admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10003) 7 years ago
Tomorrow on FOX and NAT GEO.



http://www.cosmosontv.com/
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10003) 7 years ago
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11816) 7 years ago
On FOX!?!?! I find that hilarious. I am watching on the National Geo channel.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10003) 7 years ago
FOX owns NAT GEO. So can't escape it.
Top
founder
supporter
Posted by Amorette Allison (+11816) 7 years ago
I know. But at least I am one more step removed from Rupert Murdoch.
Top
Posted by Elizabeth Emilsson (+787) 7 years ago
The same Fox that brings The Simpsons?
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10003) 7 years ago
FOX likes to make money!

CNN wrote:
The 13-week series is a reimagining of the 1980 PBS series "Cosmos: A Personal Voyage." Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson takes the place of the original host Carl Sagan, who died in 1996.

Science has "got to be mainstreamed in some way," Tyson said in an interview on CNN's "Reliable Sources." "Otherwise, people will view it as something to ignore or to step around."

What better way to mainstream it than a 9 p.m. time slot on the Fox network, usually taken up by animated comedies?

Tyson and the other proponents of the series -- like "Family Guy" executive producer Seth MacFarlane -- say they'll be able to reach people who aren't fans of PBS's "NOVA" or subscribers to Scientific American magazine.

There are people "who don't know that they like science," Tyson said. "They have a little flame inside of them of curiosity, and we're going to fan that flame."

"But then there's another category of people -- the people who know they don't like science. They've got no flame at all," he said. "So we're going to go in there and light it."

"Cosmos" represents a bet by the Fox network's parent company, 21st Century Fox (FOX), that Tyson and his producers can do just that.

The episodes take advantage of special effects technology and Tyson's accessible story-telling style to teach scientific concepts like evolution. Fox is promoting it as an adventure tale.

There was abundant surprise in 2011 when the network announced its interest in remaking "Cosmos."

...

A disaster is unlikely, if only because the series is backed by a multi-million dollar marketing campaign and what 21st Century Fox calls a "multi-network launch event."

The first episode of "Cosmos" won't just be seen on the Fox broadcast network. It will be screened simultaneously on nine of the company's cable channels, including FX, Fox Sports 1 and the National Geographic Channel.

National Geographic Channel will also re-run episodes of "Cosmos" on Monday nights, one day after Fox. International distribution deals will beam the series to TV screens in 181 countries -- only one planet, though, at least for now.

http://money.cnn.com/2014...sse-tyson/
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10003) 7 years ago
So for those who watched the new Cosmos "reboot" on FOX, what did you think?

I myself found it accurate but a bit disappointing. It seemed fairly fluffy, overly cinematic, simplistic, and rushed - no where near as powerful as the original done by Carl Sagan.

The last couple of minutes captured a tiny bit of his type of storytelling, and his type of connection to the viewer, but, IMO, Carl was sooo, soo much better conveying to the masses.

Although, perhaps I'm wrong. Perhaps the first episode of the remake addresses a completely different world than the one that existed to PBS over 3 decades ago. Perhaps it basically just serves to get people otherwise not interested at all, interested in the episodes to follow.

Wondering your thoughts.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10003) 7 years ago
BTW, the original Cosmos Episode 1 (with a short updated intro):

Top
supporter
sponsor
Posted by Hannah Nash (+2533) 7 years ago
NDT has said that they are hoping to "spark curiosity" with this new reboot of Cosmos. That young people are already curious and have a sense of wonderment; something lacking in many adults who are not interested in, or familiar with, many of the science concepts and the Scientific Method as detailed in this first episode.

So I viewed this initial episode with that lens on, based on NDT's and Seth MacFarlane's "intentions" and desires going into this process. With that lens, I perceived this first episode well: get the hooks in, spark that curiosity, and then take the audience deeper, to the next level next week.

If the show stays this "easy and basic" throughout the majority of the series, I will quickly lose interest. I hope that my lens is correct and that this was just the introduction. Catch me again in a couple of weeks... and we will see how it's progressed.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+183) 7 years ago
The series is off to a bad start. The introduction was nearly all Euro-centric. Little or no mention of science developed on the other 9/10ths of the planet, prior to 16th Century advancements in Europe. No mention of the Chinese at all. I guess it's to hard to do 10 minutes of research in sources other than Houghten-Mifflen.

A 5-minute segment on Bruno was entirely unnecessary and blatant editorializing in a production being touted as "science".

As the science advisor to Bill Maher, Neil DeGrasse-Tyson's comment on coal indicates to me that the harangue on man-caused global warming will permeate the upcoming episodes. With that comment, he showed his hand which made the early statement about the Scientific Method requiring us to "question everything", nothing more than lip service.

