Nature's Weirdest Events (2012– ) User Reviews

I don't hear it....

[planktonrules · 7/10 · 9 January 2017]

I read the two other reviews for "Nature's Weirdest Events" and noticed that both complained vigorously about the narrator's strange speech impediment. Well, perhaps it's more noticeable to Aussies or folks from the UK...I just didn't notice it and don't see what all the hubbub is about his speech. Now I am not saying the show is perfect...but I only noticed the Elmer Fudd-like speech when I was looking for it...and even then it seemed very minor.

As for the show, "Nature's Weirdest Events" is a British series that is about weird and often creepy natural events. Many involve dead or dying animals, plagues of too many animals or bugs or climatic events such as sand storms. Much of the video is really surprising to watch...and pretty cool. But I also should mention that it's also, at times, a bit hard to watch. If you are afraid of huge numbers of creepy, crawly things then this show is NOT for you! I think most kids and guys like me, however, would find the series pretty cool as it's educational AND awful at the same time! Overall, worth seeing for the right audience.

Love the show! Really can't get past Chris Packham's rhotacism (speech impediment).

[rosietx1 · 7/10 · 15 January 2019]

I am all for diversity in entertainment EXCEPT when the one thing that makes a person unique is going to impact the experience of the audience to the point of annoyance. A narrator needs clear speech. Period.

Some of these reviews have been pretty cruel, even making fun of Packham. That's not necessary. And the person bitching about a lisp, it's not a lisp, it's rhotacism. Furthermore, isn't it adding insult to injury to name the impediment for difficulty pronouncing "r" - rhotacism?

Anyway, back to the ACTUAL reason we're here, to review the show. I really love the show. I'm glad to see so many seasons available on Netflix now. The topics are very interesting, often creepy, and so far extraordinar - as in extra ordinary.

Bizarre casting choice

[taylormom · 7/10 · 30 October 2017]

Fairly entertaining program, and I settled down for a night of binge-watching some harmless TV, but my brain quickly began focusing on the speech problem of the narrator. I have no problem with the accent, but WHY would they choose a narrator who cannot say the letter "r" at all???

Halfway through the first episode I suddenly realized that, instead of learning something new I was counting how many words Chris cannot say properly. Bad casting choice.

Great show, annoying narrator

[cacajun-14329 · 18 May 2016]

The show has very interesting content and information. My major issue with it is that I cant seem to get past Chris Packham's accent or speech impediment. Wrascally rabbit. It gives me a headache trying to figure out what some of the words are, he uses. I try to be sensitive to other people, but sigh, get this guy off my t.v. fast. On a t.v. show where you don't see his face, and all you get is his voice, its super frustrating to listen to him massacre the English language. Do us all a favor and take him off the air. I am not one to complain lightly, but enough is enough. Has entertainment standards fallen so low, that company executives let this one slip past them?

Entertaining Narrator

[taffydafyddsherrill · 7/10 · 8 February 2020]

Have to say I had the same speech impediment as a child. However, twice a week a speech therapist was sent to my school to work with me. As an adult with my age 20 daughter, i must say, we found that a narrator with this speech impediment an unusual choice in cast. However it made watching every episode hilarious. We really had fun with many of the unusual facts, hilarious animal behaviours, and of course... the comical narrating... Great expwerience.

Good Content Marred by Over-dramatization, Horrible Graphics, Felony Mug Shots

[TrTm316 · 6/10 · 7 March 2019]

This show introduced us to a lot of new neat creatures and events not covered in other nature shows. It could have easily been an 8-star program, rather than 6. But some bad production choices were Really Irritating! The narrator's speech impediment forced us to use captioning, but kudos to him for sticking with it. (By the time of Autumnwatch / Winterwatch / Springwatch 2020, this has improved to the point it's hardly noticeable.)

Sadly, there were several very off-putting "features."

1 Often, events were introduced in an overly dramatic way that wasn't supported by the rest of the segment. It's okay, if people were scared or mystified, to show that. But often, subject matter was merely unfamiliar, and yet the program tried to present "solving" it as a matter of life and death, when it wasn't.

2 I hate the introductory graphics! I've noticed this sort of Olde-Fashioned Arte on a couple of other UK shows... but they're the horrid exception. The maps are pathetic. Also, the intro is too long, the tell-them-what-you're-going-to-say and then tell-them-what-you-said approach wastes time, and the soundtrack is just weird.

