Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Ultimate Hopes For the New Cosmos Series

samzenpus posted about 5 months ago | from the think-big dept.

Television 183

StartsWithABang writes "So unless you've been living under a rock, you're aware that it's only a few short weeks until the premiere of the new Cosmos: A Space-Time Odyssey starring Neil de Grasse Tyson. Many have hopes (and fears) concerning what the series will (and won't) be, but this perspective — on what a 'successful' Cosmos series could mean for the future of humanity — is worth a read for anyone who hasn't given up on dreaming big."

cancel ×

183 comments

Just got here (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264805)

First post? If not Beta still sucks

Re:Just got here (-1, Redundant)

DrPBacon (3044515) | about 5 months ago | (#46264885)

Ha! It was the first! That means beta doesn't suck! Just kidding. #fuckbeta.

Re:Just got here (-1, Offtopic)

similar_name (1164087) | about 5 months ago | (#46264913)

Try Soylent News [soylentnews.org]
... is people!

I believe it has more nerd, which is kind of like veal.

Re:Just got here (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 5 months ago | (#46264993)

Took a look to see headlines like "How Facebook Can Be Addicting".
Enrol a few grammar Nazis in the editing process and it will be a bit less embarrassing.

Re:Just got here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265025)

Hey, thanks for the feedback. As an editor, I just made the change from addicting to addictive. Yeah, we have some kinks to work out, but hopefully we'll get through it. You are welcome to join and post directly on our articles and summaries. Sounds like you might be perfect for the role you described!

Re:Just got here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265049)

Their just capturing the charm.

Re:Just got here (1)

robinesque (977170) | about 5 months ago | (#46265055)

Addicting may be used as participle adjective so "Facebook Can Be Addicting" is in fact grammatically acceptable.

Re:Just got here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265261)

It could if addict was a verb, but it's not, you French twat.

Re:Just got here (1)

geminidomino (614729) | about 5 months ago | (#46266001)

Yes it is, you imbecile. A transitive verb, to be more precise.

I hope it has a good soundtrack (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264807)

Jarr, Vangelis, in those line...

Re:I hope it has a good soundtrack (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 5 months ago | (#46264857)

Vangelis is still alive, and he wrote the theme for the original series.

Re: I hope it has a good soundtrack (-1)

mrcoolbp (928930) | about 5 months ago | (#46264869)

Guys, guys....fuck beta

Re: I hope it has a good soundtrack (-1, Troll)

mrcoolbp (928930) | about 5 months ago | (#46264873)

Http://soylentnews.org

Re:I hope it has a good soundtrack (3, Insightful)

mendax (114116) | about 5 months ago | (#46264891)

According to the Wikipedia entry for the series, the soundrack will be written by Alan Silvestri. He's a good film composer (I liked his score for Contact) but I think the original Cosmos had a better idea. That series used existing music, mostly classical, for its score. Some of it was removed from the DVD versions due to the expense of getting the rights to it again, but if you saw the original series, the music is one of the things that made the series special. I learned a lot about classical music from that series.

Re:I hope it has a good soundtrack (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 5 months ago | (#46265019)

That series used existing music

And so will this one. It just doesn't exist yet.

Re:I hope it has a good soundtrack (1)

mendax (114116) | about 5 months ago | (#46265499)

That series used existing music

And so will this one. It just doesn't exist yet.

Okay, let me rephrase. The original series used music that existed BEFORE the series was even thought of, which maybe a couple exceptions, such as the Vangelis pieces.

Contact? Bah! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265151)

"Contact" was the worst movie ever (and I've seen "Plan 9 from outer space") - the central premise of the book (the digits of PI) was totally removed from the movie. It's like the Americans buying the rights to Fawlty Towers and removing Basil Fawlty because he's too abrasive :-)

Re:Contact? Bah! (1)

mendax (114116) | about 5 months ago | (#46265483)

"Contact" was the worst movie ever (and I've seen "Plan 9 from outer space")

Oh, it was not that bad. It was reasonably faithful to the novel except ....

- the central premise of the book (the digits of PI) was totally removed from the movie.

... which was a bummer for me as well, but I could live with it. I would have liked it if they got rid of Bill Clinton, though.

