Sagan Vs Attenborough

Bathynomus Giganteus · #1 by **Bathynomus Giganteus** » Jan 12, 2012 2:25 am

To be honest, until recent years, I've never even heard of Carl Sagan. But as a child I was shown David Attenborough documentaries.
So, for me, the natural world is the voice of Sir David.
Cast yer vote! :popcorn:

SafeAsMilk · #2 by **SafeAsMilk** » Jan 12, 2012 3:20 am

I'm sorry, I cannot vote in this thread. It would be like choosing between your parents, if both your parents could not be more awesome.

cavarka9 · #3 by **cavarka9** » Jan 12, 2012 3:31 am

whoever the child is i am not the daddy. :snooty:

its difficult to choose, one speaks of the universe beyond and the other opens up the universe we dont bother much about.
i will choose david attenborough for that simple reason, its difficult to make us realize the world in which we actually live in, and as far as we know it is rarer than any star,planet or black hole out there(so far).

Nautilidae · #4 by **Nautilidae** » Jan 12, 2012 5:55 am

One of my friends once described Attenborough as nothing but "a guy who makes my documentaries funny with his cute accent." How does one even respond to that without ripping throats?

xtraordinaryevidence · #5 by **xtraordinaryevidence** » Jan 12, 2012 7:44 am

Nautilidae wrote:One of my friends once described Attenborough as nothing but "a guy who makes my documentaries funny with his cute accent." How does one even respond to that without ripping throats?

By ripping out their eyes instead?

stijndeloose · #6 by **stijndeloose** » Jan 12, 2012 7:52 am

Nautilidae wrote:One of my friends once described Attenborough as nothing but "a guy who makes my documentaries funny with his cute accent." How does one even respond to that without ripping throats?

Would know who to choose here, tbh. Probably Attenborough, but Sagan's just as good, really.

trubble76 · #7 by **trubble76** » Jan 12, 2012 9:22 am

Nautilidae wrote:One of my friends once described Attenborough as nothing but "a guy who makes my documentaries funny with his cute accent." How does one even respond to that without ripping throats?

This made me literally LOL, then I had to look around guiltily to see if anyone saw. :oops:

cavarka9 · #8 by **cavarka9** » Jan 12, 2012 10:33 am

yay to david

Fenrir · #9 by **Fenrir** » Jan 12, 2012 10:56 am

Each have a different focus, but I'd have to say that the woeful "contact" movie definitely ruins Sagan's chances when up against someone who simply is the voice of nature.

The_Metatron · **#10** by **The_Metatron** » Jan 12, 2012 11:24 am

Carl Sagan. Tough call, too. But, I prefer Sagan's chosen fields and topics. Attenborough has the advantage of longevity, and I have never seen any of his work that I didn't like, either.

But, you have to choose one, so I chose.

You are all welcome to disagree with me and be wrong, of course.

Matt_B · **#11** by **Matt_B** » Jan 12, 2012 11:27 am

I'll go for Sagan as I'm a physicist so it'd be rude not to.

I even like the Contact movie although the book is better, of course.

The Hanging Monkey · **#12** by **The Hanging Monkey** » Jan 12, 2012 12:20 pm

I'd actually find it easier to pick a parent.

I'm going with Attenborough because of his wonderful speaking voice.

chairman bill · **#13** by **chairman bill** » Jan 12, 2012 12:30 pm

Of natural science TV - must be Attenborough. But had Sagan lived longer ... and had the BBC behind him too, who knows?

Spearthrower · **#14** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 12, 2012 12:37 pm

While I love David Attenborough, he is, at the end of the day, just a presenter... whereas Sagan was at the forefront of a swathe of scientific discoveries - there's no competition at all for me.

While Attenborough showed me things I'd never seen before, Sagan took me places I'd never imagined. Attenborough gave us a vision of nature, but Sagan talked about our place in it - a visionary himself in many ways.

chairman bill · **#15** by **chairman bill** » Jan 12, 2012 12:51 pm

Spearthrower wrote:... Sagan was at the forefront of a swathe of scientific discoveries ...

Not relevant. The OP specifically asked about this in relation to TV. He could have had a million papers in Nature, but that wouldn't alter his contribution to TV.

Spearthrower · **#16** by **Spearthrower** » Jan 12, 2012 1:25 pm

chairman bill wrote:
Spearthrower wrote:... Sagan was at the forefront of a swathe of scientific discoveries ...

Not relevant. The OP specifically asked about this in relation to TV. He could have had a million papers in Nature, but that wouldn't alter his contribution to TV.

If you any of the produce of those discoveries were aired on TV, then it had an effect on TV.

This just reiterates the point that Sagan made the content, while Attenborough reported on it.

trubble76 · **#17** by **trubble76** » Jan 12, 2012 1:31 pm

Attenborough, the greatest man ever to live. :coffee:

cavarka9 · **#18** by **cavarka9** » Jan 12, 2012 1:36 pm

a good scientific presenter can make a lot more kids take to science than a scientist who isnt very good presenter even if he/she is a great one.

Blackadder · **#19** by **Blackadder** » Jan 12, 2012 1:42 pm

I think both have been magnificent. For me, Sagan just shades it because Attenborough has been assisted throughout his long career by the quite brilliant BBC filming and production teams, while Sagan inspired amazement and wonder in me simply by his words.

chairman bill · **#20** by **chairman bill** » Jan 12, 2012 1:44 pm

cavarka9 wrote:a good scientific presenter can make a lot more kids take to science than a scientist who isnt very good presenter even if he/she is a great one.

Indeed. My youngest son is more turned on to science by watching programmes fronted by Brian Cox, than he is by reading any papers by Turok or Feynman