• Welcome to League Of Reason Forums! Please read the rules before posting.
    If you are willing and able please consider making a donation to help with site overheads.
    Donations can be made via here

Neil deGrasse Tyson to host Cosmos sequel

Your Funny Uncle

New Member
arg-fallbackName="Your Funny Uncle"/>
Surely good news in anyone's book!

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/08/cosmos-to-get-a-sequel-hosted-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/
 
arg-fallbackName="he_who_is_nobody"/>
Your Funny Uncle said:
Surely good news in anyone's book!

http://www.wired.com/geekdad/2011/08/cosmos-to-get-a-sequel-hosted-by-neil-degrasse-tyson/

Fuck yeah!
 
arg-fallbackName="televator"/>
Hmmmm...hmmmm....Now I like NDT. I think he's a cool guy and I truly appreciate his out reach toward the public. I also really like the idea of reviving the wonder that Cosmos inspired in people for a modern generation. Yet, I think it's not a good combination. I've heard NDT narrate on other programs, and It's...ah...lacking. I hate to say it, but that's how I feel about it.

Personally I really like Professor Cox's knack for communicating in a tone that sometimes seems to summon that same awe that Carl Sagan taped into.

Regardless of all that, I can't wait to see what the new show is like. Maybe, NDT will reach deep and pull it off. Overall, still good news.
 
arg-fallbackName="AndromedasWake"/>
I'm really thrilled that Tyson will be presenting it. He gets really, really excited about astronomy. I think they dodged a bullet by not casting Cox. Don't get me wrong, I've met him several times and he's a good communicator, and a nice guy. He's just not an astronomer, and I don't get charged by listening to him talk off his subject.

If you can make an astronomy show that I find boring, you must be doing something wrong, because I ruddy love that stuff. When Tyson talks about the Universe, I get wet. :cool:
 
arg-fallbackName="televator"/>
AndromedasWake said:
I'm really thrilled that Tyson will be presenting it. He gets really, really excited about astronomy. I think they dodged a bullet by not casting Cox. Don't get me wrong, I've met him several times and he's a good communicator, and a nice guy. He's just not an astronomer, and I don't get charged by listening to him talk off his subject.

If you can make an astronomy show that I find boring, you must be doing something wrong, because I ruddy love that stuff. When Tyson talks about the Universe, I get wet. :cool:

Yeah, well I guess there's that fact.
 
arg-fallbackName="Your Funny Uncle"/>
I must confess I've never seen Tyson do a TV show, but when I've seen or heard him speak he has been wonderfully engaging. I also love Brian Cox, but he can't do every bloody show!
 
arg-fallbackName="televator"/>
Your Funny Uncle said:
I must confess I've never seen Tyson do a TV show, but when I've seen or heard him speak he has been wonderfully engaging. I also love Brian Cox, but he can't do every bloody show!

Tyson's great in an open, unscripted discussion...a little rambly sometimes but his enthusiasm can be contagious. However, he becomes a bit more artificial and monotone in narration.

Example:
 
arg-fallbackName="CommonEnlightenment"/>
AndromedasWake said:
If you can make an astronomy show that I find boring, you must be doing something wrong, because I ruddy love that stuff. When Tyson talks about the Universe, I get wet. :cool:


I don't know about wet but I'm sure I've gotten a few stiffies along the way. :lol:
 
arg-fallbackName="Your Funny Uncle"/>
televator said:
Tyson's great in an open, unscripted discussion...a little rambly sometimes but his enthusiasm can be contagious. However, he becomes a bit more artificial and monotone in narration.

Example:

I see what you mean, but the narration in Cosmos isn't dry voice-over work as shown in your video. It's more personal with plenty of shots of the narrator talking to camera. I guess we'll see how it pans out...
 
arg-fallbackName="Finger"/>
televator said:
Tyson's great in an open, unscripted discussion...a little rambly sometimes but his enthusiasm can be contagious. However, he becomes a bit more artificial and monotone in narration.
Your Funny Uncle is right. Simple narration isn't the same thing as engaging with the camera to explain something you know and understand deeply. I think the "cosmic perspective" portion of the show is closer to what we should expect to see in Cosmos.



One thing to also keep in mind is that this will not be a PBS production. It'll have a far bigger budget and, therefore, more of the tools, professionals, and rehearsals that go along with that (including acting coaches.) I would not expect the visual effects to be as rushed as in Nova: Science Now, so I would not expect the acting to be the same either.

Anyway.. Should this really be called a sequel? My understanding is that it'll be basically the same journey that Sagan took us on, just with better visual effects and more up-to-date information. That's more like a remake.
 
arg-fallbackName="Finger"/>
AndromedasWake said:
I'm really thrilled that Tyson will be presenting it. He gets really, really excited about astronomy. I think they dodged a bullet by not casting Cox. Don't get me wrong, I've met him several times and he's a good communicator, and a nice guy. He's just not an astronomer, and I don't get charged by listening to him talk off his subject.
This got me thinking. You know, Cosmos isn't just about astronomy. It's a voyage of self-discovery. Why not have a biologist host it?

PZ Myers would be an interesting choice.



The first ten minutes of the first episode, he will spend talking about how overrated celestial objects are. Then the rest of the series will be about cephalopods.

Seriously, though. I think that lecture kind of illustrates how Astronomers (even Carl Sagan) tend to oversimplify life, or rather, downplay its uniqueness. So even though Cosmos is supposed to be about everything, there's still some unintentional lack of representation of (and passion for) the other sciences.

I'm thinking there should be some big, expensive, series on everything hosted by a dream team of well-known scientists each talking about their own feild. Then you can get an equal proportion of passion and interest on each subject. That format probably wouldn't work for Cosmos, which is a more personal story that requires one guide, but It would make for a great series if you could get lots of big names and charismatic personalities in on it. Richard Dawkins, Vilayanur Ramachandran, ND Tyson, Stephen Hawking... to name a few. I'd watch that.
 
arg-fallbackName="Gunboat Diplomat"/>
The problem with casting PZ is that he's already got a job...

There may be some politics going on in the casting of Neil. Does anyone know what his religious beliefs are? I'll be impressed if you do 'cause, as far as I can tell, he's never publicly expressed them...
 
arg-fallbackName="scalyblue"/>
Dr Tyson is an excellent speaker!

From the tone and content his responses, I would infer that he is either agnostic or atheist.







edit--here he says that he was raised catholic until a time when, about age eleven, he realized that what he was being taught was less and less relevant to anything he cared about.

 
arg-fallbackName="Finger"/>
Gunboat Diplomat said:
The problem with casting PZ is that he's already got a job...
That part was a joke, actually. I love PZ, but he's way too crude and confrontational to replace Carl Sagan.
scalyblue said:
From the tone and content his responses, I would infer that he is either agnostic or atheist.
Yeah, though I would probably go ahead and call the guy an atheist who maybe thinks of himself as an agnostic. He's just more interested in communicating science than he is in addressing the god question.

Here are a couple of clips to add to your list:



Here also is a Point of Inquiry interview with him. Towards the end he adds onto the Dawkins clip above.
http://www.pointofinquiry.org/neil_degrasse_tyson_communicating_science/
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
AndromedasWake said:
I'm really thrilled that Tyson will be presenting it. He gets really, really excited about astronomy. I think they dodged a bullet by not casting Cox. Don't get me wrong, I've met him several times and he's a good communicator, and a nice guy. He's just not an astronomer, and I don't get charged by listening to him talk off his subject.

If you can make an astronomy show that I find boring, you must be doing something wrong, because I ruddy love that stuff. When Tyson talks about the Universe, I get wet. :cool:

I agree, Cox certainly has nothing on Sagan or Tyson. I find him quite boring to listen to... I guess that is why they have to make up for that by having him in a different place on the globe every time the camera cuts.

Sagan can explain 4 dimensions with a little desk and a few props, Cox has to go to the sahara and draw in the sand with a stick or some shit.
 
arg-fallbackName="WarK"/>
Laurens said:
I agree, Cox certainly has nothing on Sagan or Tyson. I find him quite boring to listen to... I guess that is why they have to make up for that by having him in a different place on the globe every time the camera cuts.

Sagan can explain 4 dimensions with a little desk and a few props, Cox has to go to the sahara and draw in the sand with a stick or some shit.

Well, I prefer Cox :) I get the impression that Tyson tries to be entertaining too much. Only my impression, I haven't really watched too much of him.

It seems many of BBC documentaries are like that nowadays, they fly the presenter all over the world and use different props. I'm not sure you could blame Cox specifically for this approach. I watched few episodes of The Universe, a show made by History Channel, and I found the sensational tone quite annoying, BBC doesn't do this, or at least not to that extent.

As I haven't seen the original Cosmos I'll be wanting to watch this new one :)
 
arg-fallbackName="Laurens"/>
WarK said:
As I haven't seen the original Cosmos I'll be wanting to watch this new one :)

http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/cosmos/

Now you have no excuse ;)
 
Back
Top