For all you detractors of this series, I think your missing the point. There are probably thousands of us who had no idea of what our actual history is. So you don't like the presenter and there were probably some inventions that weren't included, but there was plenty of information for those of us who didn't know. I'm a senior with just a high school education and this series, including Jason Silva, kept me watching and even his repeated things made me listen more closely. It seems to me that even a simple person would learn from this series. Very educational.
Add a Review
-
jazepstein25 July 2022Look, I don't disagree with all the negative points that others have raised: flagrant inaccuracies; glaring omissions; irritating narration; poor acting; too America- / Euro-centric; and a dumbed-down patronising style. Nevertheless, I watched Origins primarily in order to learn interesting new facts, and it did teach me quite a few: Kublai Khan's pioneering use of paper money (although the show is inaccurate - the Song Dynasty were the first to issue paper money, before the Mongols); the work of Nostradamus as a plague healer (although the show inaccurately portrays him as a proper doctor, which he wasn't); Tollense (Germany) as the world's oldest large-scale battlefield; Robert Koch's role as the founder.of microbiology; and El Castillo (Spain) as the home of the world's oldest known cave painting. Therefore, in my opinion, it's not a bad show.
-
I was hoping for a good documentary that made different points of view and made key observations of how specific inventions of moments affected the overall human history, here we have a bit of that, the drama acts in between i welcomed at first. These acts helped to connect with these moments and give more context than just plain numbers or facts but later on the acts became way too long and took to much time from the actual documentary part of the show.
Then my largest disappointment is the constant focus on USA. On the episode about architecture and transportation they dedicated at least 8 min of the show about women rights or racism in the US. I came to the show to watch a documentary about humankind i don't wanna see a story about issues in the US, its fine to mention them sure but 8-10 min just about how blacks got banned from the firsts urban areas ? no thanks,specially since after that segment they barely gave 3 min to show Arcuitecture in possible houses of space, arguably a much better topic for a episode for freaking architecture, not American civil rights history. -
Sean_Biggins25 June 2021I do not understand all the haters here. I think the show is very good and based on solid historical events which we know to be true such as the hearths found in Oregon dating back 10,000 years ago. The Bronze Age 7,000 years ago. The use of fireworks and spears combined by the Chinese to use as weapons to repel a Mongol attack in 1232 AD which led to the guns we have nowadays which allow neanderthals like Ted Nugent to be able to kill as many animals as he can even though he's just a wiry little runt who couldn't fight his way out of a paper bag. So this Origins series is very good and reminds me of the old British 'Connections' series, hosted by James Burke which first aired in 1979 here in Canada and the US.
-
lrnschwartzenburg12 February 2021Had to write a review because of all the downers. There is more use in studying the past in dynamic and challenging ways... Especially times before the Renaissance. If origins upsets you, don't shoot it down, contemplate why in a positive manner. It is a great film. There are vast ways to study the past and this film is invaluable when approached correctly.
You know why I like Origins so much? It proposes a fresh overview. It was relaxing to watch for me while painting. I enjoyed it.
It's a unique film. I even enjoy replaying it.
The scenario presentation, acting and costuming were exceptional at times. I actually did some art work inspired by the videography. I put it on a big screen and would go over details. Lots of great stuff there. I recommend watching it for sure!
Had to write a review. There is tons of value in this film... when approached correctly and with an open mind for variety. -
rickkingmusic19 July 2020I disagree with everyone who have commented on this show thus far, I think it was a very good, well done program with a very enthusiastic host that kept it interesting. It take us to the very origins of what makes our modern society and shows how just a little inspiration at a particular moment in time leads to others and so on. Yes he (Jason Silva) is very animated to an almost comical degree, but it helps keep the material interesting. I wish some of my college professors were as much fun as this guy! The materials presented make the viewer see things with a new knowledge and understanding of the logic behind an event and opens the mind to new possibilities. A very enjoyable show!