Re:I hope it has a good soundtrack (1)

flyneye (84093) | about 5 months ago | (#46265715)

J.M.Jarre?

I wonder how it will do, this IS Hollywood. If it doesnt attract sponsors with full pockets, itll be outa here like the last episodes of Quark.
If it gets put up against big hitters on the other networks, this could be a tough fight. I dont hold out any hope for anything premiering in the spring.
Its a test bed made of those bored w/reruns, but willing to do EXACTLY the same routine over and over if only not to have to think and melt peacefully into the couch with a beer.

If (5, Interesting)

The Cat (19816) | about 5 months ago | (#46264825)

If it restores America's manned spaceflight program, then it will be worth it.

Almost every cultural intersection between science and the human spirit since the early 1920s originated in man's mission to reach space and other planets. One could argue conclusively that America's peak was July 20th, 1969.

It is true that since then we have lost our way. But that, like many other things, is a fixable problem, provided America rediscovers its soul and remembers what it means to be an American.

Re:If (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 5 months ago | (#46264833)

but it's just a show. pretty documentary.

so why are people waiting for it as if it had new revelations or some shit like that?

Re:If (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264867)

It's a show that inspired a lot of kids to be scientists

Re:If (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264905)

Because as you can see from the OP, there's a religious aspect to it. All this garbage about how vitally important maned space flight is, for example.

"Almost every cultural intersection between science and the human spirit since the early 1920s originated in man's mission to reach space and other planets."

I mean, WOW. Really, read that a few times and let it sink in. It's not much different from a holy book.

Re:If (5, Interesting)

Yoje (140707) | about 5 months ago | (#46264925)

I believe the hope here is not that it will bring forward some new revelation, but that it will simply get the general public excited about science again.

The original Cosmos series helped get a lot of the public talking about science, and probably grew some careers out of the kids that watched it as well. Whether Tyson and the rest of the new Cosmos staff will be able to do this remains to be seen, but I think the primary goal is not necessarily to give new insight into the mysteries of the universe, but to make thinking about these questions interesting again to the general public.

In today's television world of History being taught by Pawn Stars, and The Learning Channel showing us insights of child beauty pageants, reality shows are now the bread and butter for almost every network. It has seriously diluted the education that is occurring from television (and let's be honest, whether it should be or not, there is no escape that a lot of people do substitute television watching for actual learning). While PBS and a few other stray networks help a bit, this new series of Cosmos offers some hope. If NatGeo was the only one doing it, it would gain some attention, but the fact that a major over-the-air network like Fox (especially with its reputation) is teaming up with this is encouraging.

If the new Cosmos can actually succeed, not necessarily in explaining complex scientific theories about our world and the universe, but if it can succeed in what the original Cosmos did in just getting everyday people excited in science again, it would do a lot of long term good for this country. Perhaps, just perhaps, a few other networks could follow suit and knock out one or two hours a week of their reality programs to put more science into their programming. Perhaps it can get more people, especially young people, into looking at science as a viable career option instead of trying to figure out how to get their 15 mins of fame on another reality show. Lofty dreams to be sure, but we have to start somewhere, and hopefully this new series will either help be that spark to get others excited, or confirm once and for all that no one in this country really gives a damn about science and watch as our scientific knowledge plummets compared to the rest of the world.

Re:If (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46266099)

I believe the hope here is not that it will bring forward some new revelation, but that it will simply get the general public excited about science again.

Unfortunately I don't have big hopes about the general public and science, considering that actually people happily watch bullshit shows like "Ancient Aliens"

Re:If (4, Interesting)

Evtim (1022085) | about 5 months ago | (#46265181)

It changes lives. Literally. It raises awareness.

My decision to come and work in the Netherlands is entirely based on Cosmos. "travelers in time ans space" was the episode - it talks exclusively about the Dutch golden age. Saw it behind the Iron Curtain at an age of 12 or something. When I realized that this is a society where you could say "The world is my country, science is my religion" [quote Christian Huygens] in the times when Galileo was prosecuted in South Europe and threaten with death I though "this is it, I'm going there".

