Slashdot Mirror
FOX To Host New Cosmos
twocows writes "FOX is set to make a new season of Carl Sagan's 'Cosmos: A Personal Voyage,' hosted by Neil Degrasse Tyson and written by none other than Ann Druyan (Carl Sagan's widow). Let's hope they don't screw it up like every other good show they've aired in the past decade."
How long will it survive the flood of complaint calls about forcing evolution into peoples houses?
Probably like most people here, my initial reaction was to wonder why the hell an organization that hates science and rational thought is hosting Cosmos, and more importantly, whether they'll turn it into a soapbox for god-knows-what. If Neil Degrasse Tyson is on board though, I'm a little less worried. That man doesn't take any bullshit, and if Fox tries to muscle him into anything, he's going to walk away. That can be your canary in the coal mine to see if the show is worth watching.
Dislike the Electoral College? Lobby your state to join the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact.
Be very, very afraid....
20 goto 10
If Carl Sagan were alive, and knew what FOX was all about these days, he would never agree to having his show re-made. Its cool - yes. Its needed - yes. Will it have more than 2 episodes, or will tthey dumb it down to the masses?
For those guys out there with a girlfriend from ages 20-28 (a large FOX demographic, ask them to watch the original Cosmos. Consider yourself a lucky man if you have a woman that can watch more than 15 minutes, understands it, and wants to watch the next episode.
http://www.hulu.com/cosmos
It will suck.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Brian Cox seems to have captured the awe and wonder of the universe that Carl Sagan portrayed. Maybe as I see more of Degrasse, he'll sway my opinion, but I really like Cox.
Sagan would absolutely want it played to the masses if it would educate. Just being on fox makes me cringe though - even though seth macfarlane is the producer - which is really cool. :D
I always wish they'd update the original Cosmos. Keep all of Sagan's appearances and narration, just update all the graphics. Call it Cosmos "Re-Mastered" or something.
I really like Brian Cox, too. In one episode of Wonders of the Universe he mentions how Carl Sagan was such a big influence on him. He's definitely passionate about science but Sagan just seemed to ooze it from every pore. Perhaps it was the weed, who knows?
But, yes, Brian Cox is excellent. For those who haven't seen Wonders of the Universe, it's highly recommended.
(I still watch the entire series of Cosmos probably once a year. Great stuff.)
Trolling is a art,
What do you know, it's already cancelled!
screw it up like every other good show they've aired in the past decade
FOX has yet to screw up Fringe, which is one of the best shows on TV - broadcast or cable - aside from moving it to Friday nights. But since every good geek has some sort of DVR (and would be home on a Friday night anyway) that doesn't matter too much for this series.
If they screw up Fringe, though, then a pox on all their families. And a plague on their villages for good measure!
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Did you mean: Ann Druyan
http://michaelsmith.id.au
Living in the Republican Bible belt and Fox News country, I hope they don't have to say the world was created in 7 days and the Universe is only 5 thousand years old.
Episode 1: Creation ...
Episode 2: Noah's Ark
Unlikely: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0
Cosmos, the ID edition.
what's their agenda? Part of me wonder if they aren't trying to increase the number of educational shows in their prime time schedule in order to weaken the argument for public television. Of course once Murdoch finally kills the corporation for public broadcasting and the public televisions, he'll be free to drop these educational shows and go back to his usual prime time crap.
I admit this seems too far fetched of a scheme to take seriously. Only Murdoch would be crazy enough to try that... o wait. ;)
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
How long until the universe is only 6 thousand years old, Earth Centered, and created by the head of the Republican Party in 6 days?
Don't mind me. I'm just whining, not really expecting that, especially since Fox is not Fox News. But, I would expect to start hearing a whole lot of "Isn't god's creation wonderful!?!" lines that beg the question. Talk about soul sucking...
And, don't start with the "but the democrats..." shit. I already know. Just let me bitch ya little toadies.
Wow, sure is Digg in here.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Remember when Fox Business News was booed while filming in Madison WI during the legislative walkout? And the reporter being booed said "This is Fox Business not Fox News". Somehow in FOXlandia there is a distinction.
"There are billions and billions of planets. And Pluto isn't one of them."
Fox is not Fox News channel. Knee-jerk anyone? BTW, Fox News channel exists because people want to fucking hear what they say. Love it or hate it, you have to share the planet with people that watch it and enjoy it too.
