Talk:Seconds from Disaster

message: Hi was wondering if this article needs updating as new series is due to start on National Geographic. It marks the end of the series as 2007 when it clear it has not finished.
http://natgeotv.com/uk/seconds-from-disaster/about  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.152.18 (talk) 21:21, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  New series in 2011 

message: You have the narrator listed in the side box. Yet most countries have their own narrator for this series. I have never heard of this Stephen Bogaert. Perhaps he only does the original Canadian version ?
The narrator box could perhaps say "Stephen Bogaert and regional variations" ? (or something more flowing than that)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.30.151.123 (talk) 06:49, 21 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Narrator - Stephen Bogaert

message: Series 3 is actually an extension of series 2.  Series 3 has only recently finished filming, I believe.
Really? Is there any source for this? SchueyFan 14:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Series 3 

message: What could be a good serie is ruined by feel of too much repetition and not enough, or any, expert interviews. "Air Crash Investigation" is a notch better atleast from this viewpoint.
you forget that "Air Crash Investigation" only does Air crashes, Seconds from disaster does more than just those, much more, also Air Crash Investigation is newer. --80.42.110.173 17:57, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  repetition 

message: As of now, the only item in the trivia section is about the narrator saying "seconds from disaster". This is hardly something that people wouldn't know already, as it is the show's title and therefore is probably going to be said in every episode.
 Ilikefood 19:03, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  removing trivia section 

message: When the Forrestal episode ran today I went to enter the airdate.  However, today was not the first run of this episode.  While I was trying to enter the corect date, I collided with someone else entering today's date.  No big deal, but don't be upset when I change your work.  I am sure some of the other dates are wrong too.  I'll try to fix them as I cathch them, but unfortunately National Geographic sometimes lists an original airdate that's wrong by a week or more.    
---- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 06:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Airdates 

message: I have entered a bunch of alternate titles.  It looks to me like the British producers title the episodes, then on rerun an American changes them.  Thus "Air Crash" becomes "Plane Crash", and "Motorway" becomes "Freeway", "New York" becomes "Queens".  This leaves me thinking the original title of the Kegworth episode was actually "Motorway Air Crash".  Perhaps it had three titles.  There's also a trend toward more provocative titles ("Runaway Train", "Killer Quake").  I suspect the lack of alternates in the first season does not mean they weren't changed, but that no one at WP ever recorded the earlier titles.
I am taking the National Geographic website as gospel here. -- Randall Bart <wiki@randallbart.com> 17:13, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alternate Titles 

message: I've edited many seconds from disaster articles, and i like opinions about whether it'sbest to leave the USS Forrestal Fire article as it is because it's a US Navy accident or can i edit it in more detail, please help me out, B06Todd
:WP:BOLD — Randall Bart 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  USS Forrestal Fire Article 

message: Why not add a picture gallery? There's a website I found from Redvision which does the CGI images for seasons 2 & 3.
--202.95.200.12 11:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture Gallery 

message: I have watched Seconds From Disaster: Titanic and found out that the ship sank intact. This was very different from the illustrations of National Geographic books and magazines because those books and magazines illustrated the ship breaking apart, not sinking intact as shown in the program. In my opinion, I found it inaccurate. Was this episode made after Dr. Robert Ballard discovered the wreck, or before? Has anyone observed the differences I stated?UrielSoriano 21:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The ship did break in two while sinking. It's already been confirmed. I don't know why that episode showed the ship sinking intact and diagnally. That's how it sank in most of the earlier movies, but the 1997 movie showed the ship sinking in the correct way based on eyewitness accounts. The Legendary Ranger 12:43, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titanic (Sinking of the Titanic) 

message: This episode was the most inaccurate episode I've ever watched. I have said this because I was totally wondering WHY IN THE WORLD DID THEY STILL INSIST ON THE "SINKING INTACT THEORY" DESPITE THE CONFIRMATION OF THE SHIP BREAKING IN TWO BY THOROUGH RESEARCH AND THE DISCOVERY OF THE WRECK ITSELF THAT CONFIRMED THE "BREAKING APART" THEORY?!
Even so the narrator said, "Advanced computer simulation will take us to where no camera can go...into the heart of the disaster zone," but what good will it be when the disaster was portrayed INACCURATELY because of the creator's insistence or whatever it is?!?!
The program Hollywood Science (Still from National Geographic) episode "Disasters of the Sea" also believed that the ship broke in two.
Also, the program INACCURATELY portrayed the ship's collision with the iceberg. It was already very close when the ship finally turned to port. James Cameron's "Titanic" shows this, and Hollywood Science also believed in the depiction's accuracy.UrielSoriano 12:22, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, that episode was pretty cheap, but what can I say. I don't think it really mattered to Seconds from Disaster that the ship broke in half. All they cared about is what happened when the ship collided with the iceberg. Before it was discovered in 1985, most people thought the ship sank in one piece, despite some survivors saying the ship split in two, but it wasn't until the wreck was discovered that this was finally confirmed. The 1997 movie was the most accurate in terms of how the ship sank. The Legendary Ranger 16:22, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Titanic (continuation) 

message: This episode doesn't appear to be in the list. I can't add it though as I don't know any of the details. Can someone who knows more about this add it? Immibis (talk) 07:40, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Ignore that comment, I confused this program with Mayday. Immibis (talk) 22:41, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Helios flight 522 

message: I have noticed that, in this article, the column "Nature of disaster" often indicates the resumed causes of the disaster, instead of the nature of it, although sometimes it actually indicates the nature. For example, it reads:
*pilot error, pilot attempted to take off in limited visibility without ensuring that the runway was clear instead of planes collision;
*metal fatigue instead of train crash;
*signal passed at danger instead of trains collision;
*construction error, load miscalculation, column failure instead of structural failure.
Yet on others it reads correctly, for example, terrorist attacks, or act of war, or nuclear disaster, or mountain climbing disaster. What I mean, is that the cause and the nature are all "jumbled together" in what is supposed to be only the nature. I suggest this is all uniformized for the nature of the disaster (not to  mention it'll occupy less space). If no one replies within some days, I'll change it myself. Thank you! -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my  efforts? 22:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I agree. Qantasplanes (talk) 08:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Best use of "Nature of disaster" column? 

message: Hello, people! I was wondering this... Call me stupid, but I like to watch Seconds From Disaster documentaries without knowing, at first, the cause of the disaster I'm going to watch, so the result of the investigation can be a surprise for me, but this list of episodes often includes the causes of the disasters, so it kinda breaks that suspense... You get me? I think maybe we should not tell here the causes of the disasters, so people can get a look into the list of episodes, without knowing, at first, the cause. If they do wanna know them without watching the show, they can always check out the Wikipedia page about it. So, what do you folks think? Should we? -- Sim(ã)o(n) * Wanna talk? See my  efforts? 17:57, 15 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about hiding the causes? 

message: According to this new episodes will air from 10th December possibly confirming a Season 7, are there any other sources for a new season, as this could be left over from the previous season. Yoshi58724 (talk) 15:39, 17 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Season 7