I loved both, but thought the original to be far superior. I wasn't crazy about the use of animation in A Spacetime Odyssey even though I generally get a kick out of most of MacFarlane's work. As a narrator, Tyson is a most worthy successor to Sagan. He doesn't have the natural gift for poetry that Sagan had, but his humor and likability go far to counter that deficit. Music also plays a large part in the success of Sagan's A Personal Voyage, and the extensive use of Vangelis' work made it hard to beat in that category.
Sagan is a personal hero/idol/person I admire. I've loved him since I was young, watching the original Cosmos with my parents. Pale Blue Dot to me is one of the pinnacles of himan perspective, and Sagan reading his passage is about as close as I get to a religious experience. (I also loved Contact, with Jodi Foster, though it was tinged with sorrow that he died before it's theatrical release).
Neil deGrasse Tyson is wonderful too, though he has a lot more ego and a lot less patience than Sagan. He's a showman as much as a scientist, but that's just what we need right now, to get the attention of the masses.
I do not think Neil is a showman, he is excellent with communication and is a true scientist
I've seen both and love both. Science doesn't have to exist without wonder, and I think both versions get that across beautifully.
I loved Cosmos, and I think Neil deGrasse Tyson is the epitome of hot males so I have watched many of his programs. The programs are fascinating and then there is Neil. What is not to like.
Love it gonna buy it so my daughter and I can watch it together
I love that series. Anything that shows the magnificence of our universe is worth watching.