Same here. My husband thinks the DVD set was a present for him. 
Duke of Rat, thanks for that particular perspective – both the photo and the words. I should make it the first thing I see every morning and the last thing I see at night.
Sagan would have wanted to throttle me, but I found the series spiritually invigorating.
A great tribute would be a video of Carl Sagan saying that at the end of an appropriate speech and then ending with a credit montage of Carl Sagan with the song We are All Made of Stars. So inspirational… I just know the signal would reach him some day 
tear
I have to say that now, a quarter of a century later, the music doesn’t hold up all that well. Vangelis was great at the time, but now it just seems repetative. I remember I liked the Middle Eastern-sounding track and something like The Sound Of Swans Feathering Their Nests. (I think that was what it was called. Something with a Japanese flute in it, anyway.) One of these days I’ll have to dig out the ol’ vinyl and turntable.
Like the sun.
No one’s denigrating it, just pointing out that through the course of the series he never actually said it.
It never sounded to me as if he was saying beelions. (‘We don’t need any stinking badges! We have beelions of badges!’) It always sounded like BILLions to me.
It was his pronunciation of ‘human’ as ‘yuman’ that really caught my ear.
He did, however, eventually write a book with that title. 
Did I prompt the Cisco Kid ad? I mean, I’m just sayin’ - pretty cool if I did 
.
We can now continue with our regularly scheduled thread.
Biggirl writes:
> It is quite evocative of his voice and style.
Actually, saying the word “billions” in that exaggerated fashion was not characteristic of Sagan in anything else. He said afterwards that he only emphasized the “b” in the word “billions” in Cosmos because he found himself saying both “millions” and “billions” a lot in the series (since it was about astronomical numbers, so to speak), and he wanted to be sure that the listeners knew when he was saying each of the numbers. Sagan was disconcerted afterwards when that exaggerated pronunciation was the main thing some viewers remembered about the series.
Cisco writes:
> . . . theists and philosophers have such a vitriolic hate for Dawkins that they’ve
> pretty much Godwinized him out of any discussion . . .
Cite? The only prominent person that I know of who disliked Dawkins’s theories a great deal (and I wouldn’t say that it rose to the level of “vitriolic hate”) was Stephen Jay Gould, a fellow biologist who also wrote for a popular audience. Gould was not a philosopher, and I have no idea if he was a theist. He never specifically mentioned his religious views in his writings that I know of. Gould often related the biological concepts he discussed in his essays to general cultural concepts, which were occasionally religious concepts. You can’t understand Western culture without knowing at least a little bit about Christian history and theology, so occasionally Gould mentioned ideas from Christian history and theology. On the other hand, Gould also often related biological concepts to ideas derived from baseball, and I suspect that he really was a baseball fan.
I await it’s arrival on YouTube
Now how am I supposed to cite something like that? I’m referring to real-life discussions I’ve had with philosophy graduates and professors and exceptionally intelligent creationists. The ones who know who Dawkins is hate him.
I guess I could bring you with me to a college campus but that seems a little much for a cite on the sdmb.
As it happens, I might have the footage here on my shelf. I was thinking about having Mutilation Maniacs transfered to DV so that I could clean it up. It’s possible that the ‘Sagan’ footage is on the outtake reel.
Only my Final Cut Pro isn’t working at the moment. And I haven’t gotten round to having the super-8 footage transferred. There’s a music video we shot with a Bakersfield band called Burning Image. I have that on super-8 as well, but it’s up at the house. I’d like to get everything transfered at the same time. (Come to think of it, I have some 16mm stuff in the freezer that needs to be transfered and processed too.)
Cisco writes:
> Now how am I supposed to cite something like that? I’m referring to real-life
> discussions I’ve had with philosophy graduates and professors and
> exceptionally intelligent creationists. The ones who know who Dawkins is hate
> him.
O.K., then, the most that you can say is that some philosophers and some creationists hate him. That’s not what you say in your post:
> Sagan is like Dawkins with a slightly smaller bite, which makes him much more
> accessible to the masses (theists and philosophers have such a vitriolic hate for
> Dawkins that they’ve pretty much Godwinized him out of any discussion, if
> that’s proper use of the verb.)
That sounds to me like you’re saying that most theists and philosophers hate Dawkins. At the very least, I would assume from that post that what you’re saying is that you’ve read a number of philosophers and theists who say, in books or articles, that they hate Dawkins. There are a lot of philosophers out there. There are a lot of theists out there (and most theists aren’t creationists). I really don’t think most of them, or even a significant proportion of them, have a vitrolic hate for Dawkins. It’s really not necessary to exaggerate to get your point across.
Sorry, I didn’t realize we were in Great Debates. I thought it stood to reason that I was speaking of my experience and I didn’t need a 3-paragraph disclaimer to avoid offending the 4 theists on the entire planet who luuuurve Richard Dawkins. If you’re so concerned, start a new thread.
Him too. Professor Sagan was unapologetic about how this stuff can work the same muscles in the curious atheist as religion can in those that believe. Except it’s even better, because 1) we’ve got proof, and 2) humans are intimately connected in the creation, if you will, of scientific understanding because we have to go figure it out, instead of merely soaking up “received wisdom” handed down from on high.
I was fortunate to get to know Professor Sagan a little in what turned out to be his final years, and more than anything else it’s his joie de vivre that strikes me. I think that comes through on the page as well as in this series.
–Cliffy
Check your local library. You can probably get it for free and keep it a long time.
That can in large measure be laid at the feet of Johnny Carson, who did billions and billions of Sagan jokes and IIRC did a number of skits with Sagan as a character.
Thanks for that. It actually makes it that much MORE meaningful!
Cosmos had a profound effect on me as a kid. I rewatched it when it started running on the Discovery channel, and I was totally impressed with how well it stood up. I was so impressed that when I ran across a copy of Demon Haunted World in a used bookstore in Chattanooga, I snatched it up and read it. It was very inspirational, and predicted much of what is going on in our society right now.
Looking back, the most impressive thing about Cosmos was its total inclusiveness. The story of the Rosetta Stone, for example, has almost nothing to do with astronomy, but it is one of the most compelling sequences in the series.
A bit misleading though. It’s crappy video quality and it appears to be subtitled in Spanish or Italian or something. If you want to download them, you have to download & install the Google video player.