-
Bert4524 April 2017For a science and history documentary series with an obviously huge budget, Origins: The Journey Of Humankind does just about everything it can to ruin itself. There is obviously some genuinely fascinating information in here but it has been drowned in Hollywood melodrama. With ridiculously over-the-top historical re-enactments, including silly and unconvincing "pre-historic" scenes, relentlessly pounding music all the way through, and Jason Silva wildly over-acting his three-camera presentation, this smacks of a production by people who think their audience is so dull and short on attention span that they need history explained to them as a sci-fi adventure movie. It doesn't inform as much as it irritates. What a waste of an opportunity to explore history.
-
bobbicking7 August 2022This is a good show. It is a brief history about the origins of things that have a huge impact on humanity. I really don't understand the hate here.
If you don't like the dramatization, it's not for you, but for many people, dramatization makes it more exciting and less dry to learn. Each to their own. Just because you didn't like dramatization doesn't mean this is a bad show.
If you know a lot already, there are shows out there that are more in-depth for you. This is not an in-depth show, but that doesn't mean it is a bad show. Also, comparing this to the classics that were produced decades ago that you probably watched when you were younger and didn't know as much is unfair and subjective.
But I gotta say the host is just absolutely a pain to watch. He must be high on something. He talks like a snake oil salesman giving a TEDTalk. And certainly a lot of points being given in the show makes me question how on earth did they jump to the conclusions, like how cooked meat made food more nutritious? How did Genghis Khan's expansion encourage innovation when you just said some episodes ago that he killed everyone? Certainly some of the stuff in here are to be contested, or at least elaborated, but I don't think it deserves less than a 6 out of 10. I actually learned some stuff from it. -
I am an Anthropologist, and when I saw this show it got my hopes up.
Pros: It does touch on some things that are instrumental to human survival (fire), and briefly talks about some characteristics that make us human (large birthing canals, cooking, using fire, metallurgy, etc.) . This would be a good show to watch for people that know nothing about human history, or are in junior high to high school.
Cons: #1 Humans have been using fire for 300,000-400,000+ years (maybe even longer, it's not my specialty), but the program estimates ~14,000 years. Along with other nit-picky issues I had (elaborate "nomadic" houses surrounded by bones that no group of people could transport long distances).
#2 The show is a flashy and VERY dramatic depiction of early homo sapiens with an over-the-top style narration. This is fine if you forget what fire is every 5-10 seconds. I found myself skipping ahead to forego repetitive talking points.
#3 I would have rather preferred more in-depth information about the various reasons why fire was beneficial, instead I got 300+ statements about how cool fire is. For Example: Fire and heat breaks down the proteins in food to aid in the digestion process, which results in a more efficient absorption of calories. Or: If you look at many indigenous cultures around the world, you can see many (if not all) have some form of rituals surrounding fires, which reflects the importance of fire to social interactions.
Summary: This show is a mild attempt at education, which focuses primarily on the delivery instead of the content. It might be good as an introductory lesson in human history for those who know little about it. -
The era of Murdoch has arrived at National Geographic. The sneaky indoctrination, the half-truths, the thinly disguised falsehoods and the pandering for the lowest common denominator. Origins, their new "documentary mini-series", is a disgusting product of the Fox "imagination". I'd be very, very surprised if there are scientists that appear here and there that are comfortable with the editing. From homo sapiens "swinging in the trees" to fire being a game changer a stupidifing mere 12,000 years ago, in an age with "no society, no protections, no guarantees", to cooking at such a time mandating a society were "women cook and men hunt." A totally idiotic, scientifically-illiterate, mischievous narrative of nonsense. Fire predates homo-sapiens. The protections of society are a major hominization driver from millions of years ago, and there are no evidence whatsoever that points to a women-cook, men-hunt, sexual division of labor at such times. This is what you get when scientific literacy takes a nose dive. this is what you get when you pander to the prejudices and illusions of knowledge from the dregs of your costumer base. This is where National Geographic goes to die in everything but a hollow brand name. Yes, I am furious. You should be too.