Of course, this famous Dutch spirit has been under attack recently as "non-profitable" - exactly the same decline in rational thought that we see much more pronounced in the US. So the Dutch also need new Cosmos, to remind them that it is because of that spirit they had the golden age. The moment they loose it, they've lost everything, since this country has nothing else [no resources, nor territory].

Ferringhi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265809)

Of course, this famous Dutch spirit has been under attack recently as "non-profitable" - exactly the same decline in rational thought that we see much more pronounced in the US.

So instead of becoming like Star Fleet, we're becoming like the Ferringhi.

We are all spiralling to the bottom. I weep for our future.

Re:If (1)

number6x (626555) | about 5 months ago | (#46266123)

replying to remove bad moderation

Re:If (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264865)

Sorry, what does it mean to be an American? I always hoped those people who care about science, cosmos and all that wouldn't take so seriosly minor human issues such as nationality. I guess I was wrong.

Re:If (1, Insightful)

The Cat (19816) | about 5 months ago | (#46264915)

Well, look at it this way: if it weren't for America, there wouldn't be a Cosmos television series.

What does it mean to be an American? It means you value human achievement. Americans are courageous enough to not only want to explore, but to insist on it. It drove us across the Atlantic Ocean and across North America, and then to the moon.

In the process we invented the modern world, which is one of the things that makes advanced science possible.

did you just type that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264995)

Really?

Re:If (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265113)

What a load.

Re:If (2, Insightful)

gl4ss (559668) | about 5 months ago | (#46265209)

ou really? Von Braun got the desire to go to moon as soon as he tasted some of that sweet, sweet american freedom? you have no fscking clue about where modern middle class life with all it's modern appliances, industrial production, modern chemistry and everything else originates from do you?

no wonder if you're waiting for tyson to bring you back from the dark ages or some shit like that with "an inspiring tv show".

Re:If (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265331)

Exactly!
Space travel: brought to you by the kind people of Europe.
Television: brought to you by the kind people of Europe.
Most basic scientific advancements in chemistry, physics: brought to you by the kind people of Europe and Russia.

Barbaric ignorance: kindly brought to all of us by the kind people of the United States of America.

I could go on for a while but will get modded down anyway.

Re:If (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265271)

Americans are courageous enough to not only want to explore, but to insist on it. It drove us across the Atlantic Ocean and across North America, and then to the moon.

Your UID is perhaps too big to realize it, but a lot of people in the US didn't want to go to the moon, and thought it was just a waste of money. It was only decades later that people started to feel better about having gone.

Re:If (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265323)

You should take a good history book, soak in it and the travel the world a bit. Seriously.

Re:If (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265201)

One could argue conclusively that America's peak was July 20th, 1969.

Unless things like eradicating smallpox perhaps mean something....

Naive (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265379)

They'll spend umpteen episodes preaching global warming, education spending, handwringing about recent wars, etc. They will definitely not be advocating expensive space programs.

Lower your expectations.

Re:If (2)

roca (43122) | about 5 months ago | (#46265547)

Please, no, not more squandering of funds on meaningless manned missions driven not by science or long-term goals but by absurd "human spirit" PR to get more funding for more meaningless missions.

We need a self-sustaining human presence off this planet, but all paths to get there require robotic mining and construction outside the Earth's gravity well, and that is what we need to be investing in.

Re:If (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265861)

If it restores America's manned spaceflight program, then it will be worth it.

Almost every cultural intersection between science and the human spirit since the early 1920s originated in man's mission to reach space and other planets. One could argue conclusively that America's peak was July 20th, 1969.

It is true that since then we have lost our way. But that, like many other things, is a fixable problem, provided America rediscovers its soul and remembers what it means to be an American.

Uh, because of rampant greed in damn near every other aspect of our society, America's manned spaceflight program, along with the rest of NASA, basically went bankrupt.

Believe me, this is a "fixable" problem alright. It's just nowhere as easy as you think. Greedy assholes are everywhere, but the American variety is truly special. Good luck with that shit.

Does it include the latest theories? (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264831)

Like there was no Big Bang, rather, some powerful beings forgot to turn off their 3D printer before going on vacation in another dimension. Next thing you know, it's 3D printers everywhere and here we are!

