Customer Reviews

Aftermath: Population Zero

5 star:		(4)
4 star:		(5)
3 star:		(2)
2 star:		(2)
1 star:		(3)

 

 

If you haven't seen "Life After People," as I have, then you'll surely appreciate this program more than I did. But I did not find it better than "Life After People." You get a slightly different perspective, of course, but there is plenty of general overlap. I felt this program was a bit repetitive in places and seemed to dwell on some favorite matters, like the Eiffel Tower. I got plenty tired of seeing the Eiffel Tower topple. Perhaps because I saw this on DVD, I was jarred by some of the transitions, which seemed more suited to TV. But the narrative and tone of "Life After People" seemed more effective to me than in this program.

These days, with so many people on the planet, there have been many a day when I thought that there were simply too many of us, and how grand it would be if a good many simply disappeared into thin air. However, after viewing National Geographic's "Aftermath - Population Zero", I realized just how devastating, and deadly, matters would quickly turn out there should the on-going maintenance of key places on the planet cease even a short period of time.

Intentionally or not, humans have set-up shop here on this planet in such a way that should a large proportion of us suddenly disappear due to some unforeseen event the demise of the remaining survivors would be sudden and swift.

Once this dvd starts it will have your attention and you will learn a great deal about things that you had not even considered before. Unless you're one of those who believes that ignorance is bliss, the small price you pay for owning this dvd is worth the knowledge and insight it offers in return.

I saw this not long after watching Life After People. Which one is better? It's hard to say, since LOP concentrated a lot on buildings and such, while this one concentrated a lot more on animals.

Instead of saying one is better than the other, watching the two together makes for a good overall experience, why compare? Both documentaries had things in them that the other one was lacking in (which makes sense since the History Channel would be more knowledgeable about buildings and people's history while National Geographic would be more knowledgeable about nature and animals) The one thing that made me really sad was not the demise of buildings or historical artifacts, but the demise of animals, especially household pets and other kept animals who would be doomed to die if we were all to disappear (such as the ones in apartment buildings or cages)

This documentary was fascinating and several of its projections were different than LAP (this DVD for example, predicts that buildings and the Hoover Dam would be more short-lived than the projections in LAP) but its insights on animals and Nature are not to be missed.

Anyone that has ever watched the Resident Evil movies will get a feeling of deja vu while watching this. No, there are no zombies walking the earth, but the aftermath in the beginning looks very much like the end of Resident Evil one with cars crashed and on fire, a major smog over the cities, and trains derailed. Sixty years after humans, the scenery is much like that in Resident Evil: Apocolypse with buildings falling apart, no electricty, and no agriculture.

I found this educational as far as what will happen with nuclear power plants, zoo animals running around (the reason for my title up there is that the camels and birds seemed the least affected by the loss of humans), and how 25000 pieces of "space junk" will come crashing down like meteors. Interesting!

What I didn't like and what brings it down to a three star rating is the show seems to drive one point home over and over again. Our pet dogs will starve to death and die. I got the point way before they showed a pack of big dogs attacking a toy breed on the streets. I didn't need the nail driven that far into my head.

Something I found a bit funny tho is when the show says dogs and wolves will breed and in the process make a bunch of dingoes. LOL. Sorry, but I couldn't help it. I'm not saying it is not possible, but I did chuckle. (All the more reason to spay and neuter!)

My writing partner and I wrote a scifi novel about life in a climate-induced, post-apocalyptic city in the U.S. Reality Crash Despite our exhaustive research, there are still some things detailed in this documentary that we hadn't considered. Aftermath was definitely eye-opening. And with good production values. Naturally, some things had to be CGI, but there were so many shots with real animals, lending a stark reality to the whole thing. I thought it was quite good, and certainly thought-provoking.

Well, after the atomic plants blow up and many of the pets die off and the cars stop running, things start to get wild. Really wild. Trees take over, cities become cooler, the oceans start to fill up with fish. National Geographic really hooked me, with great effects, real animals like tigers running about, and just a really cool ride. But it also shows us that, with a little more work on our part, we may be able to correct some of the damage we've done to our own planet.
The more we understand about how the Earth works the more we can do to help it. Maybe clean up the oceans, the atmosphere and the land without having to die off first. Give a hoot.

This National Geographic show is very good, and perhaps if the LIFE AFTER PEOPLE movie and TV series on the History Channel did not exist, then this would get a higher rating....... but LIFE AFTER EARTH has a much better presentation with more detailed technical facts , better time lapse graphics and presenting a timeline.

I had seen the History Channel's offering on this subject, and found, while it was informative, it still left much to ponder. This was somewhat better as it covered much of what was likely to happen if things were left running.It did make a salient point. It showed how the environment is affected.

Aftermath: Population Zero (National Geographic Channel)
is similar to
Life After People(History Channel)

Although 'AfterMath: Population Zero' is basically the same thing as Life After People, Aftermath is presented MUCH better.

'AfterMath: Population Zero' had realistic animals instead of the complete CGI that 'Life After People' had.

I thought both were fascinating, just that Aftermath was done better.
:)

I find the premise very interesting, but a boring 2 hour program could have been an exciting one hour program if the narration wasn't so slow and repetitive to fill more time. He must have mentioned each fact 3 times in slighly different wording, extremely frustrating. This would make something decent to watch in the background while you do chores, but it is pretty painful to sit through for two hours straight.