On looking into Tyson's Cosmos: A great start, BUT...

[thatcrazycajun]

Okay, I admit: I was trepidatious at first upon learning that the late, great and sadly missed Dr. Carl Sagan's groundbreaking old 1980s PBS television series Cosmos was going to be "updated" (or "remade," "rebooted," "reimagined," or pick your current TV-industry verb) for the new millennium. Your Humble tends to have a knee-jerk reaction about remakes in general, especially of old and classic shows and films that were unquestionably done right the first time. All too often, the intent of those doing the remake is a cynical attempt to cash in on an existing "brand" rather than any actual need or artistic impulse to improve on the original.

But given that so much has been discovered about the universe and our place in it during the intervening decades, there is certainly at least some justification for an update in this case. And I felt more sanguine about the news once I learned three things that greatly lessened the likelihood of the new show being a desecration of the original: 1) famed astronomer Neil deGrasse Tyson (arguably the new Sagan of his generation, and a protegé of his) would be hosting and producing; 2) Sagan's widow Ann Druyan, who co-produced the original, is also heavily involved; and 3) cable's National Geographic Channel would be airing it, along with the Fox broadcast network. (And isn't that a step up? I can remember when nobody but PBS would go near this sort of material for fear of ratings disaster. Yes, I know, I'm showing my age. Now you kids get offa my lawn.)

Even better for us over here on the Dark Continent, NGC's African channel Nat Geo Wild gets the show about a week after its US airing, and is airing it here as well. Now we've finally seen the first episode, and it does seem a promising start, maintaining the spirit of the original while incorporating new data and material (Tyson's recollection of his own visit to Sagan in his Ithaca, NY home is especially apt and moving)—not to mention fabulously updated graphics and special effects. However....

One minor quibble roused the angry nerd in me, as it has long been a pet peeve of mine about TV shows involving depictions of outer-space travel: Tyson's impressive-looking, new-model "spaceship of the imagination" is seen several times flying past the viewer in ever-deeper space—with a Doppler-effect sound of "whooshing" or a rumble of engines. As anyone who knows anything at all about the actual conditions in outer space (especially Tyson, who goddamned well ought to know better—unlike the producers of most TV series, who at least have the excuse of usually not being anywhere near as scientifically literate as their intended audience), this is not possible. You see, sound requires an atmospheric medium to carry it...and there is no sound in airless space!

Far too many shows have ruined my "willing suspension of disbelief" like this; for me, it's akin to spotting wires or poles holding up a spaceship model (back in the days before all exterior shots in such shows went entirely computer-generated). Yeah, yeah, sure, I know, it's supposed to be an "imagination" voyage, and some (my Songbird included) seem to think this is acceptable dramatic license, since humans aren't wired to comprehend the visual of any sort of vessel flying by without the sound effect. To which I say, bull-motherfucking-shit! Are we really so moronic as a race that we need this kind of audio cue to get the idea that we're looking at a very fast ship when we can actually see it moving, even when we know intellectually the difference between atmospheric travel and space travel? Go back and look at all the shows I know most of you reading this love as much as I do (including all Star Trek series save the original, which for the most part got it right) and see if you don't spot this glaring goof in numerous episodes. The only two TV series other than ST:TOS I've seen get this right so far have been Babylon 5 and the rebooted Battlestar Galactica, both of which had people on their production and writing staffs knowledgeable enough to nip this kind of arrant nonsense in the bud. Nowhere in either of these shows, to my recollection, will you find so much as one exterior shot of spacecraft with these asinine sound cues added.

I can't believe I'm the only viewer to have noticed this...but I may be the only one who cares. And maybe it is foolish and petty of me to pick at this particular nit, as overall the show so far looks very technically well done and intellectually faithful to its progenitor. And in an age when we actually have national elected leaders (some of them serving on science-related committees in Congress, gods help us) publicly describing evolutionary and cosmological science as "lies straight from the pit of hell," as Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) did not too long ago—not to mention given the abysmal performance of America's grade-school students in the so-called "STEM" subjects (science, technology, engineering and mathematics)—we desperately need a show like this to succeed. But is it really too much to ask that a show purporting to depict the universe as it really is (and not as fundamentalist Christianists, who have already started having public conniptions on Twitter and other social media about the show, would have us believe it is), being produced by actual scientists in this field, at least pay attention to all the details? As they say, God is in the details...and so is the Devil, if you're not damned careful.

