Today, I'm going to make a ranking of 4 fake doc's to see if all of them are just bullshit fests made exclusively to give 10 year old wet dreams about what the government is hiding from them, or if there are at least some redeeming qualities in these programs. Why only 4? Because I'm not willing to spend time of my life watching more of these docs after some stuff I've seen!
So, sit back, grab refreshments, your criptozoology books and maybe a tinfoil hat, because we are going to review 4 fake docs from best to worst.
1) The Last Dragon/Dragons: A Fantasy Made Real/Dragon's World.
We start off with this 1 hour and 40 minute long documentary made in 2004 created by Charlie Foley, directed by Justin Hardy, narrated in the US by Patrick Stewart (Ian Holm in the UK) and broadcasted on Animal Planet. The documentary centers around 2 stories: One is a group of scientists lead by Dr. Tanner, that are working on a misterious creature's frozen carcass (later revealed to be a young female mountain dragon) and the other the evolution of dragons, done by computer generated images, showing their evolution, the different species, adaptations, anatomy and lifestyles of these animals.
The program is very clever at how it's narrative plays out. We start the story of these prehistoric dragons 65 million years ago, we see how the mother of this baby dragon sacrifices herself to save it from a T. rex , then we cut to Dr. Tanner showing his hypothesis to his fellow scientists of a large creature with claws big enough to injure a T. rex's skull and burn it, but nobody beleaves him, which ruins his reputation. Then, as the team is sent to investigate the carcass and they reveal the secrets behind the creature's anatomy, the CGI bits go along with it, with it's own narrative reflecting said discoveries until the last find where it coincides with the last bit of computer generated story. In most forms of media, this would turn out a mess, but here, is almost Nolan-type writing with a very nice payoff. This structure even allows for the documentary to show some character arcs and even give the story personality, to the point that there are even humor bits scattered through the documentary.
The production values do hold up after so many years. Despite the use of CGI, there are attempts of practical imagery whenever possible. From a full-sized young dragon that they preform the autopsy on, to a pile of eggs from the dragons in the mountain. From dragon vomit in the time where the prehistoric juvenile in the first story throws up to make himself lighter and learn how to fly to escape a bigger dragon that pursues him, to a tiger carcass maquette that the Chinese dragon in the bamboo forests cooks and eats. The CGI itself is not that bad. It is made by the company that brought us the effects for the Walking With Dinosaurs series (not the movie, that shit sucks) and Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban (In my opinion, the best Harry Potter movie). While you can clearly tell is CGI, they don't let it be seen too close to the camera, so you don't examine details that weren't up to par yet. And the fact that the backgrounds in the program are filmed and not computer generated, only further helps to convey the realism of the effects. That, and you can really tell the filmmakers put emphasis on the realism of the movements of the animals by looking at real animals as models, with pretty decent results.
The dragons themselves are a mix bag design-wise. Surprisingly, they where designed by paleoartist John Sibbick, and they match the type of environment they live in. There are 4 types of dragons seen in th program: Smaug, Toothless an Falc... oh, oups, sorry, wrong media, lol. There's a 2 legged dragon, which is the north american prehistoric one, that out of all is my personal favorite, as it kind of looks like a theropod dinosaur with horns, wings and the ability to spit fire. Then there's the marine dragon, that makes a brief appearance to show how did dragons survive the K/T extinction that killed off the dinosaurs. Then there's the forest dragon, a long and slender creature that stalks in the forest and has adapted his flight bladders to mimic other creature's calls to lure either prey or competition, with deadly results. It is also the dragon that supposedly gave rise to the Chinese dragon myths. And lastly, there's the mountain dragon from the Carpathian Mountains, that fights for survival in harsh conditions. Is also the type of dragon that get's more focus and the one the scientists investigate to prove it's existence. I got to say, I think this dragon is my least favorite design. I don't know what it is, maybe the shape of the head, maybe the proportions. I don't know, something about it doesn't seem right. But is not a terrible design, so I can watch it fine.