Carl Sagan's Cosmos is a great show and I'm sure any attempt to recreate some of that brand of awesome will be commendable. You know, Carl Sagan wrote in his book "The Demon-Haunted World" that people shouldn't be silenced just because you don't agree with them. Use reason, not emotion. We are all humans, let's start to prove it.
I remember a friend let me borrow the "Cosmos" book and I've been hooked into science ever since. I like Neil Degrasse Tyson (Except for the whole Pluto thing and making fun of Dr. McKay).
I hope they do it justice.
The real Sig captains the Northwestern. This one captains
I'm not complaining, but I can't think of another astronomer who has hosted a show about astronomy in the last 10 years besides this guy.
Cosmos was special because Sagan was willing to get deep and a little weird in ways that only a highly respected astronomer could do without stoking suspicion that he was on something. Neil Degrasse Tyson is also fun to watch, but I don't think he can talk about one of his crazy dreams like Sagan could.
I think i have thoroughly had my fill of updating the past between Lucas/Spielberg and rewrites of Huck/Mockingbird. The past is the past, and to alter it to reflect the current sensibilities is to be disingenuous at best, a horrible disfiguring at worst. (I'm looking at you George 8^()
However, "Neil deGrasse Tyson" made me do a spit-take.
I actually only learned about Cosmos when the Science Channel showed it with many re-done graphics, but also with enough cuts that I like the DVD version from the 1990s. I would show that version as-is, or I would splice in some of the updated visuals from the Science Channel airings, except that I would re-do the updates that were already appended to most episodes on the DVD version.
And yes, as (I think) someone above said, Brian Cox has a much more Sagan-like delivery than Tyson. Cox's new program feels like Cosmos, though I don't know enough about him to know whether he would dare to make the kind of strong claims Sagan did without being overly confrontational.
I think you mean Ann Druyan. With an N at the end.
This is just a PR job for Newscorp. Some of us will be quite satisfied when Newscorp becomes Newscorpse, until then boycott them and all their affiliates.
If someone is passing you on the right, you are an asshole for driving in the wrong lane.
I hope he doesn't go and whore up black holes yet again. (Oh well, at least he's not as bad as Michio Kaku)
Did you know 80 to 90% of the moderators on slashdot wouldn't recognize a troll even if one dragged them under a bridge.
Episode 1: Creation ...
Episode 2: Noah's Ark
THE IGNORANCE! IT BURNS!
FoxNews is not the same as the Fox that airs Family Guy. You are just as ignorant you claim FoxNews viewers are. The sad part is that you don't let it repeatedly proving it in public.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
If it was on PBS, I'd be worried that it would be biased.....
I give up even trying to watch charlie rose on pbs these days....... whenever reporters are brought in to discuss current events, there are always 2 from the editorial wing of the new york times, and 3 from other left leaning news outlets and the conversation always goes around to complaining about tea partiers.
I used to watch frontline, newshour, and other shows on pbs and the BBC....haven't been able to for the last 10 years, especially as even the science shows are no longer willing to consider all sides of an argument, and the bias is as much in what issues are covered as in the content and who they consult as experts. Pretty much ever since gore lost the election, and the AP decided that that fair fact based reporting wasn't informing voters properly, the closest I've found to fair reporting is the wall street journal (assuming you skip the editorial pages) and focus just on the news.
Fox also isn't that bad in the sense that they actually are open about their biases.....CNN/etc not so much.
It isn't the Christians who have placed the gag-order on what constitutes scientific inquiry. It is the materialists who seem to not feel their arguments are up to the challenge of being questioned!
Maybe as I see more of Degrasse, he'll sway my opinion, but I really like Cox.
We're waaay too juvenile for you to post things like that around here. ;)
All through the series, Neil D. Tyson will wear a black turtle neck ...along with a Shaft-style leather jacket. Instead of using the spaceship of the IMAGINATION, he'll use the ipad of the IMAGINATION. All of that enviro-whining, vangelis muzack, and proto-new-age religiosity will be replaced with cool jazz and annoying CGI. It'll be fricking terrible and all the PBS devotees will turn away in horror and switch over evening reruns of Sesame Street.
While you are completely correct, they are not the same and Fox Broadcasting doesn't give two shits what the politics of a show are if it is popular, that was not the point. The point is they've killed a to of great shows by through all sorts of mismanagement (like fucking around with time slots continually, playing episodes out of sequence and so on).
