So, I finally signed up to Netflix a little while ago, and after a little Chef's Table, I noticed that NdeGT's Cosmos was available.

Now, Carl Sagan's orignal Cosmos made a huge impact on my life back in the day.

It really did change the way I saw the world. I watched it avidly on TV, and saved my minimal income to be able to buy the book, which I still proudly have on my bookshelf.

So I figured I should watch this modern version too.

I have to say, I was disappointed.

It was all very pretty, but lacked a lot of the background, the questions, the conundrums, the things that made science instantly accessible, the thought experiments, those things that grabbed me as a teenager.

I certainly enjoyed watching it, but Sagan's original was more hard hitting, more full of wonder about the universe and our place in it.

The best bit about this version of Cosmos, was Tyson's anecdote about when he was a kid, and meeting Carl Sagan

A lovely story.
The rest of the series? Lovely CGI, a nice potted history of science, but nothing profound. Nothing to make me think too hard.

And then, tonight, I watched the final two episodes of the series. The penultimate one was about climate change.

It pulled no punches. It was devastating. It hit me as hard as any of the original Cosmos did.

I followed up with the final episode, which I think was pretty good, but to be honest, I was still reeling from the preceding episode.

I wish the whole season had been as good as those closing episodes, but I feel it was a missed opportunity. I bet many people didn't make it that far.

Next up: I plan to watch the original Cosmos again.

I haven't yet watched NdeGT's. The question, of course, is how a kid new to science reacts to it, not us...

Well, having had an approximately similar reaction to the beginning of the series, I think you've just given me a reason to want to slog through. Or at the very least skip to the (near) end.

I agree with GustavoG about an appropriate question, though I don't have any insights as to the answer to that question.

Oh definitely, I'd love to see how it was seen by someone to whom the world of science was just opening up. I just don't think it carried that same sense of excitement and wonder that defined the original.

Maybe I'm just getting old and experiencing a bout of nostalgia, but I'm not sure it's simply that…

I watched a few of the new series' episodes and felt underwhelmed as well. Your report makes me want to take a second look or perhaps just skip the early episodes and watch the last few .

I watched the episode on light last night (S1:E5, I think it was), and found it... kind of interesting. But I found myself wanting more, for sure. First, I wanted them to show the camera obscura properly

upside down (I think they did later, but not at first), and then later I wanted to know: do you actually put a telescope aimed at a prism that's aimed at the sun? Wouldn't that fry your eyes?!?

agrees about the analysis of the series/episodes

how much NdeGT objected to these details, and was overridden by producers... I mean, with all he cared about the night sky in Titanic, I'd think he'd do better... sigh.

(it was Titanic, right? Anyway, some film(s).)

I think NdeGT fails at communicating Carl's sense of wonder. He's too direct in the way he talks to the camera. Sagan always speaks like he's describing a shared dream experience.

What Neil might do with a new version, not produced by Fox.

lindes yes, that was Titanic, and apparently Cameron corrected it in a later release.

If Cosmos will also be corrected. Maybe NdeGT doesn't care about accuracy, unless it's the sky?!?