Internet "Cosmos" sequel trailer now up!

boogabooga said:
...Aaaand, not half as good as the original. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

And therein lies your problem. If you went in expecting something like the original Cosmos you were bound to be utterly disappointed. I personally don't care, I'm just glad this material is getting out there for people to hear instead of nonsense like Honey Boo Boo, Duck Dynasty, et al.

That being said, I did enjoy this.
 
Except that it was being hyped as the successor to the original. With Neil deGrasse Tyson as Sagan's successor.

I don't see either of those things. I didn't think it was even very good.

These days, at least the CGI animators have steady work.

If this was supposed to get non-scientifically oriented people to like science... :facepalm:

FOX isn't PBS; they can and will cancel mediocre programming.
 
boogabooga said:
...Aaaand, not half as good as the original. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
I've just watched it too and I don't know how the first episode can be substantially worse than The Shores of the Cosmic Ocean. The first episode of the new version had a similar, broad scope compared with the original and is significantly updated. Both have also covered similar material. There's no doubt that A Space-Time Odyssey is more entertaining due to modern technology (and has more advertisements). Now that A Space-Time Odyssey will get more specific, the updated material and special effects can really shine.

Please elaborate on how you don't think the new version is good and why it won't have an effect on non-scientifically minded people. The use of CGI doesn't make something bad.
 
Last edited:
boogabooga said:
Except that it was being hyped as the successor to the original. With Neil deGrasse Tyson as Sagan's successor.

I don't see either of those things. I didn't think it was even very good.

These days, at least the CGI animators have steady work.

If this was supposed to get non-scientifically oriented people to like science... :facepalm:

FOX isn't PBS; they can and will cancel mediocre programming.
Click to expand...

But I don't see how it was at all mediocre. I'm just simply confused on what you had a problem with.
 
I see plenty of Sagan in everyone involved in creating this series. Deeply in Ann Druyan and Neil Tyson.
The last two minutes were so moving.
 
So, I just watched the first episode, and I'm very impressed! It's great to see this stuff getting out to so many networks.
 
Agreed. This has been added to my list of shows that I keep up-to-date with, alongside Mythbusters and Agents of SHIELD.
I especially liked the subtle homage with the "star stuff" line, which, if my research is correct, was a nearly word-for-word quote from the original.
 
Seeing this again on Hulu, my position is softening.
 
I had to watch this on DVR due to a scheduling conflict with the wife. So the wife and I watched yesterday. On reflection, it was pretty good; I thought of it more of an introduction to COSMOS to those who's never seen the original (and had no clue as to who Carl Sagan was).

I really think the this is the target audience. When the Giordano Bruno segment started, I roughly told the his story to the wife during a break, who looked at me strange and asked "How do you know all this stuff?"

I shrugged and pointed to the TV, "I suppose I put it to better use than some?"

Which got me an eye roll.

I'll give it a 7 out of 10, with room to grow if FOX leaves it alone.
 
My feeling now is as if a new artist remixes your favorite song. You have to acquire a taste for it.

A few specific criticisms:

1 I'm not a huge fan of Archer-style animation. The Bruno story came across a bit cheesy to me. Cheesy accents. Beady-eyed Pope caricature, etc.

2 The soundtrack was kind of movie theater generic. I really miss the spectacular Vangelis soundtrack of the original. Actually, I think this might be the single greatest reason why I had a negative reaction at first. The soundtrack didn't leave the same emotional impact as the original

3 It would be easier to accept it for what it is if they didn't eulogize Carl Sagan and remind us that this is NOT the original.

4 Network TV being network TV, commercial breaks really break your focus and are really distracting. I'm used to watching Cosmos on Netflix without breaks.

5 They seem to be over-reliant on CGI to me. Everything has to look really flashy. The quiet reflective dialog scenes, always seem to have a gimmick. Like NdGT holding his ears while the K-P meteor explodes, etc.
I get that I am not the target generation, but still.

6 The message from the president makes it partisan. Conservatives and creationists were already going to attack this, and many might not care about those opinions, but Obama's seal of approval just makes this a bigger target than it needed to be.
 
I doubt that even having Ronald Reagan's ghost do the forward would have made a diehard creationist any more receptive to reason.
 
Codz said:
I doubt that even having Ronald Reagan's ghost do the forward would have made a diehard creationist any more receptive to reason.
Click to expand...

I don't know how basement-ish this can be seen, so if some mod thinks this post shouldn't belong into Brighton Lounge I'm OK with just deleting it, I don't think there's much discussion about this topic and it doesn't really fit in a basement thread, does it?

You might be right about that but I think the person boogabooga is focusing on is the convservative who tunes in to Discovery etc. maybe once a year. Normally he wouldn't give a damn about Cosmos, why should he. Some physicists talking about space, meh. But they got an endorsement by the guy who is being one of the worst presidents of this nation's history (in conservative's view he might actually be)? Dammit this liberals are having another show pushing their views down our throat's! I hate this new Galaxy or however it was called!

While this might happen I personally don't like politicising everything and would prefer this new Cosmos to not become that (I actually hope Fox counteracts that). But then again I can see why you would side with one side of the US political spectrum when it comes to science funding.
 
It's not the die-hards, its the people on the fence that would be turned-off that didn't have to be.
 
Last edited:
The GCI has that cheap commercial reflexions + lens flares look. Not that realistic, with the exception of the Red Spot segment.
The Voyager seemed to be traveling along fog banks, with backlit lighting, etc, etc. I'm not impressed...

Another problem with GCI programs is that the present doesn't interact that well with things.

Sagan was able to hold and touch the planets, walk around the Viking lander, etc. And that makes things feel more real and relates more to the viewer.

But let's see how the next episodes come along.
I didn't dislike it, I was just expecting something more accurate.


The series is being shown simultaneously on 2 cable channels in my country. That's a first for a documentary.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Problem Apollo 9 timing screwed up
Replies
1
Views
723
indy91
indy91
jedidia
A curious problem with Hohmann transfers
Replies
4
Views
2K
Urwumpe
Urwumpe
Peter Dow
Skyhook Equator. Orbiting Rotating Launcher Animator-Calculator.
Replies
1
Views
3K
Peter Dow
Peter Dow
francisdrake
Project Artemis Orange-SLS with Centaur Upper Stage
Replies
10
Views
4K
barrygolden
barrygolden
Lucy
Announcement Orbiter-Forum outage 2025-10-20
Replies
13
Views
5K
Urwumpe
Urwumpe
Back
Top