Impossible Engineering

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!!!

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.

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

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.

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.