I am a big fan of the original “Cosmos” TV series, made by Carl Sagan in 1980. Thus, when I heard that there was a 2014 reboot of the series, I had great interest in seeing it. It turned out to be not as good as the original series, although the newer series had its moments, and justified the cost of the purchase.
Comparing the two series may not be entirely fair, since they cover some very different topics within the field of astronomy. You may prefer one series or the other because of the topics it covers, rather than because of the way that it covers them. For example, the original “Cosmos” had an episode on Venus, as well as a separate episode on Mars. It also had an episode discussing the robotic missions to Jupiter (among other things). I tend to prefer these topics myself, so I still prefer the original “Cosmos” in some ways. But Neil deGrasse Tyson covers most of his chosen topics well, some of which are not covered by the original “Cosmos.”
Neil deGrasse Tyson
Like the original “Cosmos,” this series has a number of anecdotes from the history of science. Among other things, this includes dramatizations of Isaac Newton, Edmund Halley, and Albert Einstein. Since I have more background in history than in science, I had a greater appreciation of these kinds of segments, and lacked the background to fully appreciate some of their other work (I admit with some chagrin). In particular, they give some excellent coverage of the scientist Michael Faraday, in the episode entitled “The Electric Boy.” These are some things that set this series apart from its predecessor.
Michael Faraday
But the two versions of “Cosmos” have some very different approaches, regarding their visual telling of the history. Most importantly, the original “Cosmos” preferred to do re-enactments, whereas this series preferred to do cartoons. I thought that the cartoon-style animation detracted much from the history segments. In fairness, animation is quite helpful when dramatizing things in deep space, and this series has some fantastic computer animation for this purpose. Due to improvements in special effects technology since the 1980’s, it may even be better than the original “Cosmos” in this particular area. Nonetheless, I believe that history should be told through costumed re-enactments that come as close as possible to the real thing. This is even more true, when you consider that the re-enactments are actually cheaper than the kind of animations that they use here. But in fairness to series presenter Neil deGrasse Tyson, this was probably a concession to his producer Seth MacFarlane, whose financial investments helped to make this series possible. (He wouldn’t have said no to his fabulously rich investor, even if he had opposed this animation style – and for all I know, he may have actually supported it.)
Seth MacFarlane
I might also note another similarity to the original “Cosmos,” which is that this series tended to get on its soapbox about politics and religion. I didn’t really care for the soapboxing parts of either series, and found them both equally bad in this regard. Some of these things are reasonable subjects – such as the political battle over unleaded gasoline, dramatized in the episode “The Clean Room.” Nonetheless, I don’t know why he spent so much time on the political battles here. At times, episodes like this seemed to be more focused on the politics than on the science. I don’t watch “Cosmos” to hear about the environment or public health crises – I watch them to hear about astronomy. Indeed, this is what Mr. Tyson’s Ph.D. is focused on, and he gets pretty far afield when talking about other subjects for very long – much like Carl Sagan himself that way.
Fraunhofer lines, used in astronomy to determine the composition of distant stars
One criticism of this series might be a bit subjective, but I tended to find Carl Sagan a bit more moving. To me, he did a better job at communicating the wonder of science, which is (at least part of) what it’s all about. This is why we throw all this money into the space program, because it helps us to appreciate the wonder of the universe. To me, Carl Sagan seemed to do a better job at communicating this aspect of it.
Carl Sagan
Nonetheless, this was usually a good series that had some interesting things to say. I don’t always agree with its conclusions, but I learned a few things from this series, and tended to enjoy the ride. I still don’t think that it’s as good as the original “Cosmos,” but it will satisfy people who are interested in astronomy, and will help to bring the subject to life in the process.
If you liked this post, you might also like:
See also the audiobook series
Science & Discovery
Others to be covered later
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment