The Straight Dope

Go Back   Straight Dope Message Board > Main > The BBQ Pit

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 03-09-2014, 11:06 PM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,661
Cosmos: A Waste of Spacetime

I knew I shouldn't get my hopes up for the remake of Sagan's extraordinarily great and thoughtful series, but even so, I never expected it to be this poor!

I'll repeat what I wrote in another post: What really ruined it for me was that unlike the original Cosmos -- which was lovingly broadcast on PBS -- this thing was absolutely drowning in innumerable and incredibly disrupting commercials!

It very much seemed that NGT was rushing like crazy to get something said before the next mind-bogglingly awful ad. Gone was the lushly engaging, warmly contemplative pace of Sagan's approach, and in its place here was NGT speeding to get a tweet-length bit of cheap, inaccurate prose out before Fox cut him off again.

As to the content, why the hell spend so much time grossly exaggerating the importance of Bruno, with a cheap-ass cartoon (it doesn't deserve the term 'animation'), no less? Just to get a bit of scientifically irrelevant Church-bashing in?

But to me, the worst part was the treatment of the Big Bang. Completely ignoring the actual science, they ignorantly illustrated the Big Bang as an explosion, and worse yet, NGT referred to it the same stupid way!

Idiots!! The Big Bang was NOT an explosion, and in fact that view is one of the first things any potential cosmologist has to unlearn before they begin their studies in earnest. To have an explosion, you have to have something to explode into, but space did not yet exist! It was being created simultaneously.

Some terrible misunderstandings arise if you think of the BB as an explosion. The foremost is that it then becomes "natural" to ask where the BB occurred, or where the center of the Universe is. But since it wasn't an explosion, these concepts are utterly meaningless.

Furthermore, NGT didn't even mention inflation! Sagan had an excuse, as Guth's idea was just barely coming into public knowledge by the time the original Cosmos was broadcast (and obviously, the series was created well before being broadcast in 1980). But there's no excuse for this remade piece of dreck!

Boo!

Last edited by ambushed; 03-09-2014 at 11:08 PM..
Reply With Quote
Advertisements  
  #2  
Old 03-09-2014, 11:18 PM
bump bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambushed View Post
I'll repeat what I wrote in another post: What really ruined it for me was that unlike the original Cosmos -- which was lovingly broadcast on PBS -- this thing was absolutely drowning in innumerable and incredibly disrupting commercials!
Get a DVR.

Quote:
As to the content, why the hell spend so much time grossly exaggerating the importance of Bruno, with a cheap-ass cartoon (it doesn't deserve the term 'animation'), no less? Just to get a bit of scientifically irrelevant Church-bashing in?

But to me, the worst part was the treatment of the Big Bang. Completely ignoring the actual science, they ignorantly illustrated the Big Bang as an explosion, and worse yet, NGT referred to it the same stupid way!

Idiots!! The Big Bang was NOT an explosion, and in fact that view is one of the first things any potential cosmologist has to unlearn before they begin their studies in earnest. To have an explosion, you have to have something to explode into, but space did not yet exist! It was being created simultaneously.
My suspicion is that NGT will go into it in greater detail in a subsequent episode and explain all that. This was more or less the introductory paragraph, not the whole enchilada.

And... from what I understand, space wasn't "being created simultaneously" as if there was some sort of timeline, but rather was created instantaneously at the very moment of the big bang, and the rest has essentially been expansion and cooling. Close enough to an "explosion" for that episode though.

Quote:
Furthermore, NGT didn't even mention inflation! Sagan had an excuse, as Guth's idea was just barely coming into public knowledge by the time the original Cosmos was broadcast (and obviously, the series was created well before being broadcast in 1980). But there's no excuse for this remade piece of dreck!

Boo!
Again, you sound like it's all over with in 1 hour. We have quite a few episodes to go... and do you really think NGT would go parrot something that would be so very wrong in that sense?