-
tub-1389015 March 2017This show is very misleading whitewashed and just disregards facts of history for what is inevitably awful cinematography and presentation. I am sure that hyenas would have not being chasing a group of nomadic Europeans through Eurasia 14000 years ago. Furthermore to claim that fire was just used by humans 14000 years is ridiculous. You are off by about a few 100,000 years. Just next time you want to write a show please contact a anthropologist or maybe a historian who can give you a better clue as to what your cast should look like and facts about human evolution.
-
fukuall-220688 March 2017The show may have shown promise but that presenter is the worst I've ever seen...he's obviously off his meds...wildly gesticulating, even doing some old disco dance steps at one point...and such an annoying spoken presence that so distracted from the content that I gave up after only 20 minutes.
-
fralmond8 March 2017◦ An overacted and melodramatic series of speculations, conjectures, dramatizations, & fictional speculations woven into a 'story' of key elements of mankind's progress: i.e., fire, cooking, gunpowder.
◦ The narrator, Jason Silva, presents dialogue with overacted caffeinated gusto, using a repetitious series of stiff, wooden gestures reminiscent of President George Bush. The format and style of the show is so amateurish that it made me wonder if the target audience was elementary or junior high. LCD in High-Def. -
Many of us who like documentaries have lamented how American television outlets, such as the National Geographic Channel, have dumbed-down the genre. (In the case of NGC this was not unexpected especially after Fox got involved with them and took significant ownership.)
"Origins" is further evidence of the sad state of this genre.
One key problem is the presenter. Nominally this series is anthropology illustrated, and typically such a presenter would be an expert in the field. That is not necessary though as often a great orator or actor can present in a documentary; but here we get neither. The presenter is too forced, too fake. If this series is aimed at 5 year-olds (as the narration may suggest) using exaggerated speech might be acceptable, but this series is being presented as something for the wider audience.
Then there is the content. Oh dear, the content. The opening scenes of the first episode focus on "fire" and the present goes on about man harnessing the power of the sun (cue image of our star) and... wait.. what? The sun? Our star runs by nuclear fusion, but then the narrative switches to humans with wooden fires...
The show doesn't get better.
This is just television for busy parents, to place their children in front of the screen to keep them occupied. -
dlevi915 April 2017Was so psyched to see this. Such an interesting subject matter but the way this is presented with reality TV style commentary and cringe worthy dramatizaions, ruins what could have been a very interesting and educational series. Why oh why did you have to make it in this format? Such a waste. This is definitely for the "American Idol" audience. Going to have to look elsewhere to find some mentally provocative programming. Seems this is the way Nat Geo is going now.
-
je-665-16926810 February 2020Someone once said trying to do a "Connections" type series without James Burke would be like watching the disconnected ramblings of a lunatic. Ladies and gentlefolk, I give you "Origins."
-
jimmyedurham16 November 2019Good grief. What a mess.
The subject matter is fascinating, but it's clearly not in the hands of people who:
a) understand the subject matter b) care about the subject matter c) are anyone who's career goes any deeper than superficial, commercialized packaging
The dramatic re-enactments are distracting in that they are clumsy and over done in an effort to be flashy and interesting for an audience with very short attention spans and vast wells of ignorance and self-centeredness: as if to say the only way people alive today could be or would be interested in people from the past is only if people today saw themselves with as little effort as could be afforded without straying into being ridiculous. For example, I recall one of the "characters" supposedly depicting the Civil War era refer to telegraphed response as sending "a text message to the frontline." Please. Understandably, it is necessary to create an emotional connection between audience and subject matter for the audience to care about what they're hearing and seeing, but to have to be so ham-handed as to sprinkle in little 21st century speech patterns, concepts and ideas is a reflection of bad writing and shallow effect.