With all of this talk of dragons, you would think the human stuff with the scientists is terrible. But surprisingly, it isn't. The actors they got to play the scientists are not bad, they do a serviceable job. Dr. Tanner is the main character and he is given something to work with. His reputation is threatened very early on, giving him character motivation and some relatability to side with him. Then he is given the chance to examine the dragon carcass, and you see him very excited about it, almost wanting to say it's a dragon, but being weighed down by the facts and the scientific method that does not allow for the imagination to run free. By the time they do discover the cave with the large female in it, you do feel his joy discovering this creature he only thought they where mythical. And the fact that the dragon story ends at the same time as he makes the discovery, you do feel this weight to the situation. So he comes from a scientist that is made fun of to a famous one that made the discovery of a lifetime. A character arc in a cryptozoology fake documentary, who knew?.
Even the soundtrack is really good. Composed by Richard Blair Oliphant, the score integrates some really catchy and epic orchestra and choirs, giving it a medieval, church-like sound and making the experience of the viewer enhanced greatly. There's the scene, with the mountain dragons, when they are preforming a mating ritual like sea birds, in which they fly very high making air acrobatics, then they lock claws and free fall into the ground in a test of faith to let go a fire blast just before reaching the ground. The score and scene themselves are downright beautiful. So much so that they used that soundtrack as the intro music.
For the humans, there's this almost independent rock music-like theme, that kind of emphasizes the investigation and the race against time to find these remains before the Museum Dr. Tanner works in takes the specimens away.
With all of that said, let's get to my issues with the documentary, because yeah, there are some flaws. While Dr. Tanner is given a character arc throughout the program, I do wish the other 2 scientists where given one as well. They are mostly there just to serve as the guys that don't beleave whatever Tanner is saying. They do beleave him at the end, so I guess there's a bit of an arc there, but is not very focused on. I don't think they even have names. I wish they gave some development to these characters.
While most of the dragons do have some stories to tell, I wish they worked in some them a bit more. The prehistoric dragon has a story, the marine one has barely any time given to him where it does little more than just swim, the Chinese dragon just has a failed attempt at hunting and kills it's competition (a bengal tiger) only to loose at the end because of humans, and the mountain dragon is the one that really get's developed. I wish the other 2 middle chapters got more development. Like seeing the marine dragon fight off sharks, or perhaps fight with other dragons over territory. Or show the forest dragon use it's mimic abilities to lure a mate and engage on a courtship ritual. I don't know, it's just a thought that I had.
There is a bit of an issue regarding the editing too. There are times when the program shows the same clip and edits it in a way to show a different situation is happening. I know CGI was expensive back in the day, and still is, but I think they could have done a couple more animations for that. And I also know this documentary is not the first nor the last to do it, but I still think is worth pointing out.
And lastly, and probably my biggest issue with the program, is the very ending. The last part is Dr. Tanner receiving news, a year later after the discovery of the dragons, and he seems very excited about it, he even runs off with the independent rock music theme playing as if it's setting up a second part. But said part never came. So what was the point of that? Did he got promoted? Did they find another dead dragon? Did they find a live Dragon? Did they find another mythical creature only Dr. Tanner beleaved in? Are they using the material to clone a dragon back to life and they need him to supervise the project?. That never got resolved. Is something that puzzled me as a kid, and still puzzles me now.
But even with all of these issues, the program still works very well. The hard work that went into the program really shows. The story is fairly well constructed, the effects are great for 2004, there's an arc to the main human character, and most importantly, the dragons feel like animals and not monsters. Despite being 100% fiction, it is something based in reality and with scientific rigor, and it can be realistic to the point that they fooled this blogger as a kid of dragons existing. This is one of those rare instances where I would actually recommend seeing this program. It is a very enjoyable one, and bringing the fantasy, to reality (almost).
Rating: 9/10.
2) Mermaids: The Body Found.
