• Arghblarg@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      I admit I want to like his science education efforts, but … and I mean this in just an objective way and it’s only my opinion but … he just doesn’t click for me anywhere close to how Carl Sagan did. Sagan had such a thoughtful, reflective and soothing manner in how he presented science concepts, and his awe and love of all things science (and science history) was infectious. The original Cosmos is capable of making one weep at the beauty of the universe… I only got through the first 2 or 3 of Neil deGrasse Tyson’s new series; his style of narration just doesn’t work for me. I even have trouble listening to his science podcasts, it’s just too much ‘sports-talk’ like back and forth.

      I dunno. I’m grumpy today and need more coffee.

      • Eleazar@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I wanted to like him too but the more I tried the more I came to the same conclusions as you. I’m saying this post-coffee and happily houred.

        He’s absolutely no Carl Sagan. Now, those are some big shoes to fill for anyone but Neil didn’t even come close. I really like his voice but there’s always an air of condescension about his demeanor. It was admittedly less present in Cosmos, thankfully.

        His Hollyweird presence is what really irks me, appearing in shows like Big Bang Theory. He somehow manages to be bad at acting like himself. It would be almost impressive if he didn’t come off as so damn conceited.