Another issue is that the episode scripts go on and on and on and on about humans' connection through time and space to one another and the connection between the ideas, events, and technology that shaped our world, but the episodes don't build on one another like the producers want the audience to believe they do. For example, in the first episode, fire is "the connection that started it all" blah blah, but then later on, medicine and money and then writing and further on it was metal and computers that were "the connection that started it all." The most frustrating was how hard a point like fire being the "technology" break through that propelled humanity further and faster forward than any other in history and is "unparalleled" in its profound power to alter our future (and even our DNA!) is driven home, but then not two episodes later, suddenly writing is the technology that is unparalleled in its power to shape destiny. But then computers came and they are unparalleled. That's not to say these things didn't all have the affects they did, but by proclaiming each and every one as THE ONE and most amazing game changer for humanity and the future is lazy and stupid.
Let me point out, that I don't recall the advent of agriculture being brought up once. It's all "hunter gatherers" and "noble nomadic warrior artists" then boom "interconnected" society, cities and space exploration. You'd think agricultural could at least rank a mention. But then again, most people today with the ability to watch this mess wouldn't be able to so easily recognize themselves in ancient farmers and I suspect coming up with little skits peppered with talk of social networking and "interneting" while working in a Mesopotamian garden would be too difficult to even bother with. Certainly, it lacks the drama and flash of teenaged nomadic warrior "hunting deer" in skillfully designed and sewn fabric garments 30,000 years ago.
Finally though, the host/presenter of this dreck is soooo over the top in his gestures and articulations and facial expressions- even his speech patterns and vocalizing are forced and way too "in your face." His hands, fingers, and arms spasm in and around the area of his torso while the camera directs focus to his face, so what you see is a whole mess of activity constantly gesticulating into and out of your sight line. This is all while dude is bouncing on and rolling his weight back and forth with his heels and the arches of his feet. It's way too distracting and forced. Like he's trying way too hard to be interesting and dynamic. Or he really has to go to the bathroom. -
dave-stephens-uk11 April 2017I am watching this on National Geographic on the African satellite service DSTV, and really just wanted to thank the other reviewers for convincing me I'm not going mad! It is awful.
I particularly liked the description of the presenter being 'caffeinated' and 'wooden'. I'd add 'totally irritating' to the list.
Comparing this heap of rubbish to the amazing scientific documentaries produced by the BBC is like comparing offal with prime fillet steak. -
yooniverse28 March 2017Hyper, electronic/industrial melodramatic soundtrack, lots of flashy CGI with rotating/panning camera work, cinematically contrived, fast-paced cut scenes. It's a documentary with ADD.
The host/narrator, Jason Silva, is absolutely the worst I have ever seen/heard. Is he high on coke? it's jarring--I can't stand his overly emphatic speech mannerisms. The tone has a quality of being very condescending/patronizing, as if he needs to make you understand just how important everything he says is. He needs to see how to convey the sense of wonder in presenting knowledge--maybe watch Carl Sagan, James Burke, David Attenborough, Neil deGrasse Tyson, and many other successful narrators. It's also hard to "connect" with the narrator when the stupid camera constantly breaks eye contact with the narrator with off-angle camera work.
Material itself is fine, in my opinion. Yes, it over-dramatizes too many minor points with lots of hyperbole, but I get that it's an interpretive work. It has educational value. Just hit the mute button when Silva appears and lower the volume a bit for the rest of the show. I tried watching that way and found that I missed nothing, confirming that he adds nothing to the presentation of the material. My blood pressure and stress levels came down, and was able to enjoy the show. -
biswas-syman24 May 2017i was excited about this documentary because of Nat Geo but saying just being disappointing is a sure understatement. Firstly, the author, within 10 minutes of the first episodes its clear that he's far far away from understanding what is coming out of his mouth Now about the content, oh and what to say about that, lets for one moment agree with the editor to focus on the main points. Fire, currency, war, shelter, medicine are all revolutionary points but it looks like its not about the whole earth but only Europe and some portion of north America. apart from China( that too minor mention) Asian countries were almost non existent, South America and Africa were not even mentioned, are you kidding, Mesopotamia, Indus valley and what not are not even mentioned once. its a show talking about Origins of humans from hunter gatherers to a civilized societies without even mentioning the first civilizations that ever existed. and about the time-lines what to say about them, don't know what the actual mistake of the creator was, not knowing an iota of the actual stuff and history or just whitewashing over them completely and presenting his own narrative.
