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 |