Comments

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I'm with Songbird. It's not a case of being moronic; it's a case of being human. We know there's no sound in space, but without some sort of sound the image means nothing and doesn't stick. That's why silent films had a lady playing the piano the whole time; that's why the Enterprise goes whoosh in the opening credits; that's why Kubrick used The Blue Danube; and that's why, if you listen to it, B5 has all the necessary sound cues cunningly woven into the music, so we don't miss them. Some people may be cerebrally advanced enough not to need the aural cues, but they're a minority and they always will be as long as we still have viscera. And the producers of Cosmos are smart enough to know that.

I actually wrote a bit in the current episode of my WIP on http://www.avevale.org/, explaining why you could hear the guns firing on the Enterprise and also why the ship rocked when it was hit, in these exact terms; the crew needed the immediacy of a multi-sensory experience to keep them engaged with what they were doing. I genuinely think, when we get out into serious space without all the suits and stuff, we'll find this to be true.

I haven't seen the reboot yet, but I've been far more concerned about the blatant fictionalising of the life of Giordano Bruno as widely reported across the net. A few whoosh sounds are fairly small potatoes compared to actual misrepresentation of historical facts.

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[lesliet-ma.livejournal.com]

Seems odd that you say with certainty what sounds ghosts make, since ghosts are TOTALLY IMAGINARY. Just saying...

[acelightning.livejournal.com]

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>I haven't seen the reboot yet, but I've been far more concerned about the blatant fictionalising of the life of Giordano Bruno as widely reported across the net.<<

Really? I hadn't known Bruno from Adam's off ox prior to seeing this episode, so I can't comment; would you mind telling me where exactly they went wrong?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I'm not even going to try to do it exactly. You'd be far better Googling it than getting it third hand from me, if you're interested. The two basic heads as far as I can remember, though, were (1) that he was honestly not that much of a scientist, and (2) that he was killed not for trying to bring the blessings of science to a benighted people, but because his brand of religion was not the approved kind; for instance, he believed that Christ was not divine, but a very powerful magician. Which is still a lousy reason for killing somebody and doesn't reflect well on the church of the time, of course.

As I say, there are articles around by people who actually do know about this bit of history *and* watched the programme, and they seem fairly clear that the story was substantially misrepresented.

[redaxe.livejournal.com]

It's a ship of the imagination, so the sound is imaginary.

It had BETTER be a ship of the imagination, to handle like that (violating all sorts of physics in so doing, not to mention the showoff pilot).

Aside from that, and the perhaps overslow pacing, loved the show. (And the second ep should be available to you online, though whether the available pathways include the legit or merely the shady is something I couldn't say).

[lapislaz.livejournal.com]

Respectfully, remember that you are not the target audience for this show. The idea is to educate barely scientifically literate folks by entertaining them. If it actually works, I can forgive them a whooosh or two.

[odanu.livejournal.com]

This. Showmanship is sometimes needed to *sell* science, because we're basically tool using apes with short attention spans. Here on the buckle of the Bible belt, I'm thrilled that it isn't being censored (like it is in Oklahoma).

We use the visual and audio cues that make sense to us in the context of our lives here on Earth. Perhaps it would be a subject for a future episode to compare fictional depictions of space travel with how it actually looks and sounds.

[crystalgee.livejournal.com]

Wow..
So you are discounting the whole series based on that? What if this causes young people to be interested in science? Oh sorry, you're going to knock it due to a little indiscretion.
Relax and give it a chance.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Crystal, I never said anything of the sort. I am not discounting the whole series based on this one thing; as I noted in my post, I want it to be successful and well-received for my own and societal reasons both. I'm simply saying it gets off on the wrong foot by blatantly ignoring the laws of physics...and not only in the matter of sounds in space, as my old pal Bruce has pointed out above. I'm willing to give it a chance while I see what subsequent episodes have to offer...and as I also noted, the majority opinion does not seem to be with me on this issue.

[katrinb.livejournal.com]

It had my ADHD son FASCINATED, at least for one episode. I don't care whether the ship goes "whoosh" or "ting" or "ni!"