Mermaids the body found was directed by Sid Bennett and was released in 2012 and broadcasted on Animal Planet. Similar to the previous documentary, it follows the story of a group of 3 scientists working for the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) that originally where investigating the massive beaching of whales and their potential correlation to the military testing sonar weapons, but after studying the recordings of the whales prior to the beaching, they also found a new sound that they never heard before called "the bloop", and after starting digging, they discovered that this sound was in other recordings of whales before they beach, and after connecting the dots they started to see a pattern and a potential new creature discovered. They then discovered the remains of a weird creature inside of a dead great white shark in South Africa, they started studying the remains to discover that the animal is not something that they ever knew, only to realize that the creature is in fact, the remains of a Mermaid. While all of this is happening, like the dragon documentary, there's a CGI representation explaining how Mermaids evolved, how did they adapted into living in the sea, their relationships with whales and dolphins and how is it that we don't see them anymore, using the (now pretty much outdated) "aquatic ape" theory as a base to explain their evolution.
With all of this said, and considering the fact that this was also created by Charlie Foley, you would think that this documentary would be just as good, if not better, than the Dragon documentary, right?... RIGHT?
This documentary is a massive, and I mean MASSIVE drop compared to the previous one. Why? well, I think it has to do with one very important factor: It's presentation.
Unlike the other fake doc that was presented like a narrated documentary altering between the scientists with a character arc and the dragon stories to both coincide on a discovery of an event that took place in the past, this time is presented in a much more pretentious way. Because this time there's conspiracy involved, the presentation is far less emotionally investing and most importantly: They try to act like this is legit and not fiction.
The structure of the narrative is far less emotionally investing, because it is treated like an actual documentary, which is why so many people got fooled by this and sparked controversy between authorities. Instead of having actors playing scientists that we can relate to and have development given to them, these are played like they are real scientists telling their experiences and even having recreated scenes with actors playing the scientists.
In other words, this doc has actors playing scientists played by actors.
And this structure doesn't allow for any character development or arc whatsoever. Most of these scientists act like they are the victims here. Like the story of "The big brother" (that is even referenced in the documentary itself). There's even a "Military guy" that gets "interviewed" in the shadows because he refuses to reveal his identity just to deliver some information about what the government apparently does to the mermaids.
There is no joy in these scientists when they connect stuff, there is no joy or sense of payoff in these scientists when they discover the fact that they discovered a mind-blowing creature that is related to humans, there is no "I FOUND A WING! HAHA! IS ENORMOUS!! AHHHH!". There's nothing of that. Is just told as if the people survived moths in a raft out in the sea. And at the end is almost like they ask the audience "what are you going to do about it?", but we can't do anything, because all of this is fake. Plus, the fact that the main scientist doesn't even show up to share his experiences, it makes all of these people feel very lifeless and dull. In the dragon doc, there where 2 scientists with no development around the one that had, here, nobody get's development.
But enough of that. What about the story?
Well, the story is, again, not treated as a fake documentary or a movie, but instead like something that happened, like an actual documentary. And that's a huge problem, because when you do treat the program that way, it sounds like a pretentious attempt of telling a clearly fake discovery. In the dragon documentary, they talk about the dragons as if they went extinct because of us, something that happened to countless species in the past: Human hunting an extermination.
Here, they treat the mermaids as if they are still alive but the government doesn't want people to know because... reasons. They don't even explain that in the program. It really feels like half the story is missing. There is no "We did this about it", no resolution at the end. It's quite confusing.
The story relies a lot in conspiracy themes and lies about authorities, leaving them in a bad image. And the fact that they never make clear in the program that none of this is real and it made up, you can see why many people bought this. Besides, I don't know about you, but the conspiracy theme sounds like a cheap way to be interesting. And unnecessary too, you can pretty much take a large pottion of the military testing the mermaids and hiding the truth and the doc would not have changed much.
So that's the human stuff, what about the mermaid stuff?.
The CGI part of the program is mostly based on the "Aquatic Ape Theory" (AAT), that proposes many of the human traits we have are a result of sometime, one of our ancestors spent time in close to the sea. And asks the question of "what if those hominids split, one went to land and the other into the sea?" One becoming man, and the other becoming the mermaid... and another became Trump! (cheap joke is cheap).
But here's my problem with it: They used whales as a comparison for a mammalian land-sea transition. But I think they should have had a bit of an epiphany there, because from Pachycetus (the land form that is the origin of whales) to creatures like Dorudon (a small, dolphin sized primitive whale) it took at least 20 million years of evolution.
