Impossible Engineering

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.

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.

Great intent. They constantly repeat and repeat and repeat to make the show longer. Just tell the story.

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.

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.