recommend this show as a fantasy for children but guess what the violence will not suit them, pathetic attempt in name of a documentary..
p.s. Some visuals are nice.. -
SnoopyStyle6 November 2017This is a National Geographic series about everything human and our world. It's a big subject. It's too big. The show is noise and fury without enough enlightenment. There are eight episodes. Each one tackles such a big part of human existence that it can't possibly cover them in one hour episodes. The show has a cast of educated presenters and host Jason Silva. Most of it is a series of reenactments, talking heads, and always the fast-cutting flashy connective sequences.
There are some issues with accuracy. It's problematic because one expects better from National Geographic. Did we really discover fire in 12,000 BC? Despite the importance of accuracy, the biggest problem is the show's scattered disjointed way of tackling each issue. It feels like the host Jason Silva is attacking me with his wild hand gestures and words. He's looking directly into the camera and barking at me. The flashy jolting presentation doesn't allow anything to sink in. The show jumps from one place and time to another and then another and another. It's too disjointed for anything educational to sink into the audience. By the end of each episode, I could only remember bits of disconnected information which leaves me with no new insight or new understanding. Apparently, all of transportation leads to the discovery of Marilyn Monroe. I don't know why that's important. It might be worthwhile for dumb people with no concept of science or history. For an educated audience, this really only skims the vast history of man. With such a big subject matter, this show could never dig that deep. -
emily-uk16 September 2020I really tried with this but after 3 episodes I felt I learnt nothing and things I thought sounded interesting realised were false after minimal research of my own. I also felt they rushed the actual origin or the story. The language episode skips over hieroglyphs and spends most of the episode talking about the America civil war, which is way to modern to be in a show about ancient history. To top it of the presenter is terrible. He wants to try getting a job as a voice over for ice road truckers!
-
g_la_hunt26 April 2020This is the second time I've watched a documentary bearing the name "National Geographic" on Disney+ and been horrified at the sheer lack of any scientific substance contained within. What happened to National Geographic??? Aside from the awful host (J. Silva) who is obviously overacting and trying desperately to sound exciting, this show gives zero scientific information or insight. I could barely finish the first episode about fire, and I cannot bring myself to watch any more. Interesting topics are briefly mentioned, but not explored at all, such as, how does cooked food differ from raw food, and how exactly did that innovation help humans "build better brains"? How was gunpowder used in religious ceremonies to try to attain eternal life? How might early man have discovered metals and how to refine them? Instead, the audience is forced to endure repetitive flashy exhortations about how fire TRANSFORMED human life and long, boring re-enactments of completely unimportant and unnecessary things. And so many statements were just flat-out wrong. By using fire, humans "harnessed the power of the sun"?? Unless you're holding a magnifying glass on a sunny day, the sun has nothing to do with your ability to start a fire. Women stayed home to cook while men went out to hunt?? You can't throw that statement out there as fact without providing any sort of archaeological or anthropological evidence to support it! None of the ideas presented are organized in any sort of logical way. I felt like I was watching a show written by a seven-year-old for seven-year-olds. Just terrible.
-
olafpiers3 January 2021Stopped watching after episode 1 as I couldnt stand the annoying and over the top way the presenter narrates.
-
rictestarossa19 November 2019Was kind of excited to find this on Disney+. After episode I can't watch. The host (Silva) is like a Ben Stiller parody character