Season 2, Episode 1. "Scientists believed, because there's no air in space there would be nothing for the rocket to push against so it wouldn't be able to fly... but Goddard had other ideas"... This coming out of the mouth of a real scientist... NOBODY who studied physics since Newton believed that!!, especially scientists!!! Maybe an infamous newspaper editor put his foot in his mouth claiming so but he was quickly put in his place by thinking people. Goddard, of course a genius, didn't go against known science and believed that in space his rocket would work, he KNEW it would work, Just like Columbus didn't go against general knowledge and bet that the world was round, he knew it was round... Sometimes I wish they would sell us straight science and not some trumped up dramatic crap... we deserve better and maybe one day the producers of these shows will treat us with respect. Very sad.
17 Reviews
Please get a grown-up to narrate your programs!
email-6712916 October 2019
With the incredible amount of talented voice actors/narrator's, how did Michael Bratton get the job?
Although he does not have the severe affectations as Erik Dellums presents, it sounds very much like they went to the nearest high school and hired one of the students from the school radio station.
His voice texture is very thin, he does not have the command, authority or timbre of a professional adult male voice talent. "Google" mail voiceover or voice actor and just pick anyone from the first 100 and you'll discover much better talent for a network-based program.
Program content is phenomenal, but loses any authority when listening to a high school junior do the narration.
Although he does not have the severe affectations as Erik Dellums presents, it sounds very much like they went to the nearest high school and hired one of the students from the school radio station.
His voice texture is very thin, he does not have the command, authority or timbre of a professional adult male voice talent. "Google" mail voiceover or voice actor and just pick anyone from the first 100 and you'll discover much better talent for a network-based program.
Program content is phenomenal, but loses any authority when listening to a high school junior do the narration.
Great show, but get rid of that narrator!
email-6712918 March 2020
Wonderful subject matter, good but not remarkable production. The problem is, I cannot stand to listen to the current, immature-sounding and thin-voiced narrator! Please go to a nearby school and draft one of the students in the school radio station who will probably do a much better job narrating! Or, hire an adult...ANY adult to take over. (Except for Erik Todd Delums!) There is a Multitude of quality voice talent out there yearning to work, It should be an easy task to find a qualified replacement. PLEASE!!!
Standing on the Shoulders of Giants
benvolio3629 May 2015
Although this show does lack in the animation and graphical effects it is very good at the history of the engineering topic. The show highlights a project and then goes back in history and explains how the technology was developed. The show highlights several different specific engineering challenges relevant to the project and then tells the history behind each challenge. The show really dives into the historical significance of engineering ingenuity and how it impacts the project. They cover old technology and why it didn't work and what replaced it and why it's better. I find this show to be very interesting and well done from an Engineers standpoint. The show really encapsulates the saying "Standing on the shoulders of giants" from Issac Newton stating that his discoveries were dependent on other peoples past discoveries.
Feeble and repetitive
ant5019 February 2017
The concept is great. Explain how engineers have created modern marvels, drawing upon past experiments by their predecessors. However, the actual show is unbearably drawn out. I only watched one episode; about the Shanghai Maglev Train. Fascinating subject but it was a half hour documentary padded out to last twice that long. I lost count of the number of times the same shots were re-used; the music was intrusive; the repetitive commentary was aimed at an immature audience and what exactly was the presenter in Shanghai doing? If she was presenting the show then she should have been doing it to camera; if she was an interviewee then she should have been directed to keep her eye line closer to the camera, not be staring into the middle distance. Viewers have to sit through a whole hour of this stuff, just to enjoy a handful of three minute bursts of interesting information separated by plenty of padding. The only reason I give it 4/10 is for a few engaging sequences of archive material and modern experiments, with appropriate homages to the engineering pioneers. Oh and by the way, Nigel Gresley's streamlined locomotive is usually called "Mallard" and not "The Mallard" but it's a moot point so no marks lost there.
Hmmmm
buddrud-2719414 July 2021
I find it somewhat fascinating how similar this show is to 'Engineering Connections' with Richard Hammond years earlier. I feel like they could have gotten a good Host for this show and made it more entertaining AND informative. I'm intrigued, but also bored.