It appears this version of Cosmos isn't going to be about science. It's going to be a rehash of religion bashing and predictions of man-caused global catastrophy...with good graphics....
Top
Posted by Elizabeth Emilsson (+787) 7 years ago
As a former devotee of Carl Sagan, I was thrilled with the opening of the new Cosmos. It was so awesome and powerful and a fitting tribute to Sagan.
Top
supporter
Posted by 007 (+163) 7 years ago
I was a little disappointed, but will continue to be a fan.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 7 years ago
As the science advisor to Bill Maher, Neil DeGrasse-Tyson's comment on coal indicates to me that the harangue on man-caused global warming will permeate the upcoming episodes. With that comment, he showed his hand which made the early statement about the Scientific Method requiring us to "question everything", nothing more than lip service.


Stand strong oddjob, stand strong.
Top
Posted by Steve Sullivan (+1371) 7 years ago
I found it a bit soft and fluffy too, but I really liked some things:

When Neil said very directly "we are all star stuff." I thought that was great, and also when he put our short existence into perspective using the year calendar to represent just how short the few (relative) seconds or so that we've been around really is.

I hope they take the gloves off for other episodes. This first one might have been just to sucker the 'softies' in so maybe they'll continue to watch and learn.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 7 years ago
So, we got around to watching this last night, and I must say that oddjob's objections are pretty thin. The Bruno bit DID go on way to long, but it certainly wasn't 'religion bashing', unless you believe that the primary purpose of religion is a hidebound attachment to tradition that flies in the face of empirical evidence.

Regardless, my new measurement of any film or television show will be "would this make oddjob whine about his terrible butthurt?" and if the answer is yes, then I'll know it's probably something worth watching.
Top
supporter
Posted by Gunnar Emilsson (+17494) 7 years ago
Oddjob should move to Wyoming. Folks there don't cotton up to that newfangled science, either.

http://www.huffingtonpost...22333.html
Top
Posted by Steve Sullivan (+1371) 7 years ago
Bridgier - now that you mention it - the Bruno bit made a pretty good point that current dogma can actually be wrong. That maybe controlling religious beliefs aren't correct after all.

I felt that the point may have been that perhaps we all should just keep an open mind.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14970) 7 years ago
Perhaps next week NDT can read the ENTIRE story of Green Eggs & Ham.
Top
Posted by Oddjob (+183) 7 years ago
Steve Sullivan wrote:

"Bridgier - now that you mention it - the Bruno bit made a pretty good point that current dogma can actually be wrong."

"I felt that the point may have been that perhaps we all should just keep an open mind."

Interesting point.

Could that "current dogma" possibly include the "settled science" of man-caused global warming?

Not likely, as appears the evangelists of Gaia would prefer the Bruno solution for the heretic "deniers", rather than a rational discussion on the merits of an opposing point of view.


Gunnar

"But Gov. Mead has in the past expressed his doubts about climate change, and these beliefs may have contributed to his decision to approve the anti-NGSS amendment. According to ThinkProgress, Mead has previously said he is "unconvinced climate change is man-made.”"

You claim to be a scientist, but did you ever question the source of the article in the link you posted? Did you ever think, for a minute, that 99% of the people who question the "settled science" of man-made climate change are not in the same bucket as the "6000-year old Earth" nut cases to which the Progressive inference is constantly made?

In case you haven't noticed, a majority of the people can tell the difference between facts, lies and propaganda. I'm glad the Governor of Wyoming is among them.
Top
supporter
Posted by Bridgier (+9224) 7 years ago
Here's my thing -

1) C02 is a greenhouse gase
2) We've added an extraordinary amount of C02 to our atmosphere through the usage of fossil fuels over the last several centuries
3) Temperatures have begun rising on a year to year basis, in accordance with predictive models.
4) The VAST MAJORITY of scientists who study these things feel that #1 & #2 are responsible for #3.
5) Every counterexample I've heard to #3 above has not withstood any sort of scrutiny.

So, I don't know who's the "cultist" around here.
Top
supporter
Posted by Richard Bonine, Jr. (+14970) 7 years ago
It's interesting (and annoying) that when asked about his credentials, Oddjob basically goes into "I don't need to provide my qualifications to anyone" mode. And yet, he has the balls to challenge the credentials and source others provide.

Gunnar is a published and peer-reviewed scientist and an expert in his field. He is one of the best in the company that employs his services.

Choosing who to believe here is pretty simple.

+++
Gov. Mead's number one objective right now is shoring up his voting base in Campbell County. Anyone with a little bit of common sense can see the coal economy in Wyoming is fixing to crash and burn. If the Gov. were smart he's start transitioning the economy to what's next.

[This message has been edited by Richard Bonine, Jr. (3/12/2014)]
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10003) 7 years ago
I watched it again with someone who doesn't know that much about science, and they were fascinated and want to see the next episode about life. I don't know if they would have watched the original series, probably would have found it too boring. So contrary to my original thoughts, I guess the show has the correct approach for introducing new people to the way the Universe actually works.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10003) 7 years ago
I thought the second episode was much better. Was more along the lines of what I expected out of the series. Looking forward to the next!
Top
supporter
Posted by cj sampsel (+481) 7 years ago
I agree completely.
Top
admin
moderator
founder
Posted by MilesCity.com Webmaster (+10003) 7 years ago
I just watched Episode 4 and thought it was outstanding. The best yet. If you haven't seen it, check it out.
Top