I somehow doubt that one of the premier science educators of our day would go off saying things that are flat-out wrong.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 03-09-2014, 11:28 PM
River Hippie River Hippie is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: N.E. Indiana, USA
Posts: 3,520
I'll wait for the DVD or Netflix.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 03-09-2014, 11:33 PM
randompattern randompattern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Who is NGT?
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 03-09-2014, 11:38 PM
drastic_quench drastic_quench is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Quote:
Originally Posted by randompattern View Post
Who is NGT?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nigeria%27s_Got_Talent
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 03-09-2014, 11:42 PM
Rhythmdvl Rhythmdvl is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Shakedown Street
Posts: 12,431
Neil deGrasse Tyson


I haven't seen any of it yet, but I really hope Bump is right---that he'll get deeper and more thorough as time (heh) goes on. But it's on Fox, which means targeted sound bites and stay-tunedness is inherent in the production values. Still, I'm holding my breath.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 03-09-2014, 11:42 PM
randompattern randompattern is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
drastic quench, thank you for the clarify.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 03-09-2014, 11:43 PM
nevadaexile nevadaexile is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2011
Sagan set such a high bar that it would be difficult for almost anyone to meet or exceed what he has done. I'd give NGT a few more episodes to see if this is something that perhaps should have remained on the drawing board.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 03-09-2014, 11:54 PM
nearwildheaven nearwildheaven is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
So, does NdeGT say "billyuns and billyuns"?

Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 03-09-2014, 11:58 PM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Get a DVR.
Like most people, I already have one. But that can't solve the actual problem, which is deeper and more fundamental. Skipping the commercials would make it less painful, of course, but the underlying problem is that the creators had to chop the content into easily chewable little bite-size fragments that damages, if not utterly destroys, continuity. That leaves no time for contemplation, for long explanations, for illustrating gradual changes, etc., etc. It's geared to those with very low concentration spans and the effect is painfully anti-intellectual, quite unlike Sagan's vision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
My suspicion is that NGT will go into it in greater detail in a subsequent episode and explain all that. This was more or less the introductory paragraph, not the whole enchilada.
Sure there will be more episodes, but there's no excuse for fibbing now only to tell the truth later! It is fine to abbreviate, but laying out falsehoods is a terrible idea, even if they're only brief falsehoods.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
And... from what I understand, space wasn't "being created simultaneously" as if there was some sort of timeline, but rather was created instantaneously at the very moment of the big bang, and the rest has essentially been expansion and cooling. Close enough to an "explosion" for that episode though.
Your words are a bit ambiguous, so we might not actually disagree very much. However, space was definitely not created "instantaneously at the very moment of the big bang" if by that you mean some volume of even-limited space existed into which the BB "exploded". The inflation/expansion of space was completely commensurate/simultaneous with the Big Bang. I stand by my words in the OP.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
...and do you really think NGT would go parrot something that would be so very wrong in that sense?

I somehow doubt that one of the premier science educators of our day would go off saying things that are flat-out wrong.
I'm puzzled by this as well, which is why I pointed it out in my OP. NGT definitely knows better (as does Ann Druyan), so why did they misrepresent the facts? My guess for now is that somewhere along the line (at Fox perhaps?), some knuckle-dragger forced them to dumb it down into imbecility for the sake of network TV ratings.

All in all a very sad thing.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 03-10-2014, 12:06 AM
dropzone dropzone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Cloud Cuckoo Land
Posts: 23,347
Me: Oh, is that Cosmos?

Wife: It just started. You didn't miss any new revelations.

Me: I don't expect us to. This is just a way for other people to catch up some.

Bruno animation sucked. Too long and too concentrated on his "astronomy" while ignoring what really got him executed--which is a flaw in nearly every popular-sciencey look at him--and too much Catholic bashing, which was a sop to the stereotypical Fox viewer, I suppose.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-10-2014, 12:11 AM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,661
Another, if definitely smaller, issue I have is with the background music. So far, anyway, they've made quite bland choices, sounding like the stuff you get free bundled with video editors and DVD/Blu-Ray authoring software.

Sagan made far superior choices.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-10-2014, 12:12 AM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by dropzone View Post
Bruno animation sucked. Too long and too concentrated on his "astronomy" while ignoring what really got him executed--which is a flaw in nearly every popular-sciencey look at him--and too much Catholic bashing, which was a sop to the stereotypical Fox viewer, I suppose.
I agree completely!
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-10-2014, 12:14 AM
MsRobyn MsRobyn is offline
Straight Dope Science Advisory Board
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Between the Moon and NYC
Posts: 12,450
Don't forget that the political climate is a lot different than it was. A lot of fundamentalists won't watch PBS, and if PBS had aired Cosmos, you can bet that every Republican in Congress would be calling for hearings and using the show as an excuse to cut funding for public broadcasting. So by airing it on commercial TV, the series gets a broader audience than it would have and with a lot less political controversy, aside from the usual suspects getting their panties in a knot and threatening to boycott the show's sponsors. And, of course, Seth MacFarlane is one of the producers and Fox needs him as much as, if not more than, he needs them.