A Squandered Opportunity to have a Hit
biker45127 July 2016
The premise of Impossible Engineering sounds great; highlight huge or revolutionary engineering projects, tell the history behind them and what makes these projects special and incredible. I was excited to see this show and set my DVR to record all episodes. Tonight I sat down to watch two episodes which I thought would be of the most interest to me, "Ultimate Warship" about the British aircraft carrier HMS Queen Elizabeth and "World's Biggest Cruise Ship" about the Empress of the Seas. Unfortunately I was so very disappointed. I already know a fair amount about these ships and the history of their respective classes and was appalled by the amount of misinformation in these episodes. So many times the narrator used hyperbole about the "biggest," "fastest," "first" and on and on when those statements should come with qualifications. When they say "It was biggest project..." what they should be saying is "It was the biggest project in the UK..." or "...the aircraft carrier was an effective weapon for the first time in history" when the described event took place two years after it had been done in two other parts of the world, and four years before an aircraft carrier was used in warfare as a weapon. If these kinds of things were errors in just a few places they would easily be forgiven but the entire show is predicated on making everything be the "biggest," "fastest," "first" or other extreme and the wording used reflects that goal. So my thinking was that if on an episode where I knew, or could readily look up specifications, there were this many errors or out an out misleading statements how could I trust what the other shows were telling me? So I watched a second episode and sure enough it too was full of errors. There are some reasonably good parts of the shows but in no way enough good to offset all the horrible bad. I deleted the rest of the episodes from my DVR and will donate the time to watching something that is truly educational. Oh, and I can't forget to rip the horrible choice of background martial music and the volume that is so high as to almost drown out the voices and sounds.
Awful show hire a better production crew
riverheightsviewer11 May 2015
Awful music permeates this show, so loud that it makes it any information being relayed almost impossible to hear. Add on juvenile graphics and repetitive information and you have a really terrible show. There have been much better productions like Mega Engineering and Modern Marvels. Had the possibility of being educational and informative for both adults and children but this show is a complete waste of time. Generally viewers for this type of TV series want details, great graphics, detail of construction and a background of past projects, comparing size or how many aircraft actually fit on the aircraft carrier. I would forget the shows and look it up on line. Or seek out the other shows where the production company has taken the time to produce a good quality show.
worst sound effect ever
pj-383841 June 2017
the reason for this review is for the terrible back ground noise, music , sound effects or what ever you may want to call them but all they do is block out the voices of the narrators message. the content like tesla would have been very interesting but could only hear about half of the message, this is not a one time thing because it happens on all of impossible engineering programs, maybe that is why so many reruns are starting to come up because no one is wanting to watch what you cant hear
paul jarrell summmerdale al
paul jarrell summmerdale al
Insults even below average intelligence
rebeccabemis-8125415 May 2020
Little to no actual content. I would consider this educational for a kindergarten student. Any adult with a passing interest in engineering will find this massively disappointing. Most of the video time is spent with useless repetitive illustrations, absurd over simplifications and a tiny bit of time spent on explaining the history of the simplest concepts; who knew that hot air rises? I'm furious that I spent 9.99 on top of my amazon prime subscription for this.
awful audio/incidental "music"
drhoodoo15 June 2017
Thank heavens for closed captioning. The Wagnerian shrieking at the end of each segment is SO bad. The annoying "ticking bomb" is just trite; the blaring, assonant shrieking is intolerable. Pity: the concept had potential....
The videography is good and the topics are of interest but it is impossible to endure the crazy sound effects. I just tried Perdido oil platform (season 3 episode 12 Science channel, 6/15/17) and found that closed captioning and Pandora (quietly) would allow me to consider a 6 rating even with the difficulty of having to edit out the bizarre audio and read the likely imperfect subtitles.
Millau. It is the topic of the episode and pronounced just like it is spelled "mill ow". It's gifted engineer would not recognize how you said his name....
The videography is good and the topics are of interest but it is impossible to endure the crazy sound effects. I just tried Perdido oil platform (season 3 episode 12 Science channel, 6/15/17) and found that closed captioning and Pandora (quietly) would allow me to consider a 6 rating even with the difficulty of having to edit out the bizarre audio and read the likely imperfect subtitles.
Millau. It is the topic of the episode and pronounced just like it is spelled "mill ow". It's gifted engineer would not recognize how you said his name....
Pretty mediocre
saner_place1 August 2021
First, "Impossible Engineering" is about the stupidest title possible. And no, saying "making the impossible, possible" does not make it better.
Second, the production quality and 'experts' seem bottom of the barrel.
Third, the explanation and exploration of the engineering involved in these projects is pathetic. Engineering should not be 'dumbed down'. (multiples of 'Olympic swimming pools', 'football pitches' and 'elephants' are not recognized units of measurement)
Lastly, the constant repeating and replaying of what was said and shown only five minutes ago? Annoying beyond belief.
This is a not very good show, made for the ADHD crowd. A real shame as it could have been so much better. I get the feeling it was made by people who really wanted to make a sci-fi action show, but this was all that was available to them.
Second, the production quality and 'experts' seem bottom of the barrel.
Third, the explanation and exploration of the engineering involved in these projects is pathetic. Engineering should not be 'dumbed down'. (multiples of 'Olympic swimming pools', 'football pitches' and 'elephants' are not recognized units of measurement)
Lastly, the constant repeating and replaying of what was said and shown only five minutes ago? Annoying beyond belief.
