That was great. I can already see i'll rewatch the fuck out of this series every day for the rest of my life.
[QUOTE=The_Marine;44191605]Well, that was fucking terrible.
A Carl Sagan circle jerk with an overly smug Neil DeGrasse Tyson and terribly cheap animations.
How could he let them get away with portraying the asteroid belt so wrong?
And the Cosmic Calendar was awful and condensed, so much better in the original.[/QUOTE]
I don't get how you can call them terribly cheap animations. They may not be Hollywood big budget quality but they're indisputably better than 99% of science shows on TV.
[editline]10th March 2014[/editline]
Also, if you missed it, here is the first episode, with ads:
[url]http://www.fox.com/watch/183733315515[/url]
[QUOTE=Aska49;44186186]The way they honored Carl at the end caught me off guard a little bit, I wasn't expecting it. I got all choked up.
I'm so ready for another Cosmos series, I can tell this will be fantastic.[/QUOTE]
I was expecting a sendoff to Carl like that. I just wasn't expecting it in the first episode.
This is pretty damn good. I love the animations especially.
If any Canadians are [URL="http://www.globaltv.com/cosmos/video/full+episodes/standing+up+in+the+milky+way/video.html?v=187535939720#video"]Interested[/URL]
Given that the next episode is called "Some of the Things That Molecules Do.", I am hoping they do an epic recreation of what was covered in episode 9 (my favourite) of the original series.
Watched this earlier. I adore the original and if anybody can remake it, it's Neil. I like what I see so far. The show seems close enough in feel to the original.
My only issue with the episode, and I hate to keep piling on the discussion, was the Bruno segment. One of my favorite things about the original was the way they talked about all these ancient mathmeticians, astronomers, philosophers, etc. They show the sometimes arduous, but often creative, ways that they discovered the things we take for granted.
In the Bruno segment, it's based around him finding a book written by Lucretius. If this were the original, the segment would have been about Lucretius, not about a guy who thought it was a cool story and by chance thought something that was true only by coincidence. Bruno was no scientist, just a martyr functioning on something he wanted to believe.
I feel like the point of that segment was to illustrate the way that the middle ages persecuted "knowledge." Which is fine, the original had a similar segment, except it made its point much, much better. It was about the burning of the Library of Alexandria. In there, the emphasis was on the enormous collection science and math, most of which was forever lost following its destruction. It's a much more poignant example and it really sticks with you.
But anyway, I'm only nitpicking on the sequence so much because it really stuck out from the rest of the episode. Everything else was great, which only made that part feel more out of place.
I haven't seen all of the original series, but were there any animated segments or is that a totally new thing?
I didn't care much for the Bruno segment either, it came off as too anti-religious rather than focusing on the scientific method which usually I don't have a problem with accepting. It can just turn off a lot of the demographic from seeing an amazing program.
I think going from Bruno's idea to Galileo proving it would of been a better choice.
[QUOTE=Saxon;44200935]I didn't care much for the Bruno segment either, it came off as too anti-religious rather than focusing on the scientific method which usually I don't have a problem with accepting. It can just turn off a lot of the demographic from seeing an amazing program.
I think going from Bruno's idea to Galileo proving it would of been a better choice.[/QUOTE]
I don't get how it was any more anti-religious than it needed to be? I mean, he was literally burned at the stake for an idea.
[editline]11th March 2014[/editline]
And Galileo didn't prove the universe was infinite.
[QUOTE=Saxon;44200935]I didn't care much for the Bruno segment either, it came off as too anti-religious rather than focusing on the scientific method which usually I don't have a problem with accepting. It can just turn off a lot of the demographic from seeing an amazing program.
I think going from Bruno's idea to Galileo proving it would of been a better choice.[/QUOTE]
I don't care, because religion is stupid IMO anyway. But that will keep my parents from watching it :v: And i'm sure a lot of people. It indeed was far more anti-religion than i expected though. Tyson went full Dawkins.
[QUOTE=Saxon;44200935]I didn't care much for the Bruno segment either, it came off as too anti-religious rather than focusing on the scientific method which usually I don't have a problem with accepting. It can just turn off a lot of the demographic from seeing an amazing program.
I think going from Bruno's idea to Galileo proving it would of been a better choice.[/QUOTE]
(it wasn't anti religious)
[QUOTE=MatheusMCardoso;44201286]I don't care, because religion is stupid IMO anyway. But that will keep my parents from watching it :v: And i'm sure a lot of people. It indeed was far more anti-religion than i expected though. Tyson went full Dawkins.[/QUOTE]
"the church burned this guy at the stake for having a belief jeez can you imagine?"
totes full on dawkins mode
[QUOTE=Saxon;44200935]I didn't care much for the Bruno segment either, it came off as too anti-religious rather than focusing on the scientific method which usually I don't have a problem with accepting. It can just turn off a lot of the demographic from seeing an amazing program.
I think going from Bruno's idea to Galileo proving it would of been a better choice.[/QUOTE]
I have no idea what your talking about. In fact when watching it the thought that it might anti-religious never occurred. It said all that needed to be said; that Bruno was burned to death for wanting to share an idea with the world (an idea that would be one of the seeds for a scientific revolution). That was all that was said, no more, no less.
