Slashdot Mirror
The Mismatched 'MythBusters'
biohack writes "Most fans of the MythBusters would agree that the two hosts of the show, Adam and Jamie, are 'diametrically opposed in every aspect of their lives'. The Christian Science Monitor story about the MythBusters explores the connection between the backgrounds of the hosts (who knew that Jamie had a degree in Russian literature?) and their creative differences on and off camera." From the article: "It took Hyneman a of couple years to feel comfortable talking in front of a camera, let alone to strangers on the street. 'You have to remember that I'm a guy who is happiest in a dark room just thinking,' he says. 'I'm not a sociable person. I don't like to talk.' Savage, on the other hand, is outgoing. They're clearly the Oscar and Felix of myth busting ... 'Jamie is all about total, complete, and utter control. Thinking first and then acting. Adam is about acting first and then thinking.'"
You can really feel the anti-social vibe that Jamie gives off even with a single viewing of the show. His science is stellar, but he sometimes seems to be a little too aloof.
His science is far from "stellar". Often, it's quite poor. One should never watch MythBusters for anything but its entertainment value. More often than not they completely misunderstand and incorrectly describe scientific and engineering concepts that are in reality quite simple.
Their methodologies make many professional product testers and scientists cringe. We can clearly see their mistakes, but those who don't have much scientific training may not. To take their "findings" seriously is a big mistake, but many people do it anyway.
Their show is far more educational and entertaining than most of the shit that is on TV. But the educational value it does provide is quite petty, and often quite bad, as it misinforms the viewer.
It seems to me that when the show started Jamie and Adam had more freedom to do what they wanted.
Also it was very clear that Jamie had an introverted personality and is a smart thinking kind of guy.
Anyhow some of those originals, they spent the WHOLE EPISODE on a single myth and you got to see fascinating detail on what they were trying to do, plus I felt I was learning a little bit - not a lot but a little bit.
Now, it seems to me that with the Mythterns (Kari etc) and the amount of stuff they put in an episode it's all somewhat slickly edited for the masses.
Also the narrator, who I liked originally, he FUCKING REPEATS EVERYTHING THEY SAY! etc, there's an interview with Grant he says "Ok so we need to put the flux capacitor in Jamie's whoo hooo in order to see if X will happen" - then the goddam narrator says "Grant has just told us they need to get that flux capacitor in Jamie's whoo hoo, if he gets this right we will see if X happens"
I KNOW HE JUST TOLD ME YOU FUCKER! >:(
(He also summarises what happened 5 minutes before the commercial break for another 30 seconds after each break)
Why do they have to dumb it down for the lowest common denominator??? (sp?)
The editing makes it so that they break up the myths and split them up across the episode but I find that annoying, I want them put together like the older episodes.
What happened to us seeing Jamie and Adam in a scrap yard looking for things! Sure it's not important but it was interesting damnit.
Also, I feel Jamie is being forced to behave in a way which is not normally him, you could clearly see in around mid season 2 he was somewhat agitated at this and uncomfortable, he's coming out of his skin a little bit now.
Also Adam is NOT as stupid as he's being portrayed, he's a very cluey guy and more outgoing than Jamie but I dunno - he's been turned into the "homer" of the show.
Ultimately a lot of documentaries on discovery suck now and heck I don't even get the full range of discovery over here in Australia.
Docu's used to be slow paced, informative and somewhat quiet, mythbusters didn't exactly follow this formula since it's not a docu but it was simpler and more charming originally.
Now documentaries need to have hardcore music and cgi sections, instead of just showing what is happening or speculating on what might happen from a proffessor no no they have to render something add that boomy music, have the excitable sounding narrator go at it hardcore etc.
(Don't get me wrong, I do love stuff like megastructures and so on, but still the editing seems so damned dramatic for dopey people)
Before anyone says it, I'm 28, not 50 and I still recall the good old days of somewhat intelligent television.
Good Lord. Relax. Its a TV show not a doctoral thesis.
Everything about the way they produce and edit the show says edutainment. Also keep in mind each one hour show (minus commercials) covers between three to five different "myths". Their accuracy of measurement is dependent on