|Index||9 reviews in total|
I try to catch Weird or What at every opportunity. Not only to I get to
listen to the hypnotic voice of William Shatner, I get to hear some
pretty far out stuff that may or may not be true but always makes for
fascinating conversation at our dinner table.
If you like watching docs about Nostradamus, you'll love Weird or What? UFOers, Trekkers, and kids alike will enjoy it.
Lightweight, great interviews from scientists and quasi scientists alike who offer alternative explanations for out of the ordinary occurrences.
Don't expect hard science, temporarily suspend your belief and let your imagination rule the hour.
Some of Mr. Shatner's stick is so hilarious it's worth watching just to see it. The science is lite, something to think about without straining your brain. If NOVA is like eating, this show is like chewing gum. Topics are explored from several points of view. The science is real, but the topics are not covered in great depth. I feel the balance is good for an entertainment show. The deadpan delivery used to introduce weird topics like zombies or Mothman cracks me up. Some of the things that are explored are just silly, but it all seems to work. Mr. Shatner reminds me a little of "Elvira Mistress of The Dark" hosting movies.... except it is executed with that wonderful Shatner flair. It's all in good fun. Weird or What?.. I enjoy it!
Usually I find that you come along a load of trife these days on the
documentary channels. It's usually something like air-crash
investigation this, or another mummy that or just a bunch of
middle-aged men carrying out menial and boring jobs. It's nice to see a
program that strays away from what all the other programmes are feeding
you, and just learn about some weird things.
The best thing about the show is it typically presents quite absurd ideas. Then it just shows different people's opinions on them; with a good ratio between the more skeptical community and the more bonkers people who buy into it all. The contrast is fair and balanced; doing little to try and sway your opinion at all.
The show portrays it all in a fun context; much like mythbusters. It's nice to see something that actually shows you things that are weird in wonderful... rather than fat men running a pawn store or some guys fishing for.. well fish.
*** This review may contain spoilers ***
We absolutely love this show!! We seen it several times and it was entertaining, factual and just fun to watch. You can't go wrong with being challenged if an event is weird or what. The audience is out there and eventually they will find this show and love it, too. I find that there is evidence presented, action by actors or by William Shatner and it was fun to decide whether it was true or not. Some things out there are just weird and what is wrong with presenting some weird facts. We enjoyed the scenery presented, the commentary by Wm. Shatner and the possibility of presentation of weird or not facts. Television is entertaining, at times, and we found that this show is entertaining.
to the person who says that plants knowing your thoughts is utter crap you are very, very wrong. read the book the 'secret life of plants' published in the early 1970's I think. I was 15 at the time. my late father, an electronic engineer of some renown and respect among those who knew him,read that book and thought it preposterous. he then set about devising an instrument that would expose the man to be a fraud. what he came up with was a board roughly 6" or 8" square with a large number of amplifiers and other things on it a ground probe for reference and a clothespin with conductive foam on it to attach to the leaves. this system was hooked to an oscilloscope to view the plants electrical activity. what he saw astounded him. he used a spear orchid for his tests. the most interesting incident of all was when my sister-in-law was watching holding her son on her hip. the infant suddenly made a lunging motion toward the plant and an excited baby noise and immediately the nice sign wave on the oscilloscope went flat. there was never again a reading taken from that spear orchid and two weeks later it was dead and gone. we wonder to this day what was on the mind of that child. this got my father going and he designed a device that turned the plants electrical activity into the ringing of wind chimes. what we found was that each plant type we hooked the units to had a characteristic ring for that type or species. within the type of plant each plant had it's own variation of the ring. ring meaning the way the plant made the wind chimes sound. when people came to sell us things while trying to start the business if they were telling us the truth the plants got very quiet. if someone was lying to us the plants made quite a commotion. it was really very interesting.
If you remember Leonard Nimoy's "In Search Of" and were a fan of that,
you'll love this show too. Now it's Shatner's turn to be the host of
Much in the vein of the original Coast to Coast AM with Art Bell, (actually this show take many topic from that show) such as shadow people, time travel, parallel dimensions, etc..., Weird or What features William Shatner as your host, and does this just perfectly with equal parts humor and seriousness, this show is just fun.
For all the skeptic, no imagination, stiff brained, armchair scientists out there, it always features a skeptic's point of view as well as the believer's.
