Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Television Science Entertainment

FOX To Host New Cosmos 206

Posted by timothy
from the with-nancy-cartwright-narration-please dept.
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."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FOX To Host New Cosmos

Comments Filter:
  • How long? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    How long will it survive the flood of complaint calls about forcing evolution into peoples houses?

    • Re:How long? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bky1701 (979071) on Friday August 05, 2011 @08:37PM (#37002852) Homepage
      Given this is Fox, they will most likely attempt to avoid evolution as much as humanly possible, or present "other theories" along with it.
      • by 680x0 (467210) <vicky AT steeds DOT com> on Friday August 05, 2011 @08:42PM (#37002914) Journal
        And Venus will be a paradise planet according to them, because CO2 couldn't possible cause it to be hotter than Mercury. :-)
        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by hairyfeet (841228)

          Well to be "fair and balanced" last I heard Mars temps have gone up too, and I don't think they have much CO2. while I'm all for cutting down on pollution (as long as it isn't cap & trade, which is just another big scam where "preferential companies" will get carbon credits handed to them and the rest of us get fucked) as we saw here in that article the other day where the temps and the models aren't lining up I think we need a little more work before we head down a path that will take wealth from billi

          • Erm... Mars's atmosphere is 95.32% CO2 according to a quick wikipedia check. Which doesn't matter in the slightest really. All that matters for your point is that Mars is unaffected by Earth pollution but still has rising temperatures.
          • Re:How long? (Score:4, Insightful)

            by mmarlett (520340) on Saturday August 06, 2011 @02:26AM (#37004560)

            Yes, NDT will be good. He's an ass kicker. He'd probably quickly point out that they Martian temp rise has been attributed to a slight increase in radiation (sunlight) on a mostly CO2 atmosphere (heat trapping) that has led to a great increase in dust clouds (making the atmosphere denser and more heat absorbing) and at the same time the soil left behind after the dust is kicked up is darker, which means that it's also more heat absorbing. So the mechanism is entirely different. The minor increase in solar radiation just wouldn't have that effect on the Earth — not without massive deforestation and a huge outpouring of CO2 (even more massive than what we've done already).

            No, how Fox will screw this up is by ordering 13 episodes, airing them out of order (so that ape-like creatures evolve from liberals, perhaps) and then only airing about eight or so before canceling the series. But then it has the rights and no one else can show them.

            • Either I missed something in your statement or you're not one of the "the sky is falling and it's all our fault" types. To clarify, were you saying that an increase in solar radiation, massive deforestation, and added CO2, wouldn't make much difference but our current non-apocalyptic situation has? Nah, can't be. I must just be in a mood to argue.
              • by mmarlett (520340)

                I'm saying that Mars is warming for entirely different reasons than the Earth. Just because two things are similar does not mean they are the same, or even related. For the Earth's rise in temp to be caused by the same as Mars', the conditions would have to be the same or similar. They aren't. Apples and oranges.

                • by hairyfeet (841228)

                  While you may have a point I'd say when the nice weatherman offers a big fat check to charity if a climatologist will go on the record and predict the weather on a certain date to within X degrees and not a single one steps up or is willing to put their money and their rep where their mouth is? Well if they aren't willing to risk their OWN money on the models, why should those same model be used to distribute yet more billions from the poor to the wealthy?

                  In case you haven't heard the only "solution" being

          • Not saying you did this, but I love that people jump on the Mars is warming propaganda [realclimate.org] to try and show that climate science in general is bullshit. It's the same intellectually dishonest tactic that creationists use and frankly anyone who falls for it cannot possibly qualify as a skeptical thinker on the subject.

            The "Mars is warming" myth is argument #27 on this excellent list of arguments [skepticalscience.com] from "climate skeptics", you may want to check on some other things you've "heard". Of course there's also a WP page [wikipedia.org]
      • Re:How long? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jbonomi (1839286) on Friday August 05, 2011 @08:52PM (#37003002)
        Fox and Fox News have always been very different.
        • Re:How long? (Score:4, Informative)

          by PopeRatzo (965947) * on Friday August 05, 2011 @09:59PM (#37003476) Homepage Journal

          Fox and Fox News have always been very different.