And c'mon. This is a pilot episode. The show has 12 episodes to go, and I'm sure that each one will go into a single subject in some depth. Some slack is definitely called for here.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-10-2014, 12:45 AM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by MsRobyn View Post
Don't forget that the political climate is a lot different than it was. A lot of fundamentalists won't watch PBS, and if PBS had aired Cosmos, you can bet that every Republican in Congress would be calling for hearings and using the show as an excuse to cut funding for public broadcasting.
Hmmm.... Not that I underestimate the lust of the Right to find pointless windmills to charge, but I don't really see it in this case. What did you have in mind that they'd complain about? The Roman Catholic Church-bashing? But there it was on Fox anyway! I'm curious what you had in mind.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MsRobyn View Post
So by airing it on commercial TV, the series gets a broader audience than it would have and with a lot less political controversy, aside from the usual suspects getting their panties in a knot and threatening to boycott the show's sponsors.
Be that as it may, busting the content into individual bite-size chunks separated by numerous, seemingly endless high-volume commercials severely damaged the whole presentation! And it's not all that uncommon for the major traditional networks to air some programs with little or no commercial interruptions, so there's really not much excuse for butchering it so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MsRobyn View Post
And, of course, Seth MacFarlane is one of the producers and Fox needs him as much as, if not more than, he needs them.
I'm not sure what relevance that has, except perhaps to suggest that MacFarlane either didn't care about the presentation very much or that he had no power to improve it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MsRobyn View Post
And c'mon. This is a pilot episode. The show has 12 episodes to go, and I'm sure that each one will go into a single subject in some depth. Some slack is definitely called for here.
Oh, I'll be recording future episodes, but my guess is that they're all already in the can, so it seems unlikely that any improvements will be made based on any critical contemporary suggestions.

But a major issue remains, which I referred to above: Why fib now, only to tell the truth later?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-10-2014, 01:00 AM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,661
Here's an interesting quotation, cribbed from the Wikipedia article Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wikipedia
Druyan describes the themes of wonder and skepticism they are infusing into the scripts, in an interview with Skepticality, "In order for it to qualify on our show it has to touch you. It still has to be rigorously good science--no cutting corners on that. [emphasis added]
Oh, well. I guess a few corners had to be cut anyway, probably to suit the Suits.

:sigh:

Last edited by ambushed; 03-10-2014 at 01:01 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-10-2014, 01:45 AM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,661
Another minor nit: Was copying Boba Fett's spacecraft design really the best they could come up with?
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-10-2014, 01:53 AM
levdrakon levdrakon is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
I was just watching a NOVA special on the multiverse. Now I'm looking forward to how Cosmos visualizes it.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-10-2014, 02:44 AM
friedo friedo is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Brooklyn
Posts: 20,761
I don't like Neil deGrasse Tyson. He seems like kind of a dick. Like the Bob Vila of space.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-10-2014, 03:43 AM
ambushed ambushed is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Posts: 2,661
Quote:
Originally Posted by levdrakon View Post
I was just watching a NOVA special on the multiverse. Now I'm looking forward to how Cosmos visualizes it.
Well, there are theoretical mutiverses and theoretical multiverses, unfortunately encompassing distinctly different notions (I've long held that the dislike of neologisms among scientists has significantly degraded the comprehension of science, particularly among non-scientists). There's the MWI version (which Martin Gardner, with mixed justification, criticized here: Multiverses and Blackberries, and several other versions, such as that related to the rebuttals against the so-called anthropic principle, and the mulitiverse concept related to inflationary theory, etc., etc.

The problem is, all of these theoretical multiverses are still highly speculative, and arguably even unscientific (in what I'll call the neo-Popperian view). The Wikipedia page points to this critical essay by cosmologist Paul Davies in the New York Times: A Brief History of the Multiverse

But I'll give Tyson a pass on this, because he only says "Many of us suspect" the existence of a multiverse. But the question remains: which multiverse, among the many to choose from, will he address?