3 And at the top of the crap-list: WHY are the eyewitnesses and the science experts introduced through what could pass as felons' mug shots, complete with jump-scare type changes in distance??? Why prohibit any of them from smiling??? This is a show that could induce the joy of learning; to couple it with grimness is a mismatch! Why present these shots without dialog, when the show could progress as the folks are introduced??? This was terrible production!

The show is informative. But it's not "nicely done!"

Fascinating Facts and Charming Speech Impediment

[kblubyu · 10/10 · 27 November 2019]

First, the elephant - it took me a couple episodes to verify that I was really hearing "vewy," then I laughed and now it just keeps my ears pricked while viewing. Kudos to the brave powers who made this charming narrator choice.

I have enjoyed and learned from every episode and think it should be added to every school child's watch list. There could not be a better way to stimulate interest in the natural world.

I always wondered what happened to Elmer Fudd

[TalkinPikchorBox · 6/10 · 11 June 2018]

The series is really interesting and very informative. The only thing is you have to deal with the narrators annoying lisp.

Packham is amazing once again.

[liamglasgow-11202 · 10/10 · 18 August 2020]

Chris Packham's infectious enthusiasm is wonderful in this interesting and insightful series. Chris's unparalleled knowledge leaves me feeling smarter and more in touch with nature. Chris is a national treasure. Thanks a million Chris.

Stop stating theory as fact

[kevinhendrickson_28 · 6/10 · 18 December 2018]

In several episodes you conclude the answer as fact without any evidence based upon conjectures and theories. You don't even leave this matters as possible theories but take the (no evidence) theory and declare it as the resounding fact. The most anticipated and yet disappointing episode is season 3-2 noises. I personally heard the "moan of earth", July 4th, amongst several witnesses. This occurred several months AFTER I studied the phenomenon. There are no astrological, geographical, or subterranean data that can be collected on this phenomenon. It is still to this day unknown. Yet you like to pawn it off as thermal deposit of man made mechanics!!! Lol ...with no proof of consept, an explosion or sudden impact of sound traveling is no where near the same explanation as thermal carrying of sound. Its hilarious to assume such theory without proof of consept.

I'm not looking to promote a conspiracy, rather hear what evidence supports your shows weird phenomenon, or that there is no conclusive evidence to determine the cause, and not to be told this guy says it's probably this with your confirmation to make it a fact. Its misleading and could prevent someone from collecting useful data that could aid in a discovery.

Interesting Topics, Fwustwating Nawwation

[Lucanus · 3/10 · 13 February 2016]

Whilst these shows are a dime a dozen - collecting and combining crowd-sourced video and stories - this one is somewhat interesting for me, especially the inclusion of the Sydney Red Dust Storm.

But, whoever chose to use Chris Packham (or maybe that should be Chwis Packham) to narrate it made a massive mistake in that decision. I completely understand that different people have different accents, dialects and some people live with speech impediments, but having someone narrate this series with a stereotypical English "r" > "w" speech impediment makes it extremely annoying and difficult to follow.

I spend a good chunk of my time trying to figure out whether he means "wings" or "rings", for instance, which just grates on your nerves after a while.

Like I said, interesting show, but Chris really needs to think about pursuing another career, as does the person who chose him for this series.

Distracting speech impediment

[galenjmudd · 3/10 · 1 March 2018]

The content was quite good but the annoying and incessant inability for the voice actor to say certain words correctly became a very distracting quality of the series. It doesn't make sense to have a script reader for an educational and exploratory documentary who can't even pronounce a large portion of the words he needs to say. Terrible casting choice! I'm all for diversity but when your disability directly impacts your delivery it's no longer a situation where we need to be inclusive and understanding. Hire the best person for the job please!

Great content, needs a new narrator

[happychicken-23161 · 3/10 · 16 January 2019]

The show has a lot of very interesting and strange facts, however I cant get past the narrator's speech impediment. I couldn't watch more than two episodes.

Redundant narration and information

[JakeBrinkman · 2/10 · 7 October 2019]

All of the show's information is very interesting, but about 75% or more of it is already presented in a much better format and with higher quality video in different BBC Earth shows. This begs the question of why this show was ever approved. The primary reason the formatting is bad is the show's lengthy runtime. Each episode has 15-25 minutes of information, but it's dragged out to nearly 50 minutes.