They say in the program that from Apes to Mermaids it only took 7 million years. By comparison, in that time, Pachycetus evolved into species like Ambulocetus. that means, the animal was still (likely) hairy, still had legs instead of flippers and still went to land to rest and give birth. For the Mermaids, they went on a much faster rate, with no explanation. If it was at a reasonable evolutionary pace, they should look like hairy ape-like creatures, with more adaptations to the sea, but really not too advanced to the point of evolving echolocation, something that took whales much longer to evolve. In other words, think of a slightly more aquatic and short haired Chewbacca. And even IF they evolved echolocation, don't you find a huge coincidence that they still look human?. And they had 7 million years to evolve, supposedly the same as us. They are supposedly really intelligent and capable of tool creation, right?. Well, how the hell haven't they evolved like us? How haven't mermaids evolved a complex society? How haven't they evolved cities? Why haven't they evolved politics, war, advanced technology, forms of education, religions, icons, and all of that?. It seems like the show was too busy with being controversial than to answer those questions.
But let's get to the mermaids themselves, How do they look? If Disney taught me anything is that Mermaids look like beautiful women half fish, half hot chick that sing like an early 90's pop star. They would be amazing to be brought to life!.
Turns out that the mermaids animal planet gives us are F*CKING CREEPY!.
I don't know what the f*ck happened in the production, but they somehow forgot to make the Mermaids pretty. There are supposedly tales of sailors encountering beautiful women on the sea, did sailors back in the day found life-sucking eyes and completely breast less beings worth f*cking? Cause I really don't.
I don't know what the f*ck happened in the production, but they somehow forgot to make the Mermaids pretty. There are supposedly tales of sailors encountering beautiful women on the sea, did sailors back in the day found life-sucking eyes and completely breast less beings worth f*cking? Cause I really don't.
I mean, I know what they went for with this design, the large eyeballs are a must have for a creature that lives in the dark, but did nobody in the production stopped to think "I don't know if people are going to like it, man, looks creepy!". You do know kids are going to watch this, right? there's a 90% chance to give them nightmares for a week, at least it gave me back then (and kind of now).
The CGI for the mermaids is not terrible, but is not good either. I highly doubt that they ever used motion capture for them, because at times the look like character on a video game before motion capture was available. There are also bits of CGI to make other creatures, like a whale, a squid and a Megalodon (don't worry, we'll get to that mockumentary, and boy oh boy I got a talk a lot about it). And you can clearly tell is CGI, because is very stiff, it has no weight to it. Is almost like see balloons crash against each other at times.
Despite this, there are at least a few attempts of practical imagery on the program. Most notably, pieces of a mermaid carcass that they find inside a great white shark (that is also practical) and they study to discover exactly what it is. And with the hominids at the first mermaid bit, there are humans in ape suits instead of CGI dolls, which is good, even tho the suits themselves look kind of award and almost creepy at times (but not nearly as much as the mermaids).
Lastly, there is footage of whales and dolphins that is inserted with the mermaids to make them look more realistic. And while many of these shots look pretty, the fact that they sometimes use them without the mermaids just to talk about whales seems lazy.
Something quite weird about the program is that apparently there was 2 versions of it. You can tell this because the musical scores are different, one of them apparently included mermaids being captured in a circus for an exhibition and one of the actresses that plays one of the "interviewed scientists" is replaced.
Even the "Bloop" sound, the noise that supposedly is made by mermaids, changes. In fact, that noise has changed a lot throughout the program's existence, from the teaser trailer to the second version. The one in the teaser was really creepy and really sounded like a "bloop". The second sounded like a high pitched voice of a person, and the last sounded closer to the recordings, almost to the point of sounding more machine-produced than animal-made.
Why 2 version of the program exist, I have no idea. But I feel like perhaps the first one was too controversial or too creepy, so they replaced it for one that was more reasonable and more audience-friendly.
The score mainly consists of violins and other cord-based instruments, with no themes and/or tunes. Which is a letdown, because a good score would have greatly improved the mockcumentary's quality. If it was up to me, I would have incorporated a lot of choirs, like in the Walking With Beasts episode "Next of Kin", because in that series, the score was very clever in not to use choirs until they got to the episode that focused in hominids, to signify the birth of mankind. Not only that, but I would have done it with female choirs, like the one sometimes heard in the first and third Jurassic Park movies scores, because is signifying something odd, different and new.