Last edited by ambushed; 03-10-2014 at 03:46 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 03-10-2014, 05:36 AM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 11,960
It was a deliberate decision by the makers of the new Cosmos (McFarland, Tyson, Druyan, et al.) to put the series on a commercial channel rather than PBS. There are too many people who simply won't watch PBS no matter what. This way they get people watching it who ordinarily don't see science series. It was a deliberate decision by the makers to have the first episode be somewhat introductory, so people with a reasonable amount of astronomical knowledge will be saying, "Come on, get to something I don't know." That episode is aimed at people with little astronomical knowledge. The later episodes will be deeper apparently. This is what it says in various articles I've read recently about the new Cosmos.

Let's not pretend that the old Cosmos was that utterly brilliant. Yes, it taught a lot of astronomical knowledge. Unfortunately, it also had a lot of scenes of Sagan simply standing there and supposedly looking handsome and inspiring. Furthermore, it had some things in it which were no more than Sagan's personal obcessions. One that I remember was that he talks at one point about subatomic universes, although he says that it may never be possible to prove or disprove it. Subatomic universes make no sense in modern physics. They make have made a little sense in the short period after introduction of the model of the atom as if it were like a solar system but before the introduction of quantum theory. Now it's just nonsense that people smoking dope talk about when they are high (as in a scene in Animal House). Incidentally, Sagan smoked a lot of dope.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 03-10-2014, 06:14 AM
kaylasdad99 kaylasdad99 is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Anaheim, CA
Posts: 21,746
Who (or what) is (or was) Bruno?
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 03-10-2014, 06:34 AM
naita naita is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaylasdad99 View Post
Who (or what) is (or was) Bruno?
Giordano Bruno
Suggested there were countless stars that were just like the Sun and had planets with life. Was burned at the stake for, among other things: "denial of the Trinity, denial of the divinity of Christ, denial of virginity of Mary, and denial of Transubstantiation." (Wikipedia)

Last edited by naita; 03-10-2014 at 06:34 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 03-10-2014, 07:13 AM
Wendell Wagner Wendell Wagner is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Greenbelt, Maryland
Posts: 11,960
I wrote:

> . . . Sagan's personal obcessions . . .

I meant:

> . . . Sagan's personal obsessions . . .

I wrote:

> . . . They make have made a little sense . . .

I meant:

> . . . They may have made a little sense . . .
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 03-10-2014, 07:31 AM
SeaDragonTattoo SeaDragonTattoo is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Chicago, Far Northsider
Posts: 5,850
Seriously shut up about the commercials. It's a broadcast channel that's not PBS. You sound like someone who has never watched TV before. "OMG the commercial television watching is so terrible because commercials!" Really a stupid thing to complain about. I don't hear anything different in NGT's delivery than when he does NOVA ScienceNOW.

Perhaps, just maybe, the delivery has to do with modern sound-bite audiences who are constantly multi-tasking, and whose attention is difficult to keep. They're not trying to hold your attention, they're trying to hold the attention of the Fox Network Sunday evening demographic, who have their phones, laptops, and tablets going at the same time as the show. The modern viewing audience is a whole world (dare I say universe?) different than it was when Sagan's series aired. Of course there's no room for contemplation and long explanations, good grief! Talk about a sure way to make people change the channel!

As to the rest of your complaints, carry on.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 03-10-2014, 07:39 AM
Antigen Antigen is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: was Montreal, now MD
Posts: 7,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambushed View Post
As to the content, why the hell spend so much time grossly exaggerating the importance of Bruno, with a cheap-ass cartoon (it doesn't deserve the term 'animation'), no less? Just to get a bit of scientifically irrelevant Church-bashing in?
Boo!
I actually thought it was very non-Church-bashing. Cosmos is about science and the universe, yes, but it's also as much about the wonder and awe that can be inspired by a look at everything around us. I think that showing Bruno's idea of an infinite universe created by his infinite God was a beautiful way of making it all more accessible to those who still have a science vs religion mentality. The universe is amazing and infinite and wonderful - and whether you see it as God's creation or a purely natural phenomenon, that wonder doesn't go away.

I agree that it was extremely light on science (at least , to my liking), but that's sort of the point. To inspire people who don't know much about any of this. I'll bet that there are tons of people who didn't know that Saturn's rings are essentially made from millions of little snowballs. And now they do. And maybe they'll go to Wikipedia to look up more.

