Badmovies.org Forum

I was impressed with tonight's first episode! I loved the tone, the presentation of facts, the special effects, the homage it paid to the original Cosmos, and even if it did flirt with melodrama when it told about the murder of poor Giordano Bruno, I'd give it an A+.

There's possibly no TV series more sacred to me than the original Cosmos, which I grew up watching and re-watching almost as far back as I can remember, and I think Carl Sagan would be pleased with the effort Ann Druyan, Seth MacFarlane, Brannon Braga, Neil deGrasse Tyson and everyone else involved have made with this project. It is unquestionably part of Sagan's legacy and a tribute to so much of what he stood for in his life.

Tonight was a desperately needed injection of science into the nation's consciousness and I believe it went well. I was at first a little concerned about Neil deGrasse Tyson hosting this series because while he possess a brilliant mind and is a gifted communicator, he also has a caustic edge that Sagan never did. (Or at least that he never showed.) But deGrasse did a fine job, he was the perfect choice for host, and I can't wait for next week.

I wish there were many more shows like this in prime time!

I didn't get time to watch it... maybe next time. I'm looking forward to it.

Hey, Venom, the episode repeats tonight on NatGeo, and after that it may be on Fox On Demand or FOX online or on Hulu.

I enjoyed it. Thought it was pretty good.  :thumbup:

Of course, I've always enjoyed watching shows of this type and watch an awful lot of shows in a similar vein on Discovery. This though felt a little more personal and involving for the audience than any of those did.

I really enjoyed it! Neil deGrasse did a GREAT job  :thumbup:

Now I know why he was passed the torch... it took till the end of the show to realize.

Frankly, not my cup of tea, but I hope the TV ratings are good enough, that'll continue. So far, it apparently has gotten good reviews; people who have seen it, seem to like it, alot; and now days, it's hard to find a program with such intelligence, on network TV. My only hesitation is showing it on Sunday nights. That is also the night that "Resurrection" is going like gangbusters on ABC. And in the battle between science fact ("Cosmos") and science fiction ("Resurrection") "Resurrection" appears to be winning. At least, for the 1st show, it apparently got twice the audience that "Cosmos" got.

What's Resurrection? I never heard of it.

I wonder how John Mitchell if he found out his theory would be remembered as a bad movie...

As I understand it, and I must admit I haven't seen it yet, the show is a limited TV series of 8 episodes, which plays on ABC, I believe on Sunday nights,  and is based on a TV series that was 1st shown in France. It stars Omar Epps, Kurtwood Smith, and Veronica Cartwright, among others. And in 17 words from the description from imdb.com . . .

"The lives of the people of Arcadia, Missouri, are forever changed when their deceased loved ones return."

I don't know how the ratings have been since the 1st episode, but those people who have seen it, seem to like it.

I think the series is dragging a bit, truthfully, but it's still better than almost everything else on TV, just for the effort it's making with its subject matter. Imagine a world where people were as interested in science as they are in sports, popular culture, the 'romantic' lives of those ceaselessly misbehaving denizens of the tabloids whose only claim to fame is that they're famous for being infamous. If we were as committed to science as we are seduced by the salaciously mundane, we'd be colonizing beyond the solar system by now. Forget the environment or extraterrestrial catastrophe, we humans are likely to be the agents of our own demise simply via our own limitations and destructive compulsions toward tribalism and the shallow. Increasingly our banality and short-sightedness seem hardwired to overcome those traits (like curiosity) which could advance us. The fact, though, that a big-four broadcast network is devoting an hour a week from its prime time schedule to a program dedicated to science has given me a spark of encouragement. I do think many more people would pursue scientific research were they made aware of how wondrous the sciences can be. FOX airing Cosmos is a step onto the right path and I hope the investment comes with a reward either in viewership or honors so that just maybe other networks will follow their lead.

I enjoy the show a lot. It actually airs on numerous Global channels here in Canada so it repeats often. Wonder what kind of ratings it's getting? And I caught reruns of it showing on I believe the National Geographic channel...

OK, a PM verdict on this series now that it's been off for a bit. I hate to say this....I mean I really, really, really hate to say this, but the Cosmos reboot would have been better at about eight episodes in length. Not only did the show feel like it ran out of steam long before it ran out of air time, but it fell into the trap of getting up on a soap box, and if there's one thing that's hard to take, it's when science's advocates get preachy. I'm still glad Cosmos: A SpaceTime Odyssey was made, the world needs more avenues for the appreciation of the wonders of science and all that science does for our lives, but somehow toward the end, maybe those last 3-4 episodes, the show just got heavy for the wrong reasons. I was thrilled for the first third of the episodes, my interest was hit and miss for the middle programs, barely there for the last last third. In its best moments this series was brilliantly executed; at its worst it was tedious, agenda-fueled, and heavy-handed. Carl Sagan's Cosmos filled me with wonder while deGrasse's felt defensive to the point of self-pity. 2014's effort is worth seeing, not worth cherishing.

