Endless shots of cars, people in cars, helicopters, people in helicopters, expensive tech, people carrying expensive tech. A never ending diet of increasingly tiresome superlatives, every 'find' is wonderful, amazing, important, astonishing. Is archaeology really like that? No it isn't.
The most disturbing thing about the whole film was the reckless extrapolation. They find the bottom of a vase, and immediately, before our very eyes, the computer constructs the vase itself. It's pure bullsh*t of course. The base they have found resembles the bases of other vases found elsewhere which look like the computer graphic we are shown. Similarly, we are shown 're-constructions' of two storey houses from the foundations. These buildings are assumed to have been timber framed buildings to resist earthquake damage (it's an earthquake region). A reasonable assumption, but there is no direct evidence whatsoever of the actual heights of the buildings. If they were stone built then relative heights could be partially deduced from the amount of spoil around the foundations, but they aren't, so it's guesswork and extrapolation. This is particularly disturbing as it is unclear whether then city was Greek or Minoan, or a bit of both over time. In which case, what would the style of the buildings have been? I don't doubt that if the producer had allowed them, the contributors could have given us a catalogue of interesting arguments to back their extrapolations, but that would be facts, and the modern BBC hates facts. I also doubt that the main presenter gives lectures that are a stream of undiluted superlatives (or his students would throw rocks at him, at least verbally), I have the impression that left to his own devices he is an interesting and engaging speaker. It all comes down to the BBC belief that all programs must be 'accessible' to people with low IQ and a negligible attention span, who won't bother to watch it anyway.