There is at least hope. (4, Insightful)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 5 months ago | (#46264841)

Neil de Grasse Tyson isn't bad. Not a Carl Sagan, but running a TV show about science is really about building a bridge between the general public and the current science and I think that Neil de Grasse Tyson can do that.

Re:There is at least hope. (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about 5 months ago | (#46265177)

Yea, plus if you've seen him on stage with his peers he can come off rather negatively.
There was that one panels he did a couple years back alongside Cox and Nye in which he kept interrupting Nye and arguing semantics throughout. By himself he's great, but along side people whose opinions mean the same as his and not so much.

Re:There is at least hope. (1)

Adam Colley (3026155) | about 5 months ago | (#46265995)

Also, he killed Pluto, that bastard

(but seriously, he's pretty good and a sensible choice for the new Cosmos, imho)

Re:There is at least hope. (3, Interesting)

east coast (590680) | about 5 months ago | (#46266011)

That's the thing about Tyson and just about every public scientist out there today, they're not inclusive like Sagan was. That's what made Sagan great and even gave the naysayers a reason to lend an ear. He opened himself up to the "what ifs" of the world and didn't shout people down for their own way of being as long as it wasn't harmful to others.

We need a feeling of unity more than anything else at this place in time for humanity's sake. I just don't see Tyson doing that although he may be the most qualified to do so. We really do need another Sagan.

FOX Network (0)

TWX (665546) | about 5 months ago | (#46264859)

Sorry Dr. Tyson, I don't watch FOX. Not for a long time. Not planning on starting now either.

Re:FOX Network (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264893)

Yeah, take THAT Fox News! Around here, we only watch shows on networks whose politics are the same as our own!

Re:FOX Network (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264921)

Meh, I doubt you'll be missing much.

Dr. Tyson is one of the most obnoxious individuals and he has absolutely nothing to his name beyond being a celebrity astronomer, beyond removing Pluto as the ninth planet in our solar system. He's basically the scientific version of the Kardashians.

Re:FOX Network (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264975)

Dr. Tyson is one of the most obnoxious individuals and he has absolutely nothing to his name beyond being a celebrity astronomer, beyond removing Pluto as the ninth planet in our solar system. He's basically the scientific version of the Kardashians.

Exactly! I won't be watching because I just can't stand to watch anything with Tyson in it anymore. He's so overused, it's like he's the only astronomer in the Western Hemisphere or something.

Re:FOX Network (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265947)

Meh, I doubt you'll be missing much.

Dr. Tyson is one of the most obnoxious individuals and he has absolutely nothing to his name beyond being a celebrity astronomer, beyond removing Pluto as the ninth planet in our solar system. He's basically the scientific version of the Kardashians.

Even if Mr. Tyson was nothing more than a "scientific version" of a Kardashian, I'd sure as hell take that over whatever the hell a real Kardashian is trying to portray themselves as.

Also, your calculations are off. It is mathematically impossible for Mr. Tyson to become as obnoxious as any Kardashian. That is fact.

Re:FOX Network (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264971)

It's not meant for you. It's ment to educate and drive to students into science by showing how awesome it is

Re:FOX Network (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265885)

Sorry Dr. Tyson, I don't watch FOX. Not for a long time. Not planning on starting now either.

Sorry African Americans. I don't talk to black people. Not for a long time. Not planning on starting now either.

I guess you don't go to bookstores often either. Do you always superficially judge this well or are you just naturally an ignorant fucktard?

Big shoes to fill this one has (3, Interesting)

mendax (114116) | about 5 months ago | (#46264877)

I like the idea of a remade Cosmos series. It's long overdue. However, it will be difficult for the series to be anywhere near as good as the original. The original was a mix of great writing, great music, especially the classical numbers, and the love of the subject that Carl Sagan had. Dr. Sagan wasn't just host and co-writer of the series, he was THE high priest of popular science as that time and when he spoke, he was preaching like a Bible-thumping evangelist, only without the southern drawl. While Neil de Grasse Tyson has done a lot of work to fill that role, he's not Carl Sagan. Still, I look forward to seeing this series. Since I don't usually watch TV, I'll have to get a digital TV antenna.

