![]() ![]() ![]() The animation sequences are Disney-like, which as some reviewers have noted are very jarring, and extremely unfitting as an attempt to convey history in terms of its depth and nuances. He even has the bombast to declare that at the time of Bruno "no one else" on earth believed that the earth circled the sun, a clearly preposterous statement that Sagan would never have made-in fact, as Sagan illustrated in his original series, the theory was decidedly old hat by the time of the Renaissance, having its historical roots in Presocratic Greece! One wonders, given such awful lapses of judgement, if Tyson had even watched the original series of his mentor. There also seems to be an overwhelming focus on *men* without even the barest of nods to the patriarchal suppression of women's discoveries and insights across history (at least there was no mention of this in episode 1, whereas Sagan discussed figures like Hypatia). Unlike Sagan, who presented a deeply nuanced and sophisticated elucidation of history, Tyson's is decidedly one-dimensional it seems to merely recapitulate the hackneyed, bourgeois "great man" theory of history. Unfortunately, the explorations of history and social relations are even worse. While the presentation of the science may be educational for an elementary school audience, I think even secondary school children would eventually become bored by its lack of depth and substance, let alone learned adults. A great deal more insight could easily be garnered from a half hour perusal of a cosmology magazine or introduction to astrophysics book. But it was presented in no more depth than as mere snippets between CGI sequences, more in the manner of sound bites than anything more substantial. The show did present, to be sure, some interesting and more updated theories of cosmology, most importantly 3 dimensional maps of the sun's gravitational pull and the 'rogue planets,' which are quite fascinating. ![]() Most of the screen time is dominated by either overblown CGI sequences and sweeping, but banal orchestral music (in contrast to the very interesting and alien-sounding electronica of the original, and its use of classic orchestral pieces which were very awe-inspiring), or some very underwhelming animated sequences of historical dramas (apparently done by the animator of 'Family Guy,' no kidding!) which fall far short of the historical realism and subtlety conveyed by the period dramas of the original series. While Sagan's original series had a great deal of substance and searching, probing historical insight, Tyson's if anything is the opposite: a lot of style but less substance. On the whole, I found this new take on 'Cosmos' extremely underwhelming, disappointing even. ![]() I'd personally rather stick with other programming on Discovery and The History Channel as they tend to navigate the educational waters more successfully and meaningfully. Otherwise there's a sometimes entertaining and illuminating show to be found here even though its executive producer is Family Guy's Seth MacFarlene, who is a bit of a weird and twisted guy. I just have a hard time with it as a result. Even some of Darwin's personally-discounted theories are still being preached in Cosmos. That's not to say that there isn't plenty of science here that is backed up and intriguing, but personally I felt the show's credibility gets distorted when using scientific ideas that have yet to see successful trials. Still, the show at times gets away from itself when presenting now-shaky sciences like macro-evolution which has slowly been fading out of the public school system for some years because of its fact-less basis. The show has a heavy production value to it and Neil DeGrasse Tyson has a great narrative presence. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |