a bit teared up when they reached Pluto. Everything before that is home, guys.

My eyes were teared up before we even left Earth. Views from orbit always slay my feels and the rest of the trip throughout our system gave me chills.

Jupiter and Saturn stood at to me as particularly beautiful. Always was a fan of those two.

Beautiful CGI, but DAT LENS FLARE!

Lens flare is cruise control for the future!

Jupiter and Saturn stood at to me as particularly beautiful. Always was a fan of those two.

He had very kind words for Saturn, but I'm a Mars fangirl. That planet has it going on.

Lens flare is cruise control for the future!

Only if you disengage the external inertial dampeners.

Here you go, buddy!

I really find it odd that this isn't a science program made possible by contributions to your PBS station from viewers like you.

"The video you are attempting to watch is only available to viewers within the US, US territories, and military bases."

Nooooooooooooo

Btw, before it closes off on me, I get a single frame of Neil in tux. Keep up the classy, FOX. Keep up the classy.

Btw, before it closes off on me, I get a single frame of Neil in tux. Keep up the classy, FOX. Keep up the classy.

That was it. You were expecting something more?? :p

"The video you are attempting to watch is only available to viewers within the US, US territories, and military bases."

Time for you to seduce an American Sailor or Marine on liberty, Zack. :P

Jupiter and Saturn stood at to me as particularly beautiful. Always was a fan of those two.

He had very kind words for Saturn, but I'm a Mars fangirl. That planet has it going on.

Mars and Saturn are the planets of the hour, mostly cause we've got those fancy probes around 'em. Can't wait for the Jupiter and Pluto missions. I'm happy those will (likely) be in my lifetime.

Beautiful CGI, but DAT LENS FLARE!

Courtesy of...

Don't get me wrong. It was very good.

But it was unfocused, trying to balanced out trying to be a lot of things; kicking itself off, introducing new viewers, and harkening back to the original.

And as cool as Tyson is, he's never struck me as the master orator that Carl Sagan sometimes was. There were some very memeable moments, and the writing was pretty smart at times, but as a whole this just isn't delivering the same tier of performance. Also, the soundtrack's astronomical inferiority to the Vangelis original means that even if everything else was perfect, this show probably couldn't live up to the original.

I'm hoping (and somewhat expecting) it to tighten up with future episodes, though. This has a chance to make it's way at least into "great"-tier.

And as cool as Tyson is, he's never struck me as the master orator that Carl Sagan sometimes was. There were some very memeable moments, and the writing was pretty smart at times, but as a whole this just isn't delivering the same tier of performance. Also, the soundtrack's astronomical inferiority to the Vangelis original means that even if everything else was perfect, this show probably couldn't live up to the original.

This in particular. I could watch the original Cosmos with my eyes closed and still receive a stellar lesson in the happenings and affairs of the universe by Sagan, with that orgasmic soundtrack looming in the background.

I'm sure I won't get that feeling with Tyson's reboot, but its obvious that he cares so deeply about educating people about the topic that he simply needs to get into the flow of this new medium he's now a part of.

I need to stop posting in this topic now.

Just now I saw an ad saying that Cosmos will premier over here on Thursday, 22:30 local time. Guess who's not going to be well-rested on Friday?

Guess I won't have to seduce anyone, then. For now.

Don't get me wrong. It was very good.

But it was unfocused, trying to balanced out trying to be a lot of things; kicking itself off, introducing new viewers, and harkening back to the original.

And as cool as Tyson is, he's never struck me as the master orator that Carl Sagan sometimes was. There were some very memeable moments, and the writing was pretty smart at times, but as a whole this just isn't delivering the same tier of performance. Also, the soundtrack's astronomical inferiority to the Vangelis original means that even if everything else was perfect, this show probably couldn't live up to the original.

I'm hoping (and somewhat expecting) it to tighten up with future episodes, though. This has a chance to make it's way at least into "great"-tier.

I dunno, we watched some of the original not too long ago, and rewatched a little last night too. Seems about on par quality and performance wise. I suspect your beef may be more about style and presentation? I mean, that was my beef with the original - the FX and style are just so dated, it's hard for me to really dive in.

Thankfully, there's the book. :P

I dunno, we watched some of the original not too long ago, and rewatched a little last night too. Seems about on par quality and performance wise. I suspect your beef may be more about style and presentation?

Maybe, though I was reading some comments online about how Tyson is at his best when conversational and not trying to be "epic", and they seem to ring true.

At any rate, he's capable of being a good speaker.

I mean, that was my beef with the original - the FX and style are just so dated, it's hard for me to really dive in.

I see a lot of people saying this, but it's almost the opposite for me. The original certainly looks like it was made a few decades ago, but I still find the practical effects work charming.

This one? It looks like bad modern movie CGI, and it's got a serious case of a cinematographer being way too excited about a perfectly specular curved surface.

//=======================

On a semi-side note, the Bruno section came off as somewhat jarring to me. The use of that "christian cartoon" style, combined with the use of lots of extremely melodramatic voice acting, resulted in the whole thing feeling like an uncomfortably biting parody. I mean obviously the material is something that you could think bitterly toward, but... eh.
Maybe that's just me.