The only bad reviews of this show are from people who don't like shows like this. If they hate it so much, why are they watching it? I found this show on Youtube, since I don't have cable, then noticed it's on Netflix, totally addictive and thought provoking stuff. Highly enjoyable entertainment for those that enjoy these types of shows. There's some classic topics on here like Mothman, but some others I've never heard of before, like some very convincing reincarnation stories and some other really cool topics.
Check it out if this is your type of thing, you won't be disappointed.
Back in the 1970s, Leonard Nimoy was the host of a pseudo-scientific show, "In Search of". It featured a lot of crackpot theories, crackpot experts and crackpot assumptions. Now, decades later, William Shatner has helmed a show that makes "In Search of" look like a film created by Nobel Prize winning scientists! Yes, it's THAT bad. Again and again, episodes feature a lot of nutty scientists, weirdos and rogues spouting all sorts of silly nonsense meant to scare the viewer and keep them watching. Intellectually, however, these 'theories' are meaningless claptrap and the arguments they present often bizarre and meaningless. And, again and again, these crazies present their 'evidence'--all followed by Shatner saying '....weird or what?!'. An embarrassment and surely Mr. Shatner can do better...as can the audience.
Absolute mind numbing rubbish. This is the first IMDb review I've made,
I couldn't watch this and NOT publicly express my discontent.
First of all I'd like to know what Bill's definition of the word 'weird' is, as 90% of what I saw (in the one episode I watched) was extremely mundane, and was always followed by the host reflecting with "is that weird, or what?". No William, it's not 'weird', you're obviously just predisposed to believing supernatural rubbish and aren't bright enough to identify simple logical fallacies.
To provide an example of the fail inherent to this show, one segment approached the case of 'three eye witnesses of a time traveler!', reenacted the witness accounts, and then made absolutely no effort to debunk the extraordinary claims of these individuals (actually just 3 acquaintances who all knew each other), except to go on and explain that time travel of a completely different kind is known to technically occur in accordance with the laws of relativity - something which has NOTHING to do with the original witness claims. Sorry Bill, but I want to go back to those claims and examine the FACTS...
- only one witness supposedly saw the female traveler 'materialise' - the remaining two witnesses saw the supposed traveler, but did not see anything supernatural occur - at least one witness is a science fiction novelist, obviously he will be predisposed to perceive what he saw as a 'time traveler' - the witnesses claim the materialized woman to be a time traveler, although they never spoke to her, saw her again, or communicated with her in any which way (how on earth did they conclude 'omg time travel!!' ???) - there is NO EVIDENCE THAT THE WITNESS CLAIMS ARE TRUE; no camera footage, no repeat occurrences, no unrelated accounts, nobody actually admitting to being a time traveler, nothing!
It scares me when I see people on here saying things like "this is our favorite family show!!"; honestly you belong to a family of dolts if you believe this stuff.. I think that says it all. Peace.
Can plants read minds? That's just one of the many questions posed by
this show and the answer is quite obviously no, don't be bloody
ridiculous. If you say otherwise I want to see some proof or at least
something that strongly suggests there may be something the botanists
around the world have missed, not some unqualified Indian scam artist
telling me otherwise. Hook him up to the lie detector instead of the
plant and we might get somewhere. Real botanists don't work out of
their messy garage.
I do like paranormal and unusual shows but I draw the line here. Is it weird or what that a man has been struck by lightning six times? No, again it's just completely stupid to stand out in a lightning storm holding metal objects. What's weird is he didn't think to go inside after being hit the fifth time.
Aside from the fact that every single thing proposed has no evidence the format of the show is highly annoying. It repeats itself over and over again. I say it repeats itself over and....yes it's annoying isn't it? Couple that with a director that isn't happy unless he is panning in, zooming out or speeding up the film and you just have a complete mess of a show.
Like I say I'm not someone who gets upset at being presented with alternative ideas but they have to be something credible and they have to be presented in a reasonable way. Telling me that someone who had a heart transplant had a sudden urge for chicken nuggets and his donor had some chicken nuggets on their person when they died is just insulting my intelligence. To do it while zooming the camera in no less than 15 times on the same shot of a grotesque scene of heart surgery earns this show the lowest possible rating and my heartfelt contempt.
Don't waste your time this is complete crap.
|Ratings||Plot keywords||Main details|
|Your user reviews||Your vote history|