The one most geeks will think of is Firefly, which really was a great show to watch and probably would have had a long run but was badly mishandled. There's more though, Futurama is a hell of a show, some of the best voice acting I've ever seen on an animated show. Groening knew the Simpsons was getting long in the tooth and made Futurama to refresh it, but rather than using the Simpsons as either a leader or trailer for it, Fox shifted it all around and killed it off in the end. I could never find it on TV, they kept screwing with it.
Family Guy is another. Show was actually fairly popular but they decided to can it for some reason. Then they were "amazed" by the DVD sales and fortunately for them, the cast and crew were willing to come back and it is still going.
That is the reason for the criticism. Fox seems to like to buy the rights for good properties, and then fuck them up. I saw nothing in there about Fox News.
On one of the Family Guy DVD extras, he answers a fan question about the politics of the show and Fox. He explains that Fox Broadcasting and Fox News are run very separate, and that Fox in total is a massive company. So massive that he, one of their rather big name creators, has never met Murdoch. He said that in the entertainment division, what they care about is people watching a show. If the show gets viewers and sells ads, that's all that matters there are not concerns with the political content.
Makes sense too. Fox News is what it is because people want to hear that narrative. They have to maintain their slant because that is precisely why they have the viewers they do. They have people who desire to hear that and (sometimes I think even more) people who listen to make themselves angry at what "the other guy" is saying. So they do it for ratings.
Well their entertainment branch, the regular Fox stations, are the same, except they don't have a narrative because it is entertainment. They want to give people what they want, which for the entertainment side is often very different. It is a different set of viewers for different programs.
Hence they are fine with MacFarlane. His show brings in viewers, probably not the same ones as Fox News but that doesn't matter. Even better for that matter, the Fox News viewers can watch that while the Family guy viewers watch that and Fox gets more money.
"we can't just say "FOX NEWS sucks and people that watch it are idiots!""
Of coure you can say that. About every fourth post on this article says something quite similar to that.
People can say anything they want.
I know people who say that crystals channel orgone energy and can heal all manner of ills.
Doesn't make it a well thought out viewpoint.
That's right, "teach the controversy". Idiot. If your views are fact-free nonsense, people tend to tell you to STFU.
I fucking LOVED Carl Sagan. And I mean "love" in that non-homosexual, but not exactly 'metro' fashion in which male geeks can love another man. It's not quite pure idolatry, but it's pretty similar.
When I was growing up and shows like Cosmos came on once every couple of months, I was mortally transfixed until it was over. Sagan was a god to me.
I wish I could have high hopes for FOX to continue his legacy, but I really don't. Sadly.
do() || do_not();
You do know how the canary test works don't you? Either Neil Degrasse Tyson will play ball or he will be pining for the fjords. Either way, Fox wins. They always do. *Omnious music plays*
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
That broadcasts "things" that pose such questions as "how would earth defend itself from alien attack". Imagine Independence Day with the indepth research, the special effects, the realism.
The humans ultimate attack? Lifting themselves up by balloons to the space ships hovering about the earth. Oh and it is a globally coordinated strike... apparently the weather is the same all over the planet in the future. Oh god, now I am trying to make sense of it.
NatGeo and Discovery are not what it once was.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
If you ask me, I think it's rays.
The same rays that has guys hating Transformers and loving Little Ponies.
Fire the orbital friendship cannon! Set weapons to "tolerate!"
... Tyson stays far away from Sagan's hokey, maudlin approach.
Yeah, I said that. That happened. Deal.
Common mistake there, AC. That evolution happens is a fact, that it is the origin of man is a theory. An extremely well supported by the evidence theory but without direct observation of the origin of species, it's still a theory. It would take an FTL drive and a fucking amazing telescope to be able to empirically verify it and promote it into fact. Well, or negative axis time travel but that's even more problematic than an FTL drive.
Violence is like duct tape. If it doesn't solve the problem, you didn't use enough.
I like what Profs. Brian Cox and Jim al Khalili are fronting. I just wish they'd tone down on the hyperbole and loud metro shirts (looking at you Jim) as according to Jim everything that Feynman/Einstein/DeBrogli/Heisenberg/Dirac did was, like, simply the best thing since sliced bread ever, and and offer some harder science as it occasionally slips into Cosmology for Dummies. I care not for the Dummies.
epic fail
Divestiture is unsubtle. That contrast is good, since the harm done by supporting corrupt institutions is often quite subtle.