Re:Big shoes to fill this one has (3, Insightful)

Sebastopol (189276) | about 5 months ago | (#46264939)

When is the last time you watched the original Cosmos? There are a lot--and I mean A LOT--of scenes featuring Carl sitting on a beach or in a meadow looking off into the distance with pontificating voice-overs that kinda ramble. Believe me, I'm 42 and I grew up on that series, but having re-watched it recently, I was surprised at the large spans of near bloviation that adorn the show. I absolutely adore the series, I just think it could have used some tightening up during editing.

Also, I graduated from COSMOS to The Mechanical Universe, which--aside from the haircuts of the classroom--would still feel modern by today's standards.

Re:Big shoes to fill this one has (2)

mendax (114116) | about 5 months ago | (#46265007)

When is the last time you watched the original Cosmos?

Actually, I watched it last week. I have the DVD set. The series was not meant to be a pure documentary. If you wanted that, you can read the book. It was meant to be beautiful, a work of art, and the producers, cinematographers, and the editing crew did a great of creating it.

Regarding pontificating, Dr. Sagan was more preaching than pontificating. But given that the show's purpose was to teach the general public about a subject he loved and believed, something he'd spent most of his professional life doing, it was to be expected.

Re:Big shoes to fill this one has (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46265561)

The series was not meant to be a pure documentary. If you wanted that, you can read the book. It was meant to be beautiful, a work of art,

It's a very slowwwww work of art. As a work of art, it might be great, I wouldn't know because it was too slow and it lost me. As a thing for conveying information to humans it is crap, because of too much BHA in love with himself.

Re:Big shoes to fill this one has (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 months ago | (#46265905)

It's a very slowwwww work of art.

Because Lord knows, if you're not being presented with a change of subject every 30 seconds, you'll get bored. Of all the things I'm afraid of with a new Cosmos, this ranks first. There's no chance it will have the majestic pace of the original.

Re:Big shoes to fill this one has (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | about 5 months ago | (#46266013)

Because Lord knows, if you're not being presented with a change of subject every 30 seconds, you'll get bored. Of all the things I'm afraid of with a new Cosmos, this ranks first. There's no chance it will have the majestic pace of the original.

It doesn't need to. If you want the original, watch it.

Re:Big shoes to fill this one has (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 months ago | (#46266079)

If you want the original, watch it.

The original is a science documentary from over forty years ago. It holds up astonishingly well, but an update to the current state of the art is undoubtedly called for. The problem is, that's not the only change they'll make.

Re:Big shoes to fill this one has (1)

Zocalo (252965) | about 5 months ago | (#46265123)

When is the last time you watched the original Cosmos? There are a lot--and I mean A LOT--of scenes featuring Carl sitting on a beach or in a meadow looking off into the distance with pontificating voice-overs that kinda ramble.

Yeah, there were a lot of scenes like that and some of the editing of the rest could perhaps have done with being a little more tight, but the series got the job done well and I've never failed to enjoy re-watching it. To that end I'm planning on watching it next week and the week after, once I've finished watching my Game of Thrones S3 discs. That way, when I inevitably compare the new series with the original I'll be doing so against a fresh impression and not some rose-tinted view of greatness. Regardless of how it compares though, as long as it gets a sizeable proportion of the current crop of adolescents at least interested in STEM, that's going to be a good enough result, I think.

Re:Big shoes to fill this one has (2)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 5 months ago | (#46265537)

If you get things too tight you will lose some viewers. The point is to have some parts where the viewer can have a pause and get the wider perspective before you dive into the deep again.

People today are too stressed to really relax and take a wider perspective from time to time.

Re:Big shoes to fill this one has (1)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about 5 months ago | (#46265893)

When is the last time you watched the original Cosmos?

Funny you should ask that. I have Cosmos on DVD and I'm currently rewatching it right now. Great stuff.

Re:Big shoes to fill this one has (1)

mendax (114116) | about 5 months ago | (#46265063)

You know, after I wrote this post, I looked at the Wikipedia entry of Neil de Grasse Tyson and saw a photo of him signing one of his books. He's using a blue expensive-looking (maybe Waterman) fountain pen. My opinion of his success of his version of Cosmos has improved. As a fellow fountain pen user, anyone recent user of one of these anachronisms comes up a notch in my estimate.

Re:Big shoes to fill this one has (1)

MouseTheLuckyDog (2752443) | about 5 months ago | (#46265375)

Actually they are not anachronisms, probably more high tech then any other type pf pen.
I believe that pen ( if it is the same one I once saw ), then it is a Pelikan Blue Planet. Definitely the nib is a Pelikan.
Waterman's have been crap since Gillette bought them ( but then I haven't looked recently maybe they've improved them. )

Re:Big shoes to fill this one has (1)

symes (835608) | about 5 months ago | (#46265075)

I sort of agree with you. But you also have to think about who the program is aimed at. I would think you as a 42 year old can handle a much higher baud rate and have a far broader vocabulary. Cosmos inspired youngsters to think about what lies beyond our world and that will need a different approach to those you might take with interested adults. Thing is, if adults watching the new series love it then this runs the risk of kids hating it not only because it will be beyond them but also because, well, if it is something mom and pop are into then it is bound to be irrelevant.

My only issue with this is ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264887)

... that it'll be exactly like every other one. We watch them hoping they will show us something new, and they almost never do.

Re:My only issue with this is ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46264985)

... that it'll be exactly like every other one. We watch them hoping they will show us something new, and they almost never do.

If this mean we won't be subject to pseudo science like multiple universes, strings and all the stupid things theoretical physics nowadays stands for I'm all in. Cosmos (old or new) is about Science and our place in the universe. Pseudo science can go take a hike.

Mvuivkl (-1, Troll)

Vuivkl (3539885) | about 5 months ago | (#46265003)

- Vk à, mình không gp nhau mt thi gian nhé - Cái gì ?? @.@ - ng nhìn ck th ! Ch mt thi gian thôi - Sao vy ? Ck có chuyn gì h ? - Không có gì, ck ch mun tt cho vk - Tt cho vk ??? Ck b iên à ? - Không, ck cha iên. Nhng mà tin ck i, mình ck au c ri, ck không mun vk au, hiu không ? - Không hiu ! (T.T) Sao t dng li vy? Hay ck li nghe li ai nói linh tinh phi không ?? http://wapnam.com/ [wapnam.com] - m, thc s thì có ngi nhiu kinh nghim khuyên ck không nên gp vk, ck thy úng nên làm theo. - H ! Tôi bit ngay mà. Thng nào, con nào dám chen vào chuyn này ? Nó bit gì chuyn vk -ck mình mà chen vào ây ? Ck cho vk h, tên, a ch ca nó, vk phi làm cho rõ ràng. {>.} - Bình tnh, bình tnh. Nó h Bác tên S, s abc xyz - ... Ck b au mt !

Under a rock..or outside the US (2, Informative)

bradley13 (1118935) | about 5 months ago | (#46265013)

Never heard of it. And a science program for the US public is likely to be all flashy pictures and no depth. Still, if it is a success, maybe it will awaken some belated interest in science and education, as opposed to Justin Bieber and Oprah.

Re:Under a rock..or outside the US (1)

ElectraFlarefire (698915) | about 5 months ago | (#46265023)

Also never heard of it.. Turns out many of us avoid advertising and stay away from 'entertainment' news and are no less off because of this. Plus not living in the us.

Re:Under a rock..or outside the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265405)

I watched this avidly when I was a kid.

In Zimbabwe.

Re:Under a rock..or outside the US (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | about 5 months ago | (#46266093)

and probably spend most of its time debunking climate change.

BLASPHEMY! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265027)

Palin 2017!

Re:BLASPHEMY! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265217)

Vote Hillary!

Re:BLASPHEMY! (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | about 5 months ago | (#46265541)

Nehemiah Scudder...

Same old bore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265047)

Is there only one damn astronomer? Every damn TV astronomy show has this same guy.
Why not Alex Filippenko at UC Berkeley? He's more telegenic.

Re:Same old bore (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about 5 months ago | (#46265187)

Or Brian Cox, who has already hosted several science shows on the BBC.