          One is the tanker car full of manure and the other is the maglev that pulls the bullshit train.

          I'm comfortable refusing to give my money to both, especially since anything they make that is of interest can be obtained free of charge and commercial free.

          How you like me now, Rupe?

          • by sub67 (979309)

            How you like me now, Rupe?

            He's probably not too fond of you but I bet he'd love your voicemail.

          • How are you giving them money? Are you hooked up to a Nielsen box?

            • by PopeRatzo (965947) *

              how are you giving them money? Are you hooked up to a Nielsen box?

              If you buy a copy of Angry Birds Rio, you are giving Fox money. If you subscribe to a cable system, you are giving Fox money. If you pay to see X-Men: First Class you are giving Fox money. Same with Mr Popper's Penguins, or Rio.

              Fox is in a lot of pockets, and I try to keep it out of mine. It's not going to make a difference unless I'm posting torrents of high-quality rips of Family Guy or whatever, but for me it's a matter of honor.

      • Re:How long? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Antisyzygy (1495469) on Friday August 05, 2011 @10:52PM (#37003762)
        Ive seen Neil Degrasse Tyson before and follow him quite a bit. He will NOT go for this. If they try to make him, he will just stop hosting the show.
      • by AngryNick (891056)
        Producer's quote from TFA:

        "...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."

        This bothers me. I'm all for teaching science in ways the viewer can relate to -- something Dr. Sagan did very well -- but I fear that Fox may be on a track that often results in a vague representation of the facts and weakly presented science, tailored to make you feel goo

    • Billions and Billions of years.

  • by AdmiralXyz (1378985) on Friday August 05, 2011 @08:39PM (#37002870)
    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.
    • by ThorGod (456163)

      From the article: "The deal with Fox is reportedly due to MacFarlane’s long-running relationship with 20th Century Fox, which helped him create the Family Guy franchise."

      I think we're talking about the entertainment channel and not the propaganda/entertainment channel. Like you, I'm hoping Degrasse Tyson properly 'informs' the show. If it's one thing our society needs it's a good, strong shot-in-the-arm of scientific appreciation.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        They're under the same umbrella, but you do have a point.

        FOXNEWS wants to get people in with propaganda and..."creative" truths.

        FOX the entertainment channel wants people to watch with as much entertaining TV as possible. They'll broadcast a special of religion RIGHT NEXT TO a special about atheism if they thought it would get more viewers.

        Ah, capitalism. Sometimes you smell so good.

      • by Culture20 (968837)

        From the article: "The deal with Fox is reportedly due to MacFarlaneâ(TM)s long-running relationship with 20th Century Fox, which helped him create the Family Guy franchise."

        You mean the show that had this version of Cosmos? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hE_OehRLH3s [youtube.com] I suppose that's okay then, because Mt. Dew is the best soda everï made. Throwback Dew if you're a Fundamentalist Dew-head.

      • by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Saturday August 06, 2011 @12:40AM (#37004192)

        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.

    • by samkass (174571)

      Sarah Palin hosting a Discovery show and Neil Degrasse Tyson on FOX. What's going on??

    • by milkmage (795746) on Friday August 05, 2011 @09:55PM (#37003450)

      The man said it best himself.
      http://twitter.com/neiltyson/status/99600564995887104 [twitter.com]

      "Simple Logic: Worried that FOX viewers don't know, think, or care about science? That's why COSMOS belongs on FOX."

      and he's right. if anyone can spark an interest in science it's Dr. Neil deGrasse Tyson.

      If you can't bring yourself to tune into Fox
      http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=139033386 [npr.org]
      National Geographic Channel will air a same-night encore of the episodes following their broadcast on Fox.

      • Logic fail: people can change the channel.

        If you can't bring yourself to tune into Fox

        Are there really people like that? I don't like the ideology over on the news channel so I won't watch Fringe on the entertainment channel? I'm not hooked up to a rating box, so who the hell knows or cares?

    • by ArcherB (796902) on Friday August 05, 2011 @10:43PM (#37003706) Journal

      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.