Which is unfortunate, because the actual material they presented in that section was an excellent choice, maybe even the best choice they made in that whole episode.

Jupiter and Saturn stood at to me as particularly beautiful. Always was a fan of those two.

He had very kind words for Saturn, but I'm a Mars fangirl. That planet has it going on.

Very wise! Mars has the biggest volcano in the solar system and a canyon that over 100 miles wide that spans the length of the continental US. Oh, and 3.5 billion years ago it had drinkable water!

I freaking loved it!

Sure, some things could be cleaned up but honestly there is so little science programming on network television that it's just incredibly refreshing to see. I mean, NdGT said very close to the beginning the show that Cosmos is about the "scientific method and testable hypotheses"... a not so subtle jab at the non-scientific shows (think History channel "aliens" or "ghosts" shows) or even real world non-scientific theories that are out there. That made me so happy I almost lost my pants. This is real science! Excitement!

I have a feeling that the next episodes are going to follow a much more linear path and tell a story about specific science topics that will be done in, hopefully, a more Sagan-like way.

Jupiter and Saturn stood at to me as particularly beautiful. Always was a fan of those two.

He had very kind words for Saturn, but I'm a Mars fangirl. That planet has it going on.

Mars and Saturn are the planets of the hour, mostly cause we've got those fancy probes around 'em. Can't wait for the Jupiter and Pluto missions. I'm happy those will (likely) be in my lifetime.

New Horizons gets to Pluto in July 2015. JUNO gets to Jupiter in 2016.

New Horizons gets to Pluto in July 2015. JUNO gets to Jupiter in 2016.

And the Voyagers keep on Voyagerizing.

It'll be sad when that thing kicks the bucket. Funny how a bit of proximity can result in a 1970's space probe still being a useful research tool in 2014.

Very wise! Mars has the biggest volcano in the solar system and a canyon that over 100 miles wide that spans the length of the continental US. Oh, and 3.5 billion years ago it had drinkable water!

Everything is bigger on Mars.

YEE-HAW!

New Horizons gets to Pluto in July 2015. JUNO gets to Jupiter in 2016.

And the Voyagers keep on Voyagerizing.

It'll be sad when that thing kicks the bucket. Funny how a bit of proximity can result in a 1970's space probe still being a useful research tool in 2014.

Last I heard they anticipate Voyager will keep working until about 2025. In 2020 or so they are planning to turn off their 1st science instrument because of diminishing power from their plutonium power source. That's amazing for something that has been going since the 70's! But after that first instrument goes dark there's only another 5 years left on the mission... at least that's the projection.

I freaking loved it!

Sure, some things could be cleaned up but honestly there is so little science programming on network television that it's just incredibly refreshing to see. I mean, NdGT said very close to the beginning the show that Cosmos is about the "scientific method and testable hypotheses"... a not so subtle jab at the non-scientific shows (think History channel "aliens" or "ghosts" shows) or even real world non-scientific theories that are out there. That made me so happy I almost lost my pants. This is real science! Excitement!

I have a feeling that the next episodes are going to follow a much more linear path and tell a story about specific science topics that will be done in, hopefully, a more Sagan-like way.

One thing I've heard, and that I agree with, is that Cosmos isn't for astronerds, but the astronerd curious on down.

I dunno, we watched some of the original not too long ago, and rewatched a little last night too. Seems about on par quality and performance wise. I suspect your beef may be more about style and presentation?

Maybe, though I was reading some comments online about how Tyson is at his best when conversational and not trying to be "epic", and they seem to ring true.

At any rate, he's capable of being a good speaker.

Having watched him on Colbert, and remembering some other moments, he does seem better when spontaneous. I'll keep that in mind as Cosmos moves on.

I mean, that was my beef with the original - the FX and style are just so dated, it's hard for me to really dive in.

I see a lot of people saying this, but it's almost the opposite for me. The original certainly looks like it was made a few decades ago, but I still find the practical effects work charming.

This one? It looks like bad modern movie CGI, and it's got a serious case of a cinematographer being way too excited about a perfectly specular curved surface.

//=======================

I see what you're saying, but don't have anything to add right now.

On a semi-side note, the Bruno section came off as somewhat jarring to me. The use of that "christian cartoon" style, combined with the use of lots of extremely melodramatic voice acting, resulted in the whole thing feeling like an uncomfortably biting parody. I mean obviously the material is something that you could think bitterly toward, but... eh.
Maybe that's just me.

Which is unfortunate, because the actual material they presented in that section was an excellent choice, maybe even the best choice they made in that whole episode.

I read some criticism that they shouldn't have included that section, as it's just a shot across the bow of relgiously minded folks, and that Sagan wouldn't have done that sort of thing.

So what do they think Sagan was doing in the original when they discussed the Library of Alexandria? If you listen even a little closely, there's some real anger in his voice. The book didn't pull any punches either in basically accusing authoritarian, which in antiquity were often religious, power structures from holding back human development thousands of years.

