I really like the show and find it very informative. I enjoy learning about little know stories surrounding some artifacts. I also like that they include visitor tips for some museums. But I truly can't ever get over how a documentary-type show can use so many puns. Bad puns at that. It makes it look so amateurish. It could be a lot more professionally done.
... View MoreEnjoy watching the show, but I'd like to point out one research error. In the story you have about solving the mystery of Vermeer's photographic-like paintings, you claim that a scientist revealed the truth about Vermeer using the camera obscura to achieve these results, and that this was done in 2002. If that's true, then how is it that I learned about Vermeer using the camera obscura in an art history class in 1978? Not trying to debunk your show, but thought you should know. Still an interesting story, and I'm not going to stop watching the show.
... View MoreThis is a great show. It is amazing what fascinating little nuggets of history they dig up. Some of the stories are so compelling I am continually amazed that they aren't more well known. Some of them would make great films. I will very often research the stories on my own to get more information. Usually, the portrayals are fairly accurate, although they do emphasize certain aspects and play down (or ignore) others for dramatic purposes. I usually DVR the show and watch it in bed, preparing to go to sleep. As fascinating as it is, conversely,it has a somnolent affect on me, and I usually have to re watch 2 or even 3 times to get through all of the stories. I think it is partly due to the reliable and unchanging rhythm of the show. they start out each entry the same way: setting the scene with the museum that holds the artifact that will introduce the related story, first mentioning some of the other museum holdings, then describing the physicality of the artifact in question. Then they tell the story with silent actors pantomiming the narration.The narration itself has its own certain conceits: then never use one word when three will do, and adjectives abound. They never use a simple word, when a fancy one exists. (It's never a book, It's and "ancient tome" . People don't die, they "succumb to injuries"). Another little conceit is the rhetorical question and the use of puns. For example, In the story of the Double Eagle balloon crossing of the Atlantic: "Will their "lofty" ambitions be fulfilled? Will the balloon rise to the occasion? Will a slave that worked as a seamstress trying to get confederate plans to the Union be able to "thread the needle" and sneak past guards? How did a brassiere "boost" a young mother's bank account?" I love it. It's amusing. Don Wildman, the host, is superb. He has a great tone, and conveys a sense of urgency, when called for, without getting all worked up. And always has this kind of amused inflection. Plus he is very easy on the eyes.Another thing that is part of the predictable comfortable rhythm is timing and flow. When they finish one story, they immediately start the next one, saving the commercial break until a crucial cliffhanger. After the commercial break, they briefly recap the story and proceed. This is good for fast forwarding through the commercials, or if you doze off during the story, you can get up to speed without having to rewind. I swear, it's the same pattern over and over. It's like waves crashing on a beach. Two other shows that are just as good are Mysteries of the Monument and Mysteries of the Castle.
... View MoreFirst of all, it's a good idea for a show. But sadly it's executed in the most typical American way possible.Take the music, for example. The crappy midi orchestra or whatever sounds exactly like your average reality show. Whatever American show I'm watching nowadays, the same stupid midi orchestra music appears. I'm sick of it.Secondly, the writers. This show's script is awful with a capital A. Wildman is a hero for turning the script into something listenable. It's clearly written by someone pretending to be eloquent, but inserting all kinds of strange adjectives and synonyms just for the sake of it isn't helping. Instead of "honest", they use "veracious". Instead of "harmless", they use "innocuous". Instead of calling New York a big city, they call it a "thriving metropolis". This is fine every now and then, but they do it ALL THE TIME. It makes me sick.Finally, this show is all about plots, "clever ruses", "daring ruses" "shocking tales", "devious plans", "sinister incidents". The writers tells me how I'm supposed to feel about the stories, instead of letting me make my own opinion in peace.I give it 4 because it's about museums and history, and those are awesome. I can't believe that this show has 8 points on IMDb. It says more about the quality of American television than the quality of this show.Regards, Annoyed European
... View More