Re:Same old bore (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 months ago | (#46265287)

There's also Iain Stewart. Strictly speaking he's a geologist, not an astronomer, but it in ends in ~ology so it's science, right? [slashdot passim]

You might not recognise the name, since he tends to go by the alias "That Scottish git they get in when Brian Cox is busy".

Re:Same old bore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265369)

Tyson is way better popularizing science. Filippenko is lousy and Cox is not nearly as good as Tyson. Tyson is passionate and his passion is contagious, he's the best for this job, hands down.

no rock (1)

CTU (1844100) | about 5 months ago | (#46265059)

and yet I did not know this

Re: no rock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265089)

Apparently I live in a two story rock

Re: no rock (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265165)

A house made of bricks counts as a rock.

Good luck... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265073)

Well, o.k., we find an equal as -or better- than Carl Sagan to present and write the new series (good luck!)... but is it possible to find an equal as -or better than- Vangelis Papathanassiou to compose music for it?
I am a Greek so the music of Vangelis Papathanassiou makes me proud as a nationalist but i don't mention him for that reason - i just think his music is THE music of... Kosmos!

Re:Good luck... (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 5 months ago | (#46265257)

I'm not Greek and right there with you; Cosmos needs Vangelis again.

Could listen to this for hours: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]

Cosmos was ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265139)

... the original program that got me all excited about science.

For those skeptical about this new one, or who don't want to wait, I'd suggest two things.

The first is Space, as narrated by Sam Neill, an actor we in Australia claim as our own despite the fact he was born in Northern Ireland and has lived in New Zealand since sometime in the 1950s (it's quite a habit we Aussies have - Phar Lap for example).

The second is the excellent series of BBC shows by Brian Cox (yes, of music bands Dare and D:Ream ("Things can only get better") fame) - Wonders of Life, Wonders of the Solar System, and (yes, you guessed it), Wonders of the Universe.

Living under a rock, and loving it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265153)

So unless you've been living under a rock

I read news to be informed, not insulted by the copy. Journalism, motherfucker, do you do it?

Slashdot is shit.

Was hoping they had finally cloned Sagan... (3, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | about 5 months ago | (#46265251)

But Neil Tyson is pretty awesome too.

American tv-documentaries stink lately (3, Interesting)

lemur3 (997863) | about 5 months ago | (#46265263)

About 3-4 years ago I got into the habit of watching most of the documentaries that come out of the UK.. whether it be bbc/channel4 or whatever else. ... Having grown up with PBS/discovery channel I have to say that american documentaries have started to turn to crap.

Most of the American docs these days seem to be stock footage with a voice over.. very low quality and not very interesting.. The bigger trend in american docs is a lot of 3-D animations and cheesy recreations.

In comparison the UK docs usually have a personality on-screen who is generally an expert going through the topic, sometimes interviewing people.. with less reliance on 3D animations and recreations, and in general, more respect for the viewers intelligence they end up being much more enjoyable.

NOVA in particular has tended towards lower quality in the past few years.. in stark comparison to HORIZON, which continues to be quite good.

as I've seen the hype over this COSMOS series come about I can't help but think it will be a big let down... as the budgets just don't seem to be there, along with a different view of the intelligence of the viewer.

Re:American tv-documentaries stink lately (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46266127)

"The bigger trend in american docs is a lot of 3-D animations and cheesy recreations."

3D animations can be informative and good. But they can also be way, way off. If a non-expert who is merely interested in the subject can see loads of technical flaws, then that's probably bad unless the reasons for them are explained. The flaws can vary greatly, from ridiculous to legitimate artistic license. Obviously you have to make some adjustments for the sake of depicting things at a scale that is visible (e.g., at the real density, the asteroid belt is pretty darned sparse, and flying through a nebula wouldn't look particularly bright), but people should always be reminded somehow of what the real scale is (e.g., you tell them you're depicting it 1000x denser/faster/brighter than it really is). There's a fine line between making things visible and making them misleadingly inaccurate.

The remake syndrom (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265289)

Unfortunately, this is only a proof that current crop of producers cannot and will not come with new ideas. Using the name of a previously successful series only shows that they can't create something new that will truly motivate viewers. Moreover, modern-day producers are painfuly aware of their mediocrity, as they have effectively created a sort of culture where old ideas are milked to exhaustion and nothing new happens.

