Frankenstein ITV1, 9pm
The Nature of Britain BBC1, 9pm
You'll remember that advert for face cream - or shampoo, or some other such cosmetic - that cleverly brushed over the, well, science bit by knowingly employing the phrase "and now for the science bit". It meant all of us who were less than scientifically minded could switch off, safe in the knowledge that the very fact there was a science bit meant the product must work. Mustn't it?
Writer Jed Mercurio is a doctor, so we should never have expected his script for Frankenstein - a modern reworking of the legendary Mary Shelley horror story - to skip the science. But, for the sake of us mere mortals, it might have been nice to tone it down a bit.
I'll admit that, for the first half hour of this drama, I was clueless. Well, OK, I had some idea that it was stem-cell research meets a bit of gobbledygook, and a monster would be created.
It was all set some time in the future - when things looked pretty much the same as now apart from some weird red rain and dark, foreboding skies - and Dr Victoria Frankenstein was busy caring for a terminally sick son and conducting groundbreaking medical research. Said research seemed to consist of putting things into a big vat, swishing it around and seeing what came out of a filter. Then, however, she decided to take it a wee sciencey bit too far and inject some of her dying son's DNA into the cells she was adding to her monster soup.
Once the boy was dead, Dr Frankenstein ordered the UX Project - that's the soup to you and me - to be stopped, but a pair of research professors reckoned it could be a big money-spinning thing and kept it going. And then, of course, the proverbial really hit the fan. (Although on this occasion it was blood and goo.) As with all good horror stories, and just as in the original, a storm hit. The big vat of soup was affected - and out popped a monster, unseen by (almost) everyone. Before long we were watching a spectacularly gruesome scene in which the monster managed to kill a screaming child when he was trying to muffle her cries. It was extremely graphic and perhaps not completely necessary.
Soon - within the space of two ad breaks - almost everyone was dead, killed by the rampaging beast. After that it all got a bit silly, with American agents, double-crossing, cover-ups and a lot more monster-related screaming. Very shortly, silliness became nothing more than tedium.
Much more enjoyable were Alan Titchmarsh's urban observations in The Nature of Britain. Call me shallow, but fluffy ducks and cute badgers do it for me over science labs and monsters.
Like most nature programmes, the filming of animals up close was wonderful, but the stories behind some of our most common yet most maligned creatures really captivated. Who would have thought seagulls and pigeons could be portrayed in such a mesmerising way? I had no clue the birds which so many claim to be "rats with wings" are descended from rock doves originally found in the cliffs of the Scottish coast. And footage of otters playing on the mudbanks of the River Tyne, where they have returned in their numbers following a cleaning-up programme, were amazing.
Old Titchmarsh is having something of a TV revival of late, with his ITV daytime chat show and this series, which has rivalled some of the more established wildlife shows on the box. He even made a house spider seem appealing to this committed arachnophobe, and that's no mean feat. Indeed, if there happen to be any laboratory types out there who could do some research on how to cure this particular phobia, I might even pay attention to the science bit.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article