      Like someone else mentioned, the Fox that airs Family Guy, The Simpsons and formerly Married with Children is not the same as FoxNews that airs Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity and formerly Glenn Beck. I guess it's true that ignorance is the base bigotry. The sad part is, you don't even know who to hate.

      You are like General Custer hating Gandhi because he was an Indian.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        You are like General Custer hating Gandhi because he was an Indian.

        It should be noted that General Custer did NOT hate Indians. He rather admired them, actually. Alas, his job didn't care whether he liked them or not, he still had to protect the "settlers" (yes, even when the settlers were doing illegal things).

        Of course, this was the period of the "noble savage" concept, which automagically made Indians kind of cool to people who had never encountered them.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I think the original argument stands. Politics aside, FOX is still the network responsible for hack documentaries such as "Alien Autopsies" and that moon landing hoax nonsense which was bad enough to compelled NASA to issue a public statement to the contrary. I find it very unlikely that NDT will see eye to eye with the network executives on this endeavor and will leave the project screaming bloody murder sooner rather than later.

        • That just means the channel has much to atone for. :-) So let them have it, I say. I hope they get a good CGI team for the space stuff.

          This is hilarious. We have a new Cosmos headed by a solid, scientific host, and people are tripping over their own precious little ideologies in apoplexy because of a channel.

          This is why I avoid the stuff. Ideology, that is.

      • Like someone else mentioned, the Fox that airs Family Guy, The Simpsons and formerly Married with Children is not the same as FoxNews that airs Bill O'reilly, Sean Hannity and formerly Glenn Beck.

        There is some leakage between the channels. For example, remember when Paris Hilton was trying to "break in" to the big leagues of celebritism? She had that show, "The Simple Life" and it aired on the Fox Network. One day before the premiere episode, O'Reilly, in his "no spin zone" 'broke the news' of her sex tape.

        So, when it comes down to making mo money, the two channels don't have quite so much editorial independence.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by enormouspenis (741718)
      You are, without question, the most breathtakingly stupid poster I have ever read in all my years at /.. Congratulations. You are proof that God exists; Nature and evolution alone would never allow your parents and you to survive this long.
    • by TheLink (130905)

      why the hell an organization that hates science and rational thought is hosting Cosmos,

      Does Fox really hate science? AFAIK they do National Geographic ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Geographic_Channel [wikipedia.org] )

      They love profit. If it makes them more money to host Cosmos they will. If it makes them more money to host a series on "Intelligent Design", they will. If it makes them even more money to host both series, they will- hey think of the synergies :).

      If you're grumbling about Foxnews, from a Free Market Capitalist's view they're doing things fine, depending on how you measure it they're t

    • 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*

  • It will suck.

  • 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.
  • 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.
    • by mattack2 (1165421)

      Simpsons already did it...

      err, I mean, they sort of did update it, thought not the graphics itself... at least not based upon the info at imdb.

      In 1991, Sagan taped new introductions and afterwords to mark the show's 10th anniversary. These new segments allowed him to update and correct information presented in the series.

      Wikipedia mentions "Cosmos, a special edition", a shorter version which had some of the same footage, and computer graphics, in 1986, on TNT.

    • by milkmage (795746)

      Han shot first.

  • by Anaerin (905998) on Friday August 05, 2011 @08:52PM (#37003000)
    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!

    • by mcrbids (148650)

      A true geek has no life to speak of on Friday, anyway!

  • 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. ;)

    • by milkmage (795746)

      have you ever seen some of the shit they show on Fox late night.. some of those shows go totally against the news organization's slant... besides, NatGeo will will rebroadcast on the same night. I have a lot of respect for NatGeo.

      There's a lot of anti-evolution comments in this post (obviously meant to be jokes) but I think that's kind of insulting to Dr. Tyson. He would NEVER cave to that kind of thing... and Ann Druyan (assuming she still has some rights to COSMOS) would would only grant permission if the

      • 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.

  • Wow, sure is Digg in here.
  • It's not a big deal. Fox is a media company with very broad focus. They air sports, The Simpsons and Family Guy (both of which took some shots at Fox News) and plenty of other things. Fox is part of Newscorp, which admittedly has some pretty conservative-leaning news coverage on their Fox News Channel, but that's not exactly the same as Fox. There's some level of independence to the station management. More importantly, for a major network, ratings are more important than ideology.