I don't remember the first version's score being much better, but it was indeed different.
But probably the worst part of this score is that Richard went way too lazy in the second version and even used "Sunshine (Adagio in D minor)" composed by John Murphy for the movie Sunshine. You look that song up and it's used in a lot of stuff, from the X-men Origins: Wolverine trailer to shampoo commercials. It is disgraceful to me that a director that I know can compose some kickass music just decides to rip off music that is literally EVERYWERE.
I do have more stuff to talk about with this mockumentary, but I'll wrap it up with this.
I would lie if I said I didn't liked this documentary when it came out, and I might watch it once or twice more in the future, but when factoring in everything, this documentary doesn't hold a candle to the Dragon one.
Mermaids: the body found succeeds at making it's story sound like fact, but it's this strength that ultimately turns into it's weakness. The effects are mediocre compared to the dragon mockumentary, there's no character development or relativity, the real life setting and style just sparks more controversy, the story relies too much in conspiracy and big brother analogies instead of having a story with arcs and payoffs, and the overall, it seems like a documentary that tries too hard to be real instead of compelling. I'm not sure if I would recommend this one like the previous one. I don't think is's a good documentary, but is not terrible either. It is not boring, but I think that the fact that it sacrifices character development and a good story for realism and controversy, it just hurts the doc at the end in my eyes.
Rating: 5/10.
3) The Cannibal in the Jungle.
Cannibal in the Jungle was released in 2015 and was transmuted, once again, by Animal Planet. I would give you more information about the people who got involved, like the director, the creator and so on, but I won't because is not writtened anywhere.
The story is about 3 scientists (Geez, this is a repeated formula, isn't it?) in 1977 (the year when the first Star Wars movie was released) who go into the Jungles of Sumatra. These scientists are ornithologists, and they are investigating the breeding habits of eagles, later to replace their study to look for a very rare species of owl that is beleaved to have gone extinct. But their expedition turns to the worst when apparently one of the scientists went mad and not only murdered his 2 colleagues, but apparently cannibalized them too. He was then captured, taken to the court and found guilty for his crimes. Later, in 2014 (?), it's another team of scientists that starts digging and find that there's more to the case, and, according to the scientist, now spending his life in jail, it wasn't him that committed those murders, but another creature that is lurking in the depths of the jungle.
Now you may be wondering "Oh, Arturo,Why don't you just watch the mockumentary again to see who directed it?". Well, I would, but I won't, because I can't watch it again. And that's because if I had to describe this fake documentary in 2 words, it would be:
FUCKING SCARY.
Probably has to do with the fact that I watched this fake documentary alone and in the middle of the night, but this fake documentary really scared the living shit out of me in various scenes. But one you get through that scare factor and think of the documentary itself, is worth a thought.
The structure of it plays a lot like your average horror film mixed with a documentary, kind of forensic investigation and some rather tragic facts. The narrative is divided in these 3 structures, and it would be fine, if the payoff at the end was worth it.
Just in case you don't know, the creature that committed the murders is supposedly a species of hominid that did existed in real life: Homo Florensis, also known as "The Hobbit". But these Hobbits are not at all like Eliah Wood and the did not spend their time smoking pipe weed while saluting Sir Ian McEllen's Gandalf. These hobbits are portrayed here as savage little bastards that in prehistoric times hunted Stegodon (A "small" prehistoric elephant relative), a large species of rodent and fought off a large species of Komodo Dragon-like large lizard (presumably Megalania). At around a meter tall, these little savages faced a tough life. In real life, these guys went extinct at least 10.000 years ago, alongside the other species mentioned. The show, however, asks the question "What if they survived?". You know, the classic "living fossil" trope. And it uses legends from locals to justify this, as usual. Including the "Ebu Gogo", a creature that looks like a small hairy human that sometimes goes to the villages to kill and eat children. And how the people trapped all of the Ebu Gogo in a cave and burned them alive except for 2 that managed to escape, and happened to be male and female, so they fucked and multiplied. And they say that their sons are out there lurking in the deeps of the forest.