My breakdown:

First half hour or so = Beautiful, but devoid of any real content
Calendar time = Very nice, if a bit soul-crushing (I don't handle insignificance of lifetime very well...)
Last 5 minutes, especially when he starts talking about Sagan = worth every second I wasted waiting for the commercial breaks to end

First half hour or so = Beautiful, but devoid of any real content

The beauty was the content. ;)

Great post! You inspired a semi-rant in me.

I read some criticism that they shouldn't have included that [Bruno} section, as it's just a shot across the bow of relgiously minded folks, and that Sagan wouldn't have done that sort of thing.

So what do they think Sagan was doing in the original when they discussed the Library of Alexandria? If you listen even a little closely, there's some real anger in his voice. The book didn't pull any punches either in basically accusing authoritarian, which in antiquity were often religious, power structures from holding back human development thousands of years.

You make a really good point. As a religiously-minded person who is a fan of both, I think you are absolutely right: both the Bruno and Alexandrian segments carry the same tone and force, so people really shouldn't be surprised that there is a subtle polemic against religion. Furthermore, if people are upset, they are failing to look at history honestly. Sure, there were historical simplifications in the Bruno segment, but that doesn't change the fact that a Church, who worships a God whose main mode of operation is through sacrificial love on behalf of others, decided to kill someone who thought differently. Christians should look at that segment soberly because the scientific community rightly perceives the threat that religions have posed to scientific inquiry.

Sagan, and the new writers, expose the way that religious institutions have often operated out of fear and have suppressed ideas throughout history. If anything, religiously-minded people should be thanking them for the critique. If they want to prove Sagan's, often justified, fears of religiously oriented thinking wrong, they should take the critique to heart. I don't happen to agree with Sagan's rigid dichotomy between the religious community and scientific inquiry, but I totally understand why he has arrived at conclusions he has.

I loved the original show because Sagan was so good at communicating complex ideas thoughtfully and with a sense of wonder. In addition, he brought excellent moral concerns to the discussion table. He was such a rare gem in that regard (plus, if you add Vangelis to anything, it automatically gets like +1000 points added to its spacey wonder and awe-ness factor). As a pastor, I'm encouraging people in my community to watch this show and I hope that this new installment eventually approaches the quality of the original. We'll see...

Great post! You inspired a semi-rant in me.

I read some criticism that they shouldn't have included that [Bruno} section, as it's just a shot across the bow of relgiously minded folks, and that Sagan wouldn't have done that sort of thing.

So what do they think Sagan was doing in the original when they discussed the Library of Alexandria? If you listen even a little closely, there's some real anger in his voice. The book didn't pull any punches either in basically accusing authoritarian, which in antiquity were often religious, power structures from holding back human development thousands of years.

You make a really good point. As a religiously-minded person who is a fan of both, I think you are absolutely right: both the Bruno and Alexandrian segments carry the same tone and force, so people really shouldn't be surprised that there is a subtle polemic against religion. Furthermore, if people are upset, they are failing to look at history honestly. Sure, there were historical simplifications in the Bruno segment, but that doesn't change the fact that a Church, who worships a God whose main mode of operation is through sacrificial love on behalf of others, decided to kill someone who thought differently. Christians should look at that segment soberly because the scientific community rightly perceives the threat that religions have posed to scientific inquiry.

Sagan, and the new writers, expose the way that religious institutions have often operated out of fear and have suppressed ideas throughout history. If anything, religiously-minded people should be thanking them for the critique. If they want to prove Sagan's, often justified, fears of religiously oriented thinking wrong, they should take the critique to heart. I don't happen to agree with Sagan's rigid dichotomy between the religious community and scientific inquiry, but I totally understand why he has arrived at conclusions he has.

I loved the original show because Sagan was so good at communicating complex ideas thoughtfully and with a sense of wonder. In addition, he brought excellent moral concerns to the discussion table. He was such a rare gem in that regard (plus, if you add Vangelis to anything, it automatically gets like +1000 points added to its spacey wonder and awe-ness factor). As a pastor, I'm encouraging people in my community to watch this show and I hope that this new installment eventually approaches the quality of the original. We'll see...

This makes me happy! If you had any interesting stories to share in regards to your congregation and Cosmos, I'd appreciate an e-mail about it.

Nice rant, too. There is more common ground out there than some will allow.

I felt that they tried really hard to make religion itself exempt of guilt on the Bruno segment, since they kept repeating that Bruno defended his ideals through the notion that God's creation should be as infinite as God, while they hammered pretty hard the institution itself of the Church.

Not gonna lie too - got a bit teared up when they reached Pluto.

On February 11, 1999 I attended a Pluto Party. The occasion? On that day it passed Neptune's orbit to once again become the farthest planet from the sun. It has a highly irregular orbit that sometimes brings it closer. It was the 8th planet from the sun from 1979 to 1999.

Caring about Pluto before it was cool.

NEW HORIZONS NEXT YEAR WHO IS HYPE TO FINALLY ACTUALLY SEE IT?!

- No text -

That's the plot twist!

- No text -

NEW HORIZONS NEXT YEAR WHO IS HYPE TO FINALLY ACTUALLY SEE IT?!

All the hype. No. Seriously.

- No text -