    I expect it wi
  • by ctmurray (1475885) on Friday August 05, 2011 @09:10PM (#37003152) Journal
    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.
    • by Arlet (29997)

      Is that the same FOX channel that aired the "Conspiracy Theory: Did We Land on the Moon?" program, that promoted moon hoax claims ?

  • Fox != Fox News (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Pete Venkman (1659965) on Friday August 05, 2011 @09:17PM (#37003202) Journal

    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.

    • 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.

      Thank you. I've been telling this to both Democrats and Republicans alike for the past few years. It's like they don't realize that there's people on this planet that are never, and I mean NEVER, going to see their point of view. A farmer in the midwest is not going to get a New Yorker's point of view and visa versa. But they both need to

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        This is not correct, and Sagan would not agree. Sagan spent his whole life trying to fight the forces of superstition and disinformation. In recent years, Fox News has caused "Fair and Balanced" to come to mean bowing to treat conservative viewpoints as equal even when their arguments can be proved factually wrong. Sagan not only wouldn't have approved of Fox News, but many people would be surprised as he would likely be very terse on that issue. We do not need to sugar coat the truth. Fox News is an Orwell

    • 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.

      Even so, a news organization has an ethical obligation to speak the truth, and they really exaggerate it. Fox by far is the worst of any news organization out there short of tabloids when it comes to stretching the truth and outright lying.

    • by Tablizer (95088)

      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.

      Why would Fox risk being associated with the controversial FoxNews? It's a poor business decision.

      Are those who like FoxNews really increasing consumption of Fox products enough to counteract those who despise FoxNews and may thus shun the "Fox" umbrella name?

    • by twocows (1216842) on Friday August 05, 2011 @11:25PM (#37003906)
      Sorry, but they ruined Firefly. I won't forgive them for that.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Luke727 (547923)

      I think the concern is less about politics and more about dumbing it down, fucking it up, or cancelling it. Have you seen network television lately?

    • 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 m

    • by Xyrus (755017)

      BTW, Fox News channel exists because people want to fucking hear what they say.

      And why shouldn't they? The only station that entertains me more and makes me laugh harder is comedy central. You never know what those comedic writers are going to come up with next over at Fox News.

      Love it or hate it, you have to share the planet with people that watch it and enjoy it too.

      I think the problem is that people think Fox News is a news channel.

  • 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.

  • 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 Sag

  • 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.
    • "An Atheist voting Republican is like a Jew voting for Hitler." That would imply that Republicans killed six million atheists in gas chambers... you lose credibility and sound ignorant.
  • by NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) on Friday August 05, 2011 @10:07PM (#37003510)
    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)
  • by mattmarlowe (694498) on Friday August 05, 2011 @11:02PM (#37003818) Homepage

    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.

    • Over here in the real world, Fox is the least reliable source of information available. Here is a current example based on actual collected data, reporting on the News of the World phone hacking scandal:

      The study found that during the time period studied, CNN and MSNBC each devoted roughly 16 minutes per night to the topic, compared with only three minutes on Fox.

      In daytime coverage, CNN spent about four minutes per hour on the scandal, while MSNBC spent about half that much time. The total at Fox was clo

    • by Microlith (54737)

      even the science shows are no longer willing to consider all sides of an argument

      There aren't always two sides to everything. Can you give an example of this bias in science shows?

      Fox also isn't that bad in the sense that they actually are open about their biases

      Fox News? Nonsense. They are horribly biased but say "we're unbiased" with a straight face. CNN is wishy-washy and gives too much credence to broken, invalid standpoints. It sounds more like you've lost perspective on what "unbiased" is.

      I suspect ma

    • by CoonAss56 (927862)

      Then you must just love to keep yourself ignorant, and out of touch. Which is your prerogative of course, but don't come on here and become an imbecile by spouting nonsense.

  • 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.

  • ... Tyson stays far away from Sagan's hokey, maudlin approach.

    Yeah, I said that. That happened. Deal.

To err is human -- to blame it on a computer is even more so.

Working...