In short, they are afraid to innovate, they chose the easy way, and the results will be shaped accordingly.

Ob (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 5 months ago | (#46265291)

Will he pronounce it properly, and not so it rhymes with "hoes doze"?

No hopes: It is made in the US (5, Insightful)

irp (260932) | about 5 months ago | (#46265365)

... Which means it will start with a 10 minute teaser/cliffhanger to prevent people from leaving during commercials. Then the commercial break. Then a 10 minute teaser, repeating most of what was said in the previous segment, adding like 2-3 minutes new stuff and a new cliffhanger. Commercial break. Then 10 minutes of repetition. Etc. etc.

There are a lot of *seemingly* interesting documentaries being made in the US, but upon inspection they are mostly made to ensure viewers STAY for the COMMERCIALS.

If you watch them without commercials, the look like they were made by retards for retards! :-/

I will probably give it a change, but I guess I will be disappointment... Currently I'm only watching documentaries made by the BBC...

Re:No hopes: It is made in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265753)

... Which means it will start with a 10 minute teaser/cliffhanger to prevent people from leaving during commercials. Then the commercial break. Then a 10 minute teaser, repeating most of what was said in the previous segment, adding like 2-3 minutes new stuff and a new cliffhanger. Commercial break. Then 10 minutes of repetition. Etc. etc.

There are a lot of *seemingly* interesting documentaries being made in the US, but upon inspection they are mostly made to ensure viewers STAY for the COMMERCIALS.

If you watch them without commercials, the look like they were made by retards for retards! :-/

I will probably give it a change, but I guess I will be disappointment... Currently I'm only watching documentaries made by the BBC...

Wow, you just described my first impressions of MythBusters when I first watched them a few years back. But luckily over the years they seamed to have improved on this.

Re:No hopes: It is made in the US (1)

tomhath (637240) | about 5 months ago | (#46265865)

If you watch them without commercials, they look like they were made by retards for retards! :-/

Are you saying they're better or worse without commercials?

Re:No hopes: It is made in the US (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 5 months ago | (#46265971)

... Which means it will start with a 10 minute teaser/cliffhanger to prevent people from leaving during commercials. Then the commercial break. Then a 10 minute teaser, repeating most of what was said in the previous segment, adding like 2-3 minutes new stuff and a new cliffhanger. Commercial break. Then 10 minutes of repetition. Etc. etc.

There are a lot of *seemingly* interesting documentaries being made in the US, but upon inspection they are mostly made to ensure viewers STAY for the COMMERCIALS.

Uh, I'm not sure what decade you popped up in, but I think you took a wrong turn at Albuquerque in the time machine. What's a COMMERCIAL and why do I have to STAY somewhere for it?

Oh yeah, that reminds me, I need to call the cable company. Wore out my damn fast-forward button on my remote again...

Re:No hopes: It is made in the US (1)

jellomizer (103300) | about 5 months ago | (#46266161)

Who watches TV. These should go straight to Netflix.

On an other note, Wouldn't this be a PBS show? Not an commercial broadcaster.

From under the rock ... (0)

jamesl (106902) | about 5 months ago | (#46265579)

Who is Neil de Grasse Tyson?

Really? (1)

mschaffer (97223) | about 5 months ago | (#46265591)

He's Pluto's bounty hunter.

A Good Science Series (2)

Travco (1872216) | about 5 months ago | (#46265869)

Check out "The Brain Scoop" on Youtube. It's not about the universe, but it IS done right. http://www.youtube.com/channel... [youtube.com]

Can't Find It (1)

EXTomar (78739) | about 5 months ago | (#46266015)

I don't mean that I doubt the quality or the content but I just looked for iTunes and Amazon and didn't see it. I see a lot of music with "Cosmos" in it. I see a few TV shows like "The Universe" and a good Nova special on "The Fabric of the Cosmos" but no "Cosmos" to buy and download as the episodes air. I guess I won't watch it or I'll end up watching "by other means" if I really get motivated. Or I'll wait for it to pop up on Netflix...if it shows up there and isn't throttled to hell.

I love watching shows and content like this. Too bad I no longer love watching any sort of TV.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...