“Then there’s this whole thing about role models. Let’s go back in time. I’m 10 years old, 11 years old, a black kid from the Bronx. Now I need to find another black kid from the Bronx who became an astrophysicist, so that I can become an astrophysicist? Excuse me? No. No! No one would ever become anything that no one before them had become if that’s how you select your role models.”
Asanta and McKenzie got to enjoy an evening talk by Tyson a couple of years ago while I sat outside and listened to a local transmission of the last half of it because of the stupid Jetblue airline that had a three hour delay on the flight from Los Angeles to San Francisco.
Sagan’s introduction to “Cosmos” is one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen. Tyson is okay. Apart from the two of them talking about the universe, though, I don’t really think they have much in common. I have to be in the right mood for Tyson, but Sagan I can take in unlimited doses.
Great video. I got a laugh out of the Tyson doll. Too bad he’s married. :( I think he’s not only cute, but a brilliantly intelligent man. His intelligence is sooooo sexy! That and how he talks about the universe.
Gee, I have nothing to contribute to this thread, except my drooling over him.
Yes, George, they do have quite different styles. FWIW, I think Sagan is too poetic for today’s audience. Even an old hippy like me found the introduction a bit over the top, though when I first saw it blew me away, and it still resonates. I especially like his ability to unselfconsciously talk about science and reality in the way that achieves the emotional quality more often found in the poetry of religion and mysticism. But I’m not sure anyone could get way with that today.
Tyson seems to have eloquence and charisma, like Sagan, but a style that is, of course, more of the current era. My tastes run to the old hippy philosopher/astronomer, but I’m already old enough that my tastes are “quaint” at best to my daughter’s generation. Anyway, Peaxce, Love, and Science, Man!
I’m not familar with Carl Sagan; Cosmos was long before my time, and I’ve never felt the urge to read his books. Neil Tyson seems a likable guy, I bet he’s great at the “Hayden”. If I ever get back to NYC, I’m going to check it out.
Yes, George, they do have quite different styles. FWIW, I think Sagan is too poetic for today’s audience. Even an old hippy like me found the introduction a bit over the top, though when I first saw it blew me away, and it still resonates. I especially like his ability to unselfconsciously talk about science and reality in the way that achieves the emotional quality more often found in the poetry of religion and mysticism. But I’m not sure anyone could get way with that today.
Tyson seems to have eloquence and charisma, like Sagan, but a style that is, of course, more of the current era. My tastes run to the old hippy philosopher/astronomer, but I’m already old enough that my tastes are “quaint” at best to my daughter’s generation. Anyway, Peaxce, Love, and Science, Man!
I’m not familar with Carl Sagan; Cosmos was long before my time, and I’ve never felt the urge to read his books. Neil Tyson seems a likable guy, I bet he’s great at the “Hayden”. If I ever get back to NYC, I’m going to check it out.
Sagan is for all ages. of course the knowledge and graphics were not as refined as today, but I cannot imagine anyone listening to his unique kind of presentation, not taking a peek upward and wonder. I loved all his ‘cosmos” videos as well as his books. “The bi-cameral mind” was very enlightening.
Degrasse Tyson is a little more modern but at par in entertainment and making things understandable for the layman.
The one thing I can’t stand in today’s science documentaries are the sound effects. The swooshing sounds drive me absolutely crazy. I guess I am now officially an old man.
I’m not familar with Carl Sagan; Cosmos was long before my time, and I’ve never felt the urge to read his books. Neil Tyson seems a likable guy, I bet he’s great at the “Hayden”. If I ever get back to NYC, I’m going to check it out.
Hooo boy. You HAVE to get a copy of Cosmos and watch it. Apparently the shows are available for free download somewhere (YouTube?), though it’s better to see them on a TV where you can sit back and get into them.
