I liked the second episode a lot too. But the part about visiting Titan kind of seemed out of place to me. But overall, another great episode
It followed the theme of life, going from extremophiles to speculating about life in the harsh environment of Titan.
They might perhaps better have picked Europa, but regardless, I did not feel as though it broke the narrative as was the case in the first episode with it's Giordano Bruno cartoon.
Yes, the second episode was better. I think they managed to get out of Sagan's shadow and explained the material in a new and compelling way. I'm very pleased.
I liked the part about Titan. It's putting out the idea that life doesn't necessarily have to be confined to what we know about it as it pertains to earth - it could be something completely unique from what we understand. Europa contains vasts amounts of water so any life there would most likely be similar to ours, whereas life on Titan, if it does exist, would be very different.
Yes, the second episode was better. I think they managed to get out of Sagan's shadow and explained the material in a new and compelling way. I'm very pleased.
Except Neill repeated several exact phrases from the second episode of the original Cosmos.
But that's just fine, it's a good shadow to be under.
I liked the part about Titan. It's putting out the idea that life doesn't necessarily have to be confined to what we know about it as it pertains to earth - it could be something completely unique from what we understand. Europa contains vasts amounts of water so any life there would most likely be similar to ours, whereas life on Titan, if it does exist, would be very different.
Indeed. Point taken.
It followed the theme of life, going from extremophiles to speculating about life in the harsh environment of Titan.
They might perhaps better have picked Europa, but regardless, I did not feel as though it broke the narrative as was the case in the first episode with it's Giordano Bruno cartoon.
Yeah I agree with you. What I meant was that it seemed a little rushed. Like it went from describing the tree of life, to maybe 5 minutes of the "ship of imagination" on Titan, then back to Earth. I also thought the ending to the episode was a little abrupt.
Yeah I agree with you. What I meant was that it seemed a little rushed. Like it went from describing the tree of life, to maybe 5 minutes of the "ship of imagination" on Titan, then back to Earth. I also thought the ending to the episode was a little abrupt.
Yeah, commercials.
The second episode was really good. I felt the first episode was meant to establish that religion is evil/bad. Which is not surprising seeing that the executive producer Seth MacFarlane is anti religion.
I can look pass that heavy handed, anti religious stance the first episode had and enjoy it.
8/10
I saw the second episode.
It was indeed much better than the first, i just saddly cannot make myself not compare it to the original.
I think if it were to be the orginal, i might enjoy it more. My nostalgia for Sagan is probably too strong.
But anyway, it was still very good
The second episode was really good. I felt the first episode was meant to establish that religion is evil/bad. Which is not surprising seeing that the executive producer Seth MacFarlane is anti religion.
I can look pass that heavy handed, anti religious stance the first episode had and enjoy it.
8/10
As much as I did like the first episode I also thought it was a bit heavy-handed, and slightly inaccurate with its history.
Bruno Giordano was portrayed as a martyr for science but that wasn't really the case. Bruno's cosmological theories might have been controversial and but it isn't what got him burned at the stake. The main focus of his trial for heresy were on the religious rather than cosmological views that he held. He was burned because he had professed religious beliefs similar to Arianism, which the Catholic Church considered heretical. He may have been unjustly murdered for his beliefs, but if he was a martyr, it was for Arianism rather than science.
On that note Galileo may have been a better choice for a focus on the struggle between science and superstition during that era, since his problems with the Church arose solely from his championing a heliocentric model for the solar system.
The second episode was really good. I felt the first episode was meant to establish that religion is evil/bad. Which is not surprising seeing that the executive producer Seth MacFarlane is anti religion.
I can look pass that heavy handed, anti religious stance the first episode had and enjoy it.
8/10
Yeah, the catholic church even apologised for the treatment of scientist such Bruno and Galileo during their respective periods, other than that the first episode was great, looking foward to watching the second one.
I saw the second episode.
It was indeed much better than the first, i just saddly cannot make myself not compare it to the original.
I think if it were to be the orginal, i might enjoy it more. My nostalgia for Sagan is probably too strong.
But anyway, it was still very good
im in the same situation. ive tried forcing myself not to and i just cant
Favorite part, Tardigrades. Check 'em out on Google Images
Whatched and am recording all the episodes (also loved the original Cosmos when I was a kid).
The Tardigrades.....amazing little creatures.....I love that one of their names is Moss Piggy.
They are kinda cute in a creepy fashion.
As much as I did like the first episode I also thought it was a bit heavy-handed, and slightly inaccurate with its history.
Bruno Giordano was portrayed as a martyr for science but that wasn't really the case. Bruno's cosmological theories might have been controversial and but it isn't what got him burned at the stake. The main focus of his trial for heresy were on the religious rather than cosmological views that he held. He was burned because he had professed religious beliefs similar to Arianism, which the Catholic Church considered heretical. He may have been unjustly murdered for his beliefs, but if he was a martyr, it was for Arianism rather than science.
On that note Galileo may have been a better choice for a focus on the struggle between science and superstition during that era, since his problems with the Church arose solely from his championing a heliocentric model for the solar system.
I will have to agree with you on that. I liked the cartoon but indeed Bruno's story was full of inconsistencies and Galileo would have been a better protagonist for the cartoon.
On that note Galileo may have been a better choice for a focus on the struggle between science and superstition during that era, since his problems with the Church arose solely from his championing a heliocentric model for the solar system.
Probably didn't help that his writing (intentionally or not), mocked and alienated the pope, who was until then actually one of his defenders.
But yeah, I think the second episode was better than the first, which was basically science using religion as a punching bag.
I loved the third episode, and came away from it with a better appreciation for Edmund Halley. It is amazing to me that two of the most brilliant men that ever lived were not only contemporaries, but friends.
I wonder how many stories of two great scientists there are like that now?
I have enjoyed it so far to an extent. I'm not really a fan of the animation they use for the cartoons and overall it feels way too theatrical. I was worried that the show would consist of too much info you could pull out of a high school astronomy book. This hasn't been completely true. Every now and then they will surprise me with some information about the theorists they are focusing on. I do think they pad the show out a bit when it comes to some of the historical figures and their non astronomy/astrophysics escapades. I can't blame them for simplicity as it is meant for all ages to enjoy
I LOVE the Lone Wolf/Shepard stuff 
All stuff I understood, but described in a very good way.
Not so much loving the cartoon sections.
We're gonna watch episode 3 tonight, I think.
Retour en haut