This is a not very good show, made for the ADHD crowd. A real shame as it could have been so much better. I get the feeling it was made by people who really wanted to make a sci-fi action show, but this was all that was available to them.
M1 Abrams tank history veracity
paulppierpont26 November 2020
M1 Abrams ,, you forgot to say that Chrysler Corporation developed the M1 Abram's tank and was well developed when the president of Chrysler Corp sold the tank division to General Dynamics as well YOU forgot to mention Chrysler Corporation's turbine car which led directly to the M1 Abram' s drive line development. Are YOU going to correct this or do as the Soviet's would as disinformatziya and not say anything and continue the lie as YOU see fit (question mark)
Impossible Engineering is frustrating
vnshwsff19 February 2023
Great topics done in a dumbed-down way. I just watched the supertanker episode. So many unanswered questions! For example, why is the propellor sticking half-way out of the water? What was that first engine developed in about 1800? What's the set-up with the production of inert gases? So much inane repetition eg a tanker of this size caries a very dangerous load. It is x meters high. It carries as much as 1,500 trucks. Thumbs-up for the historical development of an idea. Who watches this? Uneducated masses or those interested in engineering. If it is the former, maybe you are on the right track!
I'm so offended at the pronunciation of the voice over!
yvettewright-7989814 August 2022
I'm shocked that the voice over guy didn't even consult anyone regarding the Falkirk Wheel before steaming ahead and mispronouncing it! It's an A not and E. I was excited to see the marvel that is the Falkirk Wheel (from my home town) on TV, then I cringed every time the guy said it wrong. If he'd ever actually visited the Wheel, someone would have corrected him. The fact the editors of the show didn't pick up on it just proves they don't have anyone Scottish in their editing team or anyone who knew anything about the subject matter. 3 minutes of cringing waste of my life I'm never getting back.
Great show, redundancy is annoying
dhampton275018 September 2021
Season 5 wind farm
dzagar-3098013 March 2023
I watched recent episode of Impossible Engineering about a North Sea wind farm described as the London Array.
In the story they described a groundbreaking windmill which pioneered many great innovations. This turbine supposedly produces 2MW and has over its lifetime produced 21 million KWH of electricity. This would then be 21 x 10^9 WH. The statement they made that I disagree with is they said over its life it produced enough energy to power New York City for THREE YEARS! This did not seem right to me. According to Google search, NYC consumes 11,000MWH per DAY; bringing back to the above common terms, that would be 11 x 10^9 WH. So you can see from this that the output of that turbine over 40 years would have only supplied NYC's needs, using round numbers, for only TWO DAYS, not 3 years! To put it another way, IF That turbine does in fact put out 2 GW (and it probably doesn't considering the wind does not blow all the time), then it would require (11 x 10^9)/(2 x 10^6) = about 5000 such turbines working at full capacity to meet the needs of that mighty city. There is a lot of talk about misinformation these days. If the misinformation comes from a conservative it seems to get branded as "Fascist" or other bad words. But in a case such as this, the creators would probably respond with a shoulder shrug and mumble something about a typo or honest mistake, because, after all, it was in support of the GREEN agenda.
Don't misunderstand, I am in favor of wind and solar power when placed in optimum locations and when it makes economic sense, but misleading people with a false fact such as described above is detrimental to the discussion. I DO enjoy watching the show, and I think it is great to inspire (especially) young people to do great things; this particular piece just stuck in my craw.
In the story they described a groundbreaking windmill which pioneered many great innovations. This turbine supposedly produces 2MW and has over its lifetime produced 21 million KWH of electricity. This would then be 21 x 10^9 WH. The statement they made that I disagree with is they said over its life it produced enough energy to power New York City for THREE YEARS! This did not seem right to me. According to Google search, NYC consumes 11,000MWH per DAY; bringing back to the above common terms, that would be 11 x 10^9 WH. So you can see from this that the output of that turbine over 40 years would have only supplied NYC's needs, using round numbers, for only TWO DAYS, not 3 years! To put it another way, IF That turbine does in fact put out 2 GW (and it probably doesn't considering the wind does not blow all the time), then it would require (11 x 10^9)/(2 x 10^6) = about 5000 such turbines working at full capacity to meet the needs of that mighty city. There is a lot of talk about misinformation these days. If the misinformation comes from a conservative it seems to get branded as "Fascist" or other bad words. But in a case such as this, the creators would probably respond with a shoulder shrug and mumble something about a typo or honest mistake, because, after all, it was in support of the GREEN agenda.
Don't misunderstand, I am in favor of wind and solar power when placed in optimum locations and when it makes economic sense, but misleading people with a false fact such as described above is detrimental to the discussion. I DO enjoy watching the show, and I think it is great to inspire (especially) young people to do great things; this particular piece just stuck in my craw.
See also
Awards | FAQ | User Ratings | External Reviews | Metacritic Reviews