Now, unfortunately for you criptozoologists out there, there's no evidence of Homo Florensis making it passed the extinction 10.000 years ago, and it is very unlikely as we should have at least some form of record of their existence outside of legends of locals. Specially if they are (supposedly) still out there killing horror movie tropes.
In real life, I highly doubt these little bastards were this violent and scary too. Ugly? Maybe, but not really bloodthirsty assassins as portrayed here.
Once again, all of these people are all actors, and there's even recreations showing what happened. Again, actors playing scientists playing actors.
Going back to the story, there's a reason why I put this doc at third place. And it's that at the end of the program, they say that they gathered enough conclusive evidence to get the ornithologist out of prison, only to realize that he died 9 months prior to this. Not only did this turns to be a sad ending, but is insulting when you realize that this doc actually WAS partially based on real life. The Hobbit stuff is made up bullshit, but the Ornithologist did died on prison before enough evidence was gathered to get him out of there. And they even named that owl they were searching in honor of him, because that's a species that actually does exist. They literally used the death of an innocent to tell a bullshit story about killer Homo Florensis. I don't know about you, but to me, it sounds a disgrace to his memory. Animal Planet crossed a line that shouldn't have been crossed.
The Hobbits themselves are actually never seen up close. Most of the time they are seen from far away, and they do look good. I'm not sure if they are CGI or actors in costumes, or a blend of the 2, but they did made a decent job making them. That's about the only praise I can give this mockumentary.
The score is mainly composed of horror music. You know, the awful strings and stuff. The typical "WHOOOSH!!!" to show something creepy. Not much to say here other than just lazy stuff.
Overall, this documentary I did not like. The fact that they used a real life person's innocent death on prison to tell a stupid story about cannibals in the jungle (which just doesn't make any sense by the way, considering these are not people, so they cannot be considered an act of cannibalism as much as hunting) just sounds disgraceful. The effects are nicely handled and the story is decently told, but aside from that, this doc has nothing to offer other than nightmares for a week or more.
Rating: 4/10.
4) Megalodon, the monster shark lives.
And now we get to the best doc on this list (XD), Megalodon: the monster shark lives.
Aired in 2013's shark week on discovery channel, this docufiction starts with an attack on a boat by 3 people and what can potentially be that it caused it (even tho the boat has a HUGE bite mark on it's side with a very visible big shark tooth, but still play the "we don't know what it is" card). A scientist (finally breaking the mold) has an idea of what it could be, so he starts piecing some (hilariously terrible) bits of evidence to finally figure out that the creature behind the attack is a Megalodon, the famous whale-sized shark known to attack and kill even adult whales. So it is up to him to go in an expedition to find this monster before it attacks again.
This... this docufiction... holy shit.
If you can't tell by the signs, this documentary is terrible... but it is amazing at the same time on how awful it can be.
For one, the story has such a stupid setup. So a Megalodon, a massive 50+ ton predator that attacks whales, attacks a small boat with 3 people in there? I don't think it's gonna get much food out of 3 skinny humans. And the remains the weeks after? Lol. It's a boat with a huge shark bite mark, and a huge shark tooth found alongside it. Any rational being can tell you it was a huge fucking shark. But they talk of "considering the variants" and "possibilities", but how are you gonna do that if shit is explained by itself?!.
There are other hilariously atrocious moments in this docufiction piece of crap.
Just look at these very compelling lines of evidence that are undisputable and 100% real and not poorly photoshoped at all:
Amazing how a whale that got bitten in half, that has gallons and gallons of blood, leaves no blood whatsoever on the sand. And that massive body leaves no traces on the sand of it being washed up on the shore? lol. Furthermore, you can actually see closely how they sloppily used the gaussian blur on photoshop to "blend" the whale's stripes on the belly with the guts, that funny enough, blend into a wrong color of white.
Is like they literally like they saw this pic:
They took the guts and placed them over a whale's body.