Yes, the ads are annoying. But putting it on PBS would have kept the audience so much smaller. There are already tons of wonderful programs on PBS that cover these topics - Cosmos is supposed to get people interested enough to maybe consider changing channels once in a while.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 03-10-2014, 08:29 AM
Lightnin' Lightnin' is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambushed View Post
But to me, the worst part was the treatment of the Big Bang. Completely ignoring the actual science, they ignorantly illustrated the Big Bang as an explosion, and worse yet, NGT referred to it the same stupid way!
If you can't describe the Big Bang as an "explosion", how would you describe it? It was (as I understand it) a sudden, rapid expansion with a thermal gradient over time- how is that not best described to laymen as an explosion?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 03-10-2014, 09:47 AM
BlackKnight BlackKnight is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
I haven't had a chance to watch the episode yet, but I don't understand the problem with using the word "explosion" to describe the Big Bang. It was an explosion:
Quote:
Originally Posted by http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/explosion
4. a sudden, rapid, or great increase
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 03-10-2014, 09:51 AM
Ferret Herder Ferret Herder is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Apparently the NatGeo broadcast has extra material. DVR it off of that.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 03-10-2014, 09:57 AM
Moe Moe is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
OK, just finished it. My take first off is that I liked it. I liked it a lot and I'm very glad it's being done. I'm accepting of the fact that many of the aforementioned shortcomings (which I agree with) are actually to its benefit in terms of what good it can do culturally. (the commercials, being on FOX instead of PBS, the sorta sound-bite chaptering..). I want this to reach people who would otherwise remain ignorant of basic science and the awe and wonder of the natural world.

So I'm happy and eagerly awaiting the next episode...

BUT,

There's no getting around the comparison to Sagan, and on that front, it's just lacking. Seriously lacking. It's a very good science documentary and it feels that way, but somehow Sagan's had this incredible sense of depth and contemplation. This was something I feared just from seeing the difference in the 2 personalities. NDT is not good alone in front of a camera without people. He's at his best during the Q&A's at the end of a talk where he just get energized by the interaction, or moderating a panel discussion. On screen he often looks over-rehearsed and awkward trying to figure out just how to swing his arms when he walks. He's putting a lot of effort into delivering those lines and you feel it in his voice. Sagan never seemed to be reading from a script. He just kinda spoke to you and you could feel his own awe and wonder at the same time. It's actually amazing to see just how genuine he manages to come across.

Agreed with all on the whole Bruno animation segment.

On the initial ship of the imagination voyage - What Sagan did was totally brilliant. He started the journey from far away and took us gradually to Earth. It was profoundly moving to start out lost somewhere in the distant cosmic ocean and to slowly find our way to the local group, to the Milky Way, to our solar system, and finally to home. It's such a stunningly beautiful segment and one that makes me tear up watching it. By NDT starting on Earth and then going outward, it just doesn't have that profound sense of weight. I would've started from the edge of the observable universe, made to the journey to Earth, and then asked the question about what's beyond the observable universe in order to quickly shot back out there and then introduce the multiverse.

Also, one of the aspects of Sagan's Cosmos that worked on a subconscious level was the fact that almost all shots of him in a town or among society took place in pre-industrial settings. You rarely saw cars or electric lights. You saw candles, horses and buggies, old machinery... This back drop subconsciously creates an environment that allows one to easily imagine the process of scientific exploration happening. We know intuitively how much there is still to learn and you get a sense of how, historically, humans have worked to figure things out. Seeing NDT walk down modern streets with cars in the background just feels flat.

Again, I'm enjoying it, I'm glad it's happening. BUT, every now and again, maybe once or twice a year, I get an urge to watch on old episode of Sagan's Cosmos, and afterward I feel contemplative and perhaps, dare I say it, somewhat spiritual. I can't imagine having that same urge in the future with Tyson's.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 03-10-2014, 10:09 AM
lost4life lost4life is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
I liked it, but during the animations I was waiting for Bruno to start yelling "Lana! Lana! LAAAAANAAA!"

(in short, the animations looked like Archer to me)

IIRC, the original Cosmos had music by Vangelis.
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 03-10-2014, 10:12 AM
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Quote:
Originally Posted by Antigen View Post
I actually thought it was very non-Church-bashing. Cosmos is about science and the universe, yes, but it's also as much about the wonder and awe that can be inspired by a look at everything around us. I think that showing Bruno's idea of an infinite universe created by his infinite God was a beautiful way of making it all more accessible to those who still have a science vs religion mentality. The universe is amazing and infinite and wonderful - and whether you see it as God's creation or a purely natural phenomenon, that wonder doesn't go away.
Well, I watched the episode with a 13 year old girl and when the animation ended she asked" Why was the church such jerks?" So whether they intended it or not to be church-bashing, I think it came off that way to a lot of people. Also, and this is really nitpicky, but when he was tied to the stake and they thrust the crucifix in his face, he turned aside which I thought was lame and undercut the idea that you could be religious and scientific.