He explicitly mentioned rejecting faith. I don't care for religion at all, but it seemed a little too reductionist.
yeah, the information was presented as well as it needed to be for the sake of telling the story
[QUOTE=Saxon;44200935]I didn't care much for the Bruno segment either, it came off as too anti-religious rather than focusing on the scientific method which usually I don't have a problem with accepting. It can just turn off a lot of the demographic from seeing an amazing program.
I think going from Bruno's idea to Galileo proving it would of been a better choice.[/QUOTE]
I noticed some very oddly political statements. For example, they didn't just say he was put to death; they said the death penalty was the most cruel and unusual punishment possible. I'm not saying I don't agree, I'm just saying I dont want to hear your political idealogies during a show about science.
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;44201589]I noticed some very oddly political statements. For example, they didn't just say he was put to death; they said the death penalty was the most cruel and unusual punishment possible. I'm not saying I don't agree, I'm just saying I dont want to hear your political idealogies during a show about science.[/QUOTE]
why did you actually read that much into that statement
am i supposed to not think about what im watching
[editline]11th March 2014[/editline]
is it that far fetched for you to consider the idea that maybe your favorite show about science maybe possibly has a very slight spin in a certain direction without going into sardonic jab mode
the show was awesome but i would be kidding myself if i said that i didn't notice it at all
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;44201608]am i supposed to not think about what im watching
[editline]11th March 2014[/editline]
is it that far fetched for you to consider the idea that maybe your favorite show about science maybe possibly has a very slight spin in a certain direction without going into sardonic jab mode
the show was awesome but i would be kidding myself if i said that i didn't notice it at all[/QUOTE]
I really honestly don't think it was meant at all to be a political statement and you are paying far too much heed to it.
By the way, you may not think the death penalty warrants the label of "cruelest and most unusual punishment" but does being burned alive not at least come close?
or maybe we could accept that a show about free thinking is inherently gonna seem liberal in nature
[QUOTE=SGTNAPALM;44201672]or maybe we could accept that a show about free thinking is inherently gonna seem liberal in nature[/QUOTE]
more often than not
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;44201668]I really honestly don't think it was meant at all to be a political statement and you are paying far too much heed to it.
By the way, you may not think the death penalty warrants the label of "cruelest and most unusual punishment" but does being burned alive not at least come close?[/QUOTE]
Possibly; I'm just saying that writers pick words very carefully and I'm far less likely to brush it off as just a chance occurance. Their words have purpose, meaning. They have a point. That sentence merely made me wonder exactly what their point was. I didn't make any insane leaps of logic here. Writer said a punishment was bad in a nonfiction work, I merely assumed that he was against such punishment.
Is anyone in the modern world going to challenge the idea that burning someone alive for an idea is bad?
Have you met Republicans?
[editline]11th March 2014[/editline]
(I totally believe that there are people still out there who would do such a thing.)
[editline]11th March 2014[/editline]
Anyway I'm not talking about the method, only the outcome; irreversible death as a punishment.
Good point.
But the method and context are important. Basically I'm just trying to say that even though the statement is the same, there is a big difference in message if this was about a convicted murderer who was killed via lethal injection in 2005 or a guy who claimed the universe was infinite and was burned at the stake. Context changes the meaning entirely.
Fair enough. The mere fact that two people got two different interpretations is enough to make me question the writer's motives yet again. I'll rewatch soon and pay closer attention.
[QUOTE=Saxon;44200935]I didn't care much for the Bruno segment either, it came off as too anti-religious rather than focusing on the scientific method which usually I don't have a problem with accepting. It can just turn off a lot of the demographic from seeing an amazing program.
I think going from Bruno's idea to Galileo proving it would of been a better choice.[/QUOTE]
Telling the truth is anti-religious?
The bruno segment was fine IMO
The whole point I think was to give something the deeply religious could resonate with vs doing something like the Library of Alexandria - i.e. a dude who is deeply religious still questions his surroundings in search for the truth rather than just assuming things are right because people say they are.
It didn't really come off as anti-religious, as a matter of fact it was kind of accepting. The dude literally thought that the cosmos was infinite and helio-centric [I]because[/I] god is also infinite and etc. So its kind of like, "See, even religious people question their surroundings! The cosmos and our understanding of it is almost infinite and its still religion-friendly to think so!"
[QUOTE=KorJax;44202637]The bruno segment was fine IMO
The whole point I think was to give something the deeply religious could resonate with vs doing something like the Library of Alexandria - i.e. a dude who is deeply religious still questions his surroundings in search for the truth rather than just assuming things are right because people say they are.
It didn't really come off as anti-religious, as a matter of fact it was kind of accepting. The dude literally thought that the cosmos was infinite and helio-centric [I]because[/I] god is also infinite and etc. So its kind of like, "See, even religious people question their surroundings! The cosmos and our understanding of it is almost infinite and its still religion-friendly to think so!"[/QUOTE]
The problem is that Bruno was not deeply religious, he denied almost all of major Catholic doctrine, denying the divinity of Christ is akin to being the closest thing to an Atheist that existed in the 16th century.
The Bruno segment was straight up bad history and mis-represented the Church and Bruno. The show played up his helio-centric ideas when they were not the true reason he was killed (Those reasons were only given a quick name-drop during the trial section and almost entirely ignored during the rest of the segment). I do not believe the segment added anything to the show and could have been left out.
Great first episode,
Will the next episodes go more "in-depth"? This one was very basic in my opinion.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.