It is hard to take when any advocate gets preachy.  I want society to get more into scientific advances, things that will improve our lives and our planet. 

Part of me wants to blame Seth MacFarlene for some of the show's tone.  It always seemed to me that NGT was interested inpromoting science where as MacFarlene is interested in attacking religion (and there is a big difference between those two mindsets. )  But lately NGT seems to be taking things just a step too far.  Like when he was on the Daily Show and made a point of telling John that the Earth in the video was spinning the wrong way.  There are some interviews where he seems kind of nitpickly when somebody says something.

As for the show itself, I liked hearing the scientist's stories, but some of the topics just seemed kind of basic to me. There was new things I learned, and stuff I was just reminded of.

I was wondering why I hadn't watched this, but I think subconciously THIS is it. I am an agnostic with no affiliation with organised religion but I'm sick and tired of the thiest-athiest debate, because neither side has any solid foundation to the fundamental principles of what they believe in. It's just a slagging match and I am just completely sickened by it now, thiests are supposedly backwards and so on but a lot of the utter logical fallacies come off the athiests too. If I had to critique family guy I would say it has too much of a political agenda, I think they have evened it out in recent years - Seth seems like a great guy I just don't feel too comfortable with his politics/religious bias, probably one of these people that went to a horrible catholic school or something. Look at south park, the lack of agenda or at a stretch "anarchism" of the show is what personally secured it for me as a kid and now, they will take sides but it is fantastically balanced.

I never got round to watching this reboot precisely for the reason of it getting on its high horse (or soap box), and telling us its all our fault.

I have watched (and read) the original Cosmos with Carl Sagan, and even though it is quite dated in terms of 1980 graphics and scientific discovery, it still reaches out to me, enthralls me, and entertains me. Yes, he does get a little preachy at times, but that can be forgiven because of Sagan's self-assured charisma.

We are star stuff!

My gosh, you seem too good to be true!

Shows like this make me nearly weep with joy.  I wish I could shoot Neil Degrasse Tyson with a duplicator ray set on full auto.  We need more people like him.

Do you watch and How the universe works'?  If you like cosmos try it.  There are a. Lot of YouTube videos that people who like cosmos should like.

Sven, I think the original Cosmos was brilliant, yet the attempted revival was agenda-fueled and had an ax to grind, and it showed. The sequel had its moments, I don't deny, but after looking forward to it for months I came away unexpectedly deflated.

As I saw it where it failed in its approach was.....well, science should never stoop to a street fight with anything or anyone. Science is truth most glorified and it speaks for itself. Science should not be socially-weaponized, only pursued, with the effort to gain greater understanding ranking as among humankind's noblest callings. Unfortunately that pursuit has become more difficult than ever, since sources of funding demand a certain social agenda. (Think of the hijacking of National Geographic in recent years, turning it into a preachy platform for first-world guilt and slanted views on complex matters, stripping it of its wonder and its fun.)

For a lot of my life I wanted to be a biologist, but found I hated the atmosphere in universities and labs, so I changed my mind after getting my degree, yet things that have only grown pronouncedly worse since then. Getting into science these days has much in common with joining some neo-Gnostic cult that tolerates no dissent and has a restrictive creed. And that's not what science is supposed to be. Science is about free-roaming thought, hypothesis, experimentation, the cultivation of sheer curiosity.

The first series, well Cosmos let me call it, since I don't consider the more recent series to be a continuation despite the name, was the product of the Second Turning and its mindset of optimism and looking beyond for answers, while this 2010's version was launched in the late Third Turning, a time of strife and division and impending crisis. The tone seemed to be less about presenting the sheer wonders of the universe than it was about picking a fight.

Also N.D.T. is no Sagan. He lacks Sagan's gift for communication, his calm capacity to discuss but not argue, to hold a position without attacking another, and something about that last shot, him standing on the sea cliff where Carl Sagan stood so long ago, actually angered me in its attempt to link itself to Sagan's legacy, when Sagan's input, the incorporation of his writings and those things that concerned him late in life, was almost nil. It was like watching a SJW/atheist manifesto moreso than a science presentation, and I was disappointed and angry.

What I will say is I wish science was more valued in our society today, and I do hold out hope for better things.

So are you. Critical of people who reject the science of human influenced climate disruption?

Nah, I think the issue should be settled according to the rules of Irish shin kicking. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that you are though.

I believe in human aggrevated climate change. Ever since we started having thunder in December in my area,  which never happened most of my life.