CALIFICACIÓN DE IMDb
7.2/10
12 k
TU CALIFICACIÓN
El periodista Graham Hancock visita sitios arqueológicos de todo el mundo para investigar si hace miles de años existió una civilización mucho más avanzada de lo que jamás creímos posible.El periodista Graham Hancock visita sitios arqueológicos de todo el mundo para investigar si hace miles de años existió una civilización mucho más avanzada de lo que jamás creímos posible.El periodista Graham Hancock visita sitios arqueológicos de todo el mundo para investigar si hace miles de años existió una civilización mucho más avanzada de lo que jamás creímos posible.
Explorar episodios
Opiniones destacadas
An old conspiracy theories believes he knows more than actual archaeologists and is so I'll researched that he can't even get basic dates for the sites he uses correctly. Netflix really just sunk their money into this oil spill of a ship for people to pretend they know what they're talking about.
How about making an actual documentary series with established real archaeologists who have actual credentials and experience instead of letting this wrinkled legume get off on his own ego and drag every pseudoscience loving freak with him. If you have an interest in history just do some research but don't take the steps back that watching this mess would take you.
How about making an actual documentary series with established real archaeologists who have actual credentials and experience instead of letting this wrinkled legume get off on his own ego and drag every pseudoscience loving freak with him. If you have an interest in history just do some research but don't take the steps back that watching this mess would take you.
This isn't a very well made show at all. It feels like something they made for a NatGeo show back in the 2000s but much less factual. The amount of slow-motion, pan-over drone shots of the worksite and Graham Hancock power-posing seem to outnumber the frames that actually meaningfully push the content forward.
Essentially the show continuously presents archaeological evidence that refutes the typical timeline of human history, which Hancock insists must be because of this advanced ancient civilization we've lost contact with. There's no evidence though of these mystical capabilities.
It genuinely feels like Graham Hancock is just showing up to various active archeological sites with a film crew, asking the workers questions, and then splicing out the parts of the interview that may further the ongoing narrative. I'm not convinced that the archaeologists presenting their findings are doing so in support of his theory, they're just having individual frames of content being mined out of interviews and interaction.
Why is this concerning? It's a film that has been made professionally enough to be called documentary even though it's not factual. Someone who doesn't really have a whole lot of attachment to the issue would probably entertain this as a factual documentary without looking too critically at it. And someone who is a genuine conspiracy theorist would allow this to feedback into their disbelief in genuine science anyway.
Could go on on, but I'll stop here.
Essentially the show continuously presents archaeological evidence that refutes the typical timeline of human history, which Hancock insists must be because of this advanced ancient civilization we've lost contact with. There's no evidence though of these mystical capabilities.
It genuinely feels like Graham Hancock is just showing up to various active archeological sites with a film crew, asking the workers questions, and then splicing out the parts of the interview that may further the ongoing narrative. I'm not convinced that the archaeologists presenting their findings are doing so in support of his theory, they're just having individual frames of content being mined out of interviews and interaction.
Why is this concerning? It's a film that has been made professionally enough to be called documentary even though it's not factual. Someone who doesn't really have a whole lot of attachment to the issue would probably entertain this as a factual documentary without looking too critically at it. And someone who is a genuine conspiracy theorist would allow this to feedback into their disbelief in genuine science anyway.
Could go on on, but I'll stop here.
This held my attention pretty well. I thought it was a bit overly rhetorical at parts and that the editing of (most of) his interviews with field experts or "buffs" (his term) really zeroed in on whatever sound bits propagated his precise message, otherwise ignoring most of what they might've contributed.
Some of the reviews here state that he offered no "proof" of a prehistoric advanced civilization, and that pyramids, stone temples and such are not "advanced". On the contrary, the point he's trying to argue is that a global cataclysm would've wiped out all traces of any prehistoric advanced people, and that if there are traces, they may exist in places we haven't looked or been willing to look (which he gives examples of). He's arguing that, in fact, the scale of construction endeavors (megaliths, pyramids, subterranean structures), and the astronomical designs/orientations seen in them are advanced enough to suggest a level of knowledge and sophistication that could only have been passed down from earlier humans, thus indicating that they must've been constructed at more of a resource, technology, and population 'reset' than the beginning of human life as we know it. In other words, the primitive hunter-gatherer groups that archaeologists currently believe were the earliest humans couldn't have just up & created these structures, all at around the same time--nor would they have had any reason to unless motivated by stories of fear & suffering from an apocalypse.
He dumps on archaeologists a lot, but seems to offer some reasonable explanations for it: he says they discount theories while refusing to look into them; that they refuse to excavate certain places; that they are not motivated to correct people's understanding of history even as new science proves old science to be incorrect.
I can see that, to be honest. It's not that I know much about archaeology specifically, but it is a field wrapped in academia, which comes with all sorts of funding, political, and bureaucratic issues, all while the people involved are necessarily as passionate about furthering their own careers (and maybe supporting themselves) as they might be about furthering human knowledge. Ideas/projects that get funding are often within the comfort zones of various interconnected institutions, following ever similar paths, expanding on existing ideas, etc. This kind of thing exists all over academia. Look up Drs. Karikó and Weismann re: how long it took to get funding for mRNA vaccine research, for example.
I'm gonna find myself some popcorn and look forward to hearing/reading any archaeology community response to this.