I avoid shows that I once loved just because they show up on FOX tv channel. I avoid movies at the theater if they come with the FOX studio logo. The misinformation deliberately promulgated by FOX news taints the whole institution. Doing the equivalent of "The More You Know" public service pieces does not erase the harm done by their other programming. You don't get to say harmful things and follow it immediately with "Oh, you know I'm just kidding, right?" You can't play both sides and maintain the high moral ground.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lingering-lies
A science show does not counteract Fox News. It's really very important, so it deserves repeating.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lingering-lies
Even if I am not personally polled by Nielsen, my participation in the culture that enhances/encourages viewing of FOX products still matters because it has a non-zero influence on the people around me. Eventually that influence does reach Nielsen as the herd slowly moves toward giving attention to any tv program. Higher Nielsen ratings translate to higher advertisement revenue for the institution. Divestiture is an effective political effort because it calls attention to this point of how seemingly unrelated things really do affect each other.
Heard a rumor that Seth McFarlane was going to host and I thought that was excellent. Him or Eddie Izzard or a flamboyant George Takai... I'm butchering the spelling of all these names probably. anyway.... DIVERSITY HO! or Captain Jack Harkness! You know, someone for the kids. Or a robot Carl Sagan.
I like Neil and all but he's a little overexposed imo. But PLEASE, no Michio and if it was David Pogue I'd have to send out some really nasty letters and I mean nasty, the kind I would surely regret and write apologies for later.
And I'd like HBO ala carte please and full access to BBC broadcasts, ala carte too
On the female side, maybe Natalie Portman could host? Yeah, I'm trying to think of other females but I've viewed Thor like 20 times and I was watching Zoolander last night and she had a cameo in that and that part of my brain that waits for that "I wish so much that I was the object of her affection!" just lit up crazy. Seriously, is there a more perfect host? I'm trying to think of a smart male actor for her co-host but I'm drawing a blank.... oh perfect! DOLPH LUNGREN! Seriously, someone make a spell check that has famous/imfamous people names. Famous animals too. And fictional characters too.
17 years ago, 19 years of age, smoking pot and reading pale blue dot. Important stuff. Not so important stuff: modifying food to have sex with it...youth.
inferring global warming from a 3 Martian year regional trend is unwarranted. The observed regional changes in south polar ice cover are almost certainly due to a regional climate transition, not a global phenomenon, and are demonstrably unrelated to external forcing. There is a slight irony in people rushing to claim that the glacier changes on Mars are a sure sign of global warming, while not being swayed by the much more persuasive analogous phenomena here on Earth
Oh and Mars' atmosphere is almost all CO2, you didn't hear about this?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=lingering-lies
A science show does not counteract Fox News. It's really very important, so it deserves repeating.
Actually, it's worse than merely "not counteracting" the manure shown on Fox News-- it is an attempt to give legitimacy to the stuff pumped out under the Fox aegis: "Fox hosts Cosmos! They must know about science stuff."
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
I thought the orginal was written by Sagan, if that is the case.
Please don't exploit his widow, or let her...
Exploit Sagan's Legacy!
THIS ^
As a rational person, there's no way Carl Sagan would want his series shown on Fox, a network ran by republican fascists, who don't give a damn about a truth such a science.
https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
I would be really surprised if Neil Degrasse Tyson would have any business with Fox.
the show is a great idea, Neil Degrasse Tyson is a great host, but Fox is totally the wrong network. Why not PBS, The science channel, discovery?
From Neil's Wikipedia page:
"Tyson has argued that intelligent design, which credits complex, yet-to-be-understood phenomena in nature to a higher intelligence, thwarts the advance of scientific knowledge.[15][16][17]"
To the people who think that Fox will bring Christian and false facts into a TV show about space: Why do you think this? Because MSNBC, CNN, or PBS told you? Thought so. I don't believe in creationism (I'm fully atheist) and I don't believe in socialism (I'm very fiscally conservative), so I don't agree with everything on Fox or any left wing outlet. If you don't want media outlets with different views from yours then you'll be left in an echo chamber.
This is clearly an effort by Fox to create an amazing and factual new show with Carl Sagan's closest successor.
