Geniale Technik

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.