Some of the reviews here state that he offered no "proof" of a prehistoric advanced civilization, and that pyramids, stone temples and such are not "advanced". On the contrary, the point he's trying to argue is that a global cataclysm would've wiped out all traces of any prehistoric advanced people, and that if there are traces, they may exist in places we haven't looked or been willing to look (which he gives examples of). He's arguing that, in fact, the scale of construction endeavors (megaliths, pyramids, subterranean structures), and the astronomical designs/orientations seen in them are advanced enough to suggest a level of knowledge and sophistication that could only have been passed down from earlier humans, thus indicating that they must've been constructed at more of a resource, technology, and population 'reset' than the beginning of human life as we know it. In other words, the primitive hunter-gatherer groups that archaeologists currently believe were the earliest humans couldn't have just up & created these structures, all at around the same time--nor would they have had any reason to unless motivated by stories of fear & suffering from an apocalypse.
He dumps on archaeologists a lot, but seems to offer some reasonable explanations for it: he says they discount theories while refusing to look into them; that they refuse to excavate certain places; that they are not motivated to correct people's understanding of history even as new science proves old science to be incorrect.
I can see that, to be honest. It's not that I know much about archaeology specifically, but it is a field wrapped in academia, which comes with all sorts of funding, political, and bureaucratic issues, all while the people involved are necessarily as passionate about furthering their own careers (and maybe supporting themselves) as they might be about furthering human knowledge. Ideas/projects that get funding are often within the comfort zones of various interconnected institutions, following ever similar paths, expanding on existing ideas, etc. This kind of thing exists all over academia. Look up Drs. Karikó and Weismann re: how long it took to get funding for mRNA vaccine research, for example.
I'm gonna find myself some popcorn and look forward to hearing/reading any archaeology community response to this.
Having read both the scholarly papers for archaeological sites as well as Graham's books over the last few decades, they both seem to be at war with each other. While thought provoking, vivid, and beautifully filmed, this documentary falls short on what could have been a great response to "big archaeology" by Graham.
His theories are beginning to gain steam. However, I can't help but wonder how many of the individuals he interviews (including himself) are victims to selection bias. Some of his speculations brought forth in the episode (specifically the Sirius one) seem so far-fetched that it often feels like he's drawing conclusions from nothing. I was hoping this documentary would be more detailed. Unfortunately, it is very clear it was made for entertainment instead of data. I hope, if one is green-lit, a sophomore effort will be more detailed, both for our sake and for Graham's sake. I think it would benefit the masses and academia alike to consider non-mainstream ideas. My final thought-Archaeologists require massive funding for monumental projects- just food for thought on how money (and who owns it) can control a narrative. Graham's work here aims to poke holes in that narrative.
His theories are beginning to gain steam. However, I can't help but wonder how many of the individuals he interviews (including himself) are victims to selection bias. Some of his speculations brought forth in the episode (specifically the Sirius one) seem so far-fetched that it often feels like he's drawing conclusions from nothing. I was hoping this documentary would be more detailed. Unfortunately, it is very clear it was made for entertainment instead of data. I hope, if one is green-lit, a sophomore effort will be more detailed, both for our sake and for Graham's sake. I think it would benefit the masses and academia alike to consider non-mainstream ideas. My final thought-Archaeologists require massive funding for monumental projects- just food for thought on how money (and who owns it) can control a narrative. Graham's work here aims to poke holes in that narrative.
This Netflix series will either inspire or attract ridicule. I don't think there will be much in-between.
If I were to shape my world view exclusively based on peer-reviewed pieces of science I would live in the most dull, meaningless and senseless world possible.
When I acknowledge that I don't know about something, I love some fresh perspectives which let me evaluate based on at least something so banal as what probability could this have?
If your conclusion is that the probability of what's presented is next to non-existent then this mini-series is not for you.
If you, even if you didn't understand why but seemed to relate, however unexplainable, to something about this series, I can highly recommend it.
I gave Michael Polland's mini-series, How To Change Your Mind, a 10 because it communicated from the heart, from the beginning to the end.
I'll give this an 8 because how much it can engage your mind, if you let it.
But the Spartan 300 trailer soundtrack and ultra-dramatic narration maybe expressed the creator's enthusiasm and sense of urgency more than analyzing what people will relate to.
Regardless, I believe this series will be a starting point of a massive movement of questioning our past, and to be fair, that was its intention all along 😊I don't think it is meant to convince, but meant to make you try on a wider perspective.
If I were to shape my world view exclusively based on peer-reviewed pieces of science I would live in the most dull, meaningless and senseless world possible.
When I acknowledge that I don't know about something, I love some fresh perspectives which let me evaluate based on at least something so banal as what probability could this have?
If your conclusion is that the probability of what's presented is next to non-existent then this mini-series is not for you.
If you, even if you didn't understand why but seemed to relate, however unexplainable, to something about this series, I can highly recommend it.
I gave Michael Polland's mini-series, How To Change Your Mind, a 10 because it communicated from the heart, from the beginning to the end.
I'll give this an 8 because how much it can engage your mind, if you let it.
But the Spartan 300 trailer soundtrack and ultra-dramatic narration maybe expressed the creator's enthusiasm and sense of urgency more than analyzing what people will relate to.
Regardless, I believe this series will be a starting point of a massive movement of questioning our past, and to be fair, that was its intention all along 😊I don't think it is meant to convince, but meant to make you try on a wider perspective.
¿Sabías que…?
- Bandas sonorasAncient Thought
Written by Miguel Moreno
Selecciones populares
Inicia sesión para calificar y agrega a la lista de videos para obtener recomendaciones personalizadas
- How many seasons does Ancient Apocalypse have?Con tecnología de Alexa
Detalles
- Tiempo de ejecución30 minutos
- Color
Contribuir a esta página
Sugiere una edición o agrega el contenido que falta