Get off your high horses.
I'm getting squick and squee from this. The squick comes from the fact that Fox is famous for the way they give journalistic cover to right wing nutbars -- this looks like Fox might be trying to deflect some of that criticism as they ramp up their "coverage" of the 2012 American presidential race, and I'm horrified that the producers might have accepted huge barrels of money to lend their credibility to the Fox marque.
With that said, the squee is that I wouldn't be surprised if Seth McFarlane has managed to troll Fox. This quote from the show's producers is a bit of a give-away (emphasis mine).
the story of how human beings began to comprehend the laws of nature and find our place in space and time. It will take viewers to other worlds and travel across the universe for a vision of the cosmos on the grandest scale. The most profound scientific concepts will be presented with stunning clarity, uniting skepticism and wonder, and weaving rigorous science with the emotional and spiritual into a transcendent experience.
The original Cosmos series never tried to "unite skepticism and wonder." Rational people can be moved by a phenomenon and remain skeptical of the proffered explanations. If that is part of the stated goal of the producers, their target audience probably isn't rational thinkers, but rather irrational types who routinely point to emotional and spiritual experiences as proof of the existence of their deity. I expect McFarlane will jump the ID shark at some point in the series and force Fox to either pull the show, affirming that people who watch Fox are, by and large, irrational, or leave it on and force Fox to contend with confused, angry bible-thumpers flooding their call-in shows, which will still affirm that most of their viewers are, by and large, irrational.
That's what she said.
It will be pretty good.
http://alternatives.rzero.com/
They'll probably show it in the wrong order and cancel it after 14 episodes.
... but I really like Cox
Pardon?
As a midwestern farmer, I resent your implication that there is some characteristic the irrevocably distinguishes me from a New Yorker in terms of capacity for reason and outlook.
Are our backgrounds remarkably different? Almost certainly. However, the political diversity that is possible even in the relatively small communities out here should, in and of itself, be an indicator of how blatantly flawed your hypothesis is. While it is true that insular communities tend to develop their own somewhat xenophobic, homogeneous cultures, this country has been blessed by the ability to easily and rapidly move people and information around since well before I was born. Any of us who partake of this feast of knowledge tend to liberalize, and it is outright bigoted of you to assume that something so generic as our background limits us to a certain way of thinking.
In short, I reject your hypothesis and instead replace it with my own:
Outlook, including political views, is primarily a function of experience. Subjects with a common but limited set of experiences will present a common ideology. Consequently, assuming a finite number of types of experiences, subjects who have had a wealth of diverse experiences will present an ideology of common elements even if their initial backgrounds had no/little overlap.
-Your friendly neighborhood farmkid
That's the type of response I expected AC... and that's probably about all you got too. ;)
Wanna talk about philosophy of science? (I won't be holding my breath.)
Brian Cox is kicking ass on the Science Channel with his gorgeous series. Neil is more suited for Sesame Street... or, here's a stretch, FoxNews watchers. I wonder if Neil will buy into the 6,500 year old universe...after all, it's equally justified as a theory that should be taught to Texan and Floridian crotch fruit.
Oh... and just on the off-chance that you were thinking about responding.... so you can prep a bit so we can have a meaningful discussion... You might want to google a few names like: David Hume, Karl Popper, Michael Polanyi, Thomas Kuhn, Imre Lakatos (especially Lakatos). Should you want to go beyond philosophy of science to actually expand on your poking fun with the 'teach the controversy' phrase: You might want to start thinking about how to defend the idea of information derived from a naturalistic process. You might want to start researching the implications of the move from asexual to sexual reproduction. You might want to actually interact a bit with Michael Behe's ideas (rather than just make the Ad Hominem move, as I won't let you get away with that). You might want to look a bit into some of the issues surrounding the origins of life (since macro-evolution certainly doesn't work if you don't have life to start with). While I'm no expert, I'm educated enough, and follow the debate enough to realize that people who use 'teach the controversy' in a joking manner are full of it.
Anyone who enjoyed the early Cosmos would do well to check out 'Space', a six-parter from BBC hosted by Sam Neill, who we Aussies like to claim as our own but, unfortunately, is about as Australian as Phar Lap :-)
While Cosmos is the series that captivated me as a youngster, it's getting a little long in the tooth, even after the updated version. 'Space' is a worthy successor, in my opinion.