[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 1.58 MB, 1240x775, file.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6889229 No.6889229 [Reply] [Original]

Whose Cosmos did you prefer, /sci/?

I really enjoyed Tyson's series for what it was worth but Sagan's will forever be a classic to me. It had that ambient, serene essence to it that really felt like "a personal voyage" whereas Tyson was more like "Isn't this cool? The universe is amazing! Holy shit are you feeling what I'm feeling about all this science?"

No disrespect to Neil but the two series are very different animals. Though I might be a bit biased here - having been interested in science since I was very young and Carl Sagan's death being one of my first real perceptions of a meaningful human being dying (I was around 8 at the time) it really feels more, as much as I hate to hammer this term in, "personal".

>> No.6889234
File: 2.17 MB, 388x218, nutted-but-she-still-suckin.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6889234

>>6889229

>> No.6889242

>>6889229
Sagan's is out of date but was cool in its time.
Tyson's is kind of a sack of shit. It's oversimplified when it knows what it's talking about, and completely wrong far too often. They shouldn't have tried to talk about history at all, for one thing, since they got it entirely wrong.

>> No.6889356

>>6889242
>Sagan's is out of date but was cool in its time.
I see this assertion being made all the time and it just strikes me that people who claim such things never actually watched the original Cosmos. There isn't much that needs to be "updated" with Cosmos and Cosmos was never about the cutting edge of science in the first place. It was more about the broad human endeavor with lots of historical and personal reference.

I kind of agree somewhat that Tyson's doesn't stack up though. It felt less focused and they relied so much on those shitty animations for their historical episodes which always put me off immediately.

>> No.6889364

>>6889356
It's true that I never watched Sagan's Cosmos, I just read the book.
But there are definitely parts of it that are dated, specifically in areas of historical interpretation.

>> No.6889954
File: 975 KB, 1221x873, Screen-Shot-2014-04-16-at-12.45.12-AM.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6889954

Sagan's. He had a singular, almost poetic, personality for inspiring people to awe and humble people with what we know about the universe, and to inspire and motivate them with what we don't know.

Tyson is a great science communicator, but he does best when he's in a format that's more one-on-one or in the lecture circuit. Tyson's Cosmos was too heavily produced and edited; it lost itself in the CGI and was too dumbed down to show anything of quality that isn't either pop-sci or basic high school science.

I much prefer the job Tyson did on The Inexplicable Universe for The Great Courses series of lectures.

>> No.6890221

Sagan's, by far.

Sagan had an infectious enthusiasm that made up for any technological faults. Tyson sounds like he's reading a script and relying on the cult of personality that's built up around him.

>> No.6890232

>>6889229
Sagan's the shit, Tyrone is shit.

>> No.6890386

Sagan's for sure.

>> No.6890422

>>6889954
>I much prefer the job Tyson did on The Inexplicable Universe
This