Last edited by Inner Stickler; 03-10-2014 at 10:13 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 03-10-2014, 10:32 AM
Gatopescado Gatopescado is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Weak effort. 3 out of 10. A blot on Tyson's escutcheon.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 03-10-2014, 11:06 AM
Horatius Horatius is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambushed View Post
Another minor nit: Was copying Boba Fett's spacecraft design really the best they could come up with?


Damn, I'm glad I'm not the only one who saw that!
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 03-10-2014, 11:28 AM
monstro monstro is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
I'm trying to think of a better word than "explosion" that is appropriate for a general audience. Super duper inflation? Mega rapid expansion? Nope, got nothing and it appears neither does the OP.

I didn't mind the commercials. I always use the nine o'clock hour to get ready for bedtime, so the commercials allowed me get stuff done without missing anything.

I thought it was pretty good. I liked the Bruno animation because it was so herky-jerky and surreal. And I loved that it was church-bashy. The church did and has always held back science. I thought the segment was a good way of showing how narrow-minded it is allow tradition to define the truth.

In the context of the normal Sunday night Fox programming, this debut was outstanding. And I think it should be applauded, no matter how dumbed down for the masses it appears to be. Maybe it will restore some of the IQ points that Family Guy detracts.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 03-10-2014, 11:28 AM
PSXer PSXer is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
yeah but if it was on PBS it wouldn't reach the pleb masses who need it most

maybe when the hicks see this on FOX instead of NASCAR or football or something this will finally be the thing that convinces them to stop living in ignorance
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 03-10-2014, 11:41 AM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 8,967
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inner Stickler View Post
Well, I watched the episode with a 13 year old girl and when the animation ended she asked" Why was the church such jerks?" So whether they intended it or not to be church-bashing, I think it came off that way to a lot of people.
To be fair to your 13 year old, the church really were "jerks" through most of history. Not that any other contemporary organizations looked much better.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 03-10-2014, 11:43 AM
Broomstick Broomstick is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NW Indiana
Posts: 19,205
I watched the original Cosmos and loved it, but seriously, there were some major flaws there, including far too much lingering on Sagan's profile.

Unfortunately, I missed most of the first episode, but what I saw didn't bother me in the least.
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 03-10-2014, 11:43 AM
elmwood elmwood is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Upstate New York
Posts: 9,307
Get over your nostalgia. Give NDT the opportunity to inspire the next generation, the same way Carl Sagan inspired ours.

Last edited by elmwood; 03-10-2014 at 11:44 AM..
Reply With Quote
  #40  
Old 03-10-2014, 11:47 AM
Sattua Sattua is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
The Bruno animation was a little lengthy but, okay. I prefer it to casting cheesy actors.

The animated cave paintings though? All I could do was yell "SHOW US REAL CAVE PAINTINGS!"
Reply With Quote
  #41  
Old 03-10-2014, 11:47 AM
Merneith Merneith is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Was the Bruno segment factually accurate? Then it's not "bashing" when you bring it up. If the truth makes the Church look bad, well, they need to own it.

Church supporters who think the show is obligated to avoid saying anything that offends their sensibilities should be strapped down, Clockwork-style, and made to rewatch that segment until they get the point.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 03-10-2014, 12:03 PM
RickJay RickJay is offline
Charter Jays Fan
Moderator
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Oakville, Canada
Posts: 32,165
Describing the Big Bang as an "explosion," if that is the worst mistake they made, means the show is pretty accurate, because that is not a mistake.

An "explosion" isn't a very scientific term. It has no particularly precise meaning; I can think of five distinct definitions of "explosion" without even cracking open my Canadian Oxford. One could quite easily argue the Big Bang WAS an explosion; it was the sudden expansion of something, which is a definition of "explosion" recognized in every good dictionary.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 03-10-2014, 12:04 PM
Inner Stickler Inner Stickler is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
That would be a very effective way to make them not interested in listening to you anymore. Is our goal here to get people interested in science or pissed at us?
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 03-10-2014, 12:05 PM
AaronX AaronX is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
I was privileged to view a sneak preview of the first episode, with no ads. It didn't seem choppy to me. NDT seems well-suited to these educational videos. In the Q&A he was witty and captivating. Here's a video: http://youtu.be/bB2le-geCoU (best answer to which is the most romantic phenomenon)

Quote:
Originally Posted by elmwood View Post
Get over your nostalgia. Give NDT the opportunity to inspire the next generation, the same way Carl Sagan inspired ours.

I think this may have some effect on people preferring the first series.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 03-10-2014, 01:20 PM
Shawn1767 Shawn1767 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2000
You do realize that the "Cambrian Explosion," also wasn't an "explosion." Yet, I believe Sagan referred to it that way.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 03-10-2014, 01:40 PM
Kelevra Kelevra is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: May 2012
Quote:
Originally Posted by ambushed View Post
I knew I shouldn't get my hopes up for the remake of Sagan's extraordinarily great and thoughtful series, but even so, I never expected it to be this poor!

...

Boo!
Well the mainstream media disagrees. CNN's headline is that "Cosmos dazzles".

Plus Wil Wheaton thought it was great. And of the random internet people whose opinions I value, where do you think you stand compared to Wil Wheaton??

Maybe I'll have my own opinion when I get a chance to watch it...
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 03-10-2014, 02:52 PM
Drunky Smurf Drunky Smurf is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wendell Wagner View Post
I wrote:

> . . . Sagan's personal obcessions . . .

I meant:

> . . . Sagan's personal obsessions . . .

I wrote:

> . . . They make have made a little sense . . .

I meant:

> . . . They may have made a little sense . . .
Will you seriously start using the quote function? This shit is annoying as fuck. And since you're always going on about how this board is for fighting ignorance* why don't you fight some of your own and use the quote function. Because this shit makes you look retarded with a capitol durp.

Like you doing right here:

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/...2&postcount=86




Quote:
Originally Posted by PSXer View Post
yeah but if it was on PBS it wouldn't reach the pleb masses who need it most

maybe when the hicks see this on FOX instead of NASCAR or football or something this will finally be the thing that convinces them to stop living in ignorance
As usual you have no idea what you're talking about. If you had ever even seen NASCAR you'd know about all the Science and Educational stuff they show during the breaks and half-time. It was while I was watching NASCAR some years ago when I first learned about the humping kangaroo. It's exctinct now but it was the humpingist animal that ever lived.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 03-10-2014, 03:08 PM
Chefguy Chefguy is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Portlandia
Posts: 29,532
I've liked Tyson ever since he pointed out to Jon Stewart that the globe in the opening sequence is turning the wrong way, and for knocking out Michael Spinks.

I'm surprised that Fox is airing something that flies in the face of creationism, but I have to grudgingly respect some of their programming, i.e., Justified.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 03-10-2014, 03:10 PM
Lobohan Lobohan is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drunky Smurf View Post
As usual you have no idea what you're talking about. If you had ever even seen NASCAR you'd know about all the Science and Educational stuff they show during the breaks and half-time. It was while I was watching NASCAR some years ago when I first learned about the humping kangaroo. It's exctinct now but it was the humpingist animal that ever lived.
Yes. Surely we are too strong in our dismissal of NASCAR and its educational benefits.


As for the OP and his hysterical vagina inversion about the explosion, get a grip. I'm pretty sure the big bang was invisible to human eyes, so bitching about the graphic is a little stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 03-10-2014, 03:29 PM
Bricker Bricker is online now
And Full Contact Origami
SDSAB
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 45,612
Quote:
Originally Posted by naita View Post
Giordano Bruno
Suggested there were countless stars that were just like the Sun and had planets with life. Was burned at the stake for, among other things: "denial of the Trinity, denial of the divinity of Christ, denial of virginity of Mary, and denial of Transubstantiation." (Wikipedia)
To be clear, Bruno's fate did not arise because of his theories about there being countless stars that were just like the Sun and had planets with life -- which, obviously, turned out to be correct, or very likely correct.

His fate came about because he denied Jesus' divinity, said that Satan would be saved, and that Jesus had been a skilfull magician.
Reply With Quote
Reply



Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:56 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@chicagoreader.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright 2013 Sun-Times Media, LLC.