But it doesn't stop there, look at this killer photo:
Now just look at that top image. In the program, they say it's a eyewitness's picture of a shark attacking a humpback whale. Not only is it very unlikely that the pic would have this much clarity from an eyewitness, taken from the coast (even with a zoom in it is very unlikely that the photo would be this clear) it is painful obvious that this is a picture of a whale submerging itself after taking a breath of air, and they (poorly) photoshoped a shark's fin and some blood on the water. For one, the fin is way too far from the whale. It doesn't matter how big that fucker is, there is no way that it could attack a whale that it's that far from the shark. Then we see that the color palette is completely off between the whale and shark. The whale is a lot darker than the shark fin. Further more, IF the Megalodon was attacking the whale, there would be A LOT more blood on the water than that.
And even further more, if a whale was being attacked by the giant shark, there's no way it would be that calm. It should be struggling to breathe and causing a lot of disturbance on the surface, not calmly just dive like nothing is happening.
Then you watch the rest of the show and it's honestly not much better.
After taking 20 minutes of screen time, they realize that the killer is indeed a megalodon, and what do they decide to do? Instead of informing the government, the NOAA or the fucking military that a whale sized monster shark is loose and it's killing whales and people, the scientist decides to go LOOK FOR IT!. How? Well, with a shit ton of chum, canons to dispense the chum, a lot of technology mambo jambo and a life sized whale decoy. I just love how in the documentary, they say, when building the decoy "The Megalodon hunts humpback whales". And what do they build? a Right Whale decoy.
They go to look for the shark and you can't help but ask: What are they going to do once they find it?. They keep talking of "if that shark is out there, we are going to find it!" they prepare to look for it, but once they do, you realize that they didn't packed any weapons with them in case something goes wrong. You are literally with all the means to attract and record a massive predator, but not defend yourselves in case shit doesn't go according to plan?. Is like me, bathing in wildebeest blood, taking a camera and going into a lion reserve "to find them".
And it also doesn't help that you made a massive chum line that extends from miles and miles and you never thought that this bait can wash up on shore, on coasts, on beaches with people in them, all filled with shark sensory porn, making them a place for sharks, including megalodon to go and attack people, drawn to the smell of blood. Granted, in real life, sharks actually kill less people than selfies, but if this documentary operated following logic, it might have had the possibility to be good.
And did I mentioned that the shark appears after hours? It does, and apparently completely submerges an air-filled decoy and drags it thousands of meters below the surface in like 3 minutes. Because if a multi-ton colossal Megalodon was known for something is it's ability to dive extremely fast with a massive balloon on it's jaws.
And if you thought this doc couldn't be any stupider, there's an "after program" a la interview with the scientists of the fake doc and a bunch of actors trying to be scientists and eye witnesses. And it's even more laughable how they constantly proove meg's existence with VIDEO EVIENCE and people go like "in times like these, we can only speculate on what it is", and this serves as a poor attempt to make the scientist look smarter, even tho he is a regular inteligence guy surrounded by fucking idiots.
I can go on and on about how hilariously terrible this doc is, but I'll wrap it up with this.
Megalodon: The Monster Shark Lives is nothing but a terribly directed and acted disaster that ignores all logic and presents some of the most awful photosoped images as evidence and HORRIBLE CGI, sharknado levels of shit, to pass it as video evidence. The fact that people bought this and beleaved it puzzles me, I think is VERY hard to get fooled by something as poorly done as this.
Here's the best way to watch it: Gather some friends, open some beers and snacks and watch this as a comedy, because yeah, is very easy to laugh at it. I think this is a case of "The Room", that is, something that is so bad that is good in an ironic way. That's the best way to watch and enjoy this piece of shit, because is you take this seriously, it is going to annoy you.
Rating: 2/10
So there you have it, 4 documentaries that treat fantasy as reality. We learned that a few can have some redeeming qualities and be entertaining as long as they are taken as a production of fantasy and not an actual documentary. Some succeed at this, some fail so hard that are unintentional comedies, and some can be so insulting and controversial that is better just skip them all together.
Animal planet should stop making these docufictions and start making actual documentaries again, but if they are going to keep making these, make them well with good effects, competent stories, catchy soundtracks and characters that make us beleave that these products of fiction might not be so fake after all.
As always, thank you so much for reading, look froward to more articles and reviews from me in the future. You guys are the best, thank you and have an awesome day ;).
