Neil deGrasse Tyson's "Cosmos"

.... is it me or has the the show relied more and more on the animated segments as of late??

Hasn't the first half hour always been animated segments?

There's always been three parts.

CGI, animation, and NGT hopefully doing green screen instead of flying halfway around the world for five minutes of footage.

The animation was always a big part of it. I think it got more prominent after the evolution episode but I don't mind. It's more interesting visually than him just narrating the story and it's probably cheaper than recreating so many different sets and costumes for the actors.

I think he definitely flew around the world to visit some of those amazing locales. I know that I would, in his stead.

With the episode before last's leaden Aesop (pun intended), the entire series is obviously just another volley in the Global War for Climate Change. Mostly by encouraging people to fly via jet plane to all the neat locations he stands at for five minutes.

LOL. I think people with the money to go that far already do travel to traditional touristy locations. If they grow fond of the more beautiful, delicate landscapes of the world, they will be more concerned with their preservation, the same way feudal lords cared about forests because that's where they hunted.

Nnnnnnnno the first half hour WAS NEVER solely the animated segments. The animated segments were scattered around each episode and they initially took up 20% of them. The more recent episode about lead had the animated parts take up 70%!

Perhaps they feared people would tire of NDG's perpetual sameface.

Well, they seem to use the same few areas over and over. England, what I'm assuming is a place in Italy, a place in the American deserts, and Australia. Oh and New York City. So it isn't nearly as wasteful as it seems, since the live action stuff for several episodes would be filmed in one place before they move to the next.

Also: Eta Carinae looked gorgeous.

edited 30th Apr '14 9:24:43 AM by Zendervai

The problem with redoing the history of the Earth over and over again is that Tyson skips over details. It looks like the rise of the dinosaurs was supposed to be in there, but got cut for ads.

In spite of this I'm sure that everybody noticed the critical differences between the Morganucodon and the Protungulatum, right?

edited 5th May '14 4:41:42 PM by hcobb

The what and the what, now?

The two weaseloid survivors poking their long noses out of the rubble of the two mass extinctions. The heroes of the episode. You could tell the vast differences a hundred million years of evolution made between them, right?

Eh, not really.

About as easily as most folk could tell a Deinosuchus from a big alligator without anything to show scale.

Or, indeed, between any two species occupying roughly the same niche in any given time or place, generally speaking. We still have little hairy things like that running around in vast numbers, after all.

What's your point? Other than an attempt to look clever on teh interwebz, I mean?

The point is that Tyson keeps going over Earth's past in a blur instead of taking it an age at a time and being clear about what he's talking about. Introducing two very different critters with almost the same wording in the same episode is only going to confuse the public.

edited 6th May '14 10:58:22 AM by hcobb

Maybe covering one age at a time is NOT one of the show's goals??

The point of the episode wasn't about a couple of weasels.

Guys, relax, hcob's got a point, no need to jump on his throat about it. We're fans, but let's not be Fan Boys.

hcobb does not appear to be a fan though. Quite the contrary. I feel kind of stupid asking this, but @hcobb- are you a believer in Intelligent Design? I feel stupid asking since you are obviously scientifically knowledgeable, but wondered the rationale behind your obvious hatred of Tyson.

edited 6th May '14 2:18:00 PM by Hodor

-Pipes up- I think Tyson is kinda ugly. Also, his authoritative style here doesn't quite jive with me.

I agree that his authoritative tone isn't the best. I liked how Sagan set a tone of the wonder of exploration. Tyson sets the tone of "I know all of this, and you are going to be educated in it now."

Both are kind of inadequate when you know this already. I remember saying "Whoa" to his explanation on how oil developed, only for my brother to go "Dude, you already know this crap, whatchoo goin' all "whoa" for?

Well, I think the audience for both (maybe moreso Tyson) is to educate a public that doesn't already know those things/is scientifically misinformed.

I think a lot of the reason for the authoritative tone is because if they allow for any uncertainty they expect to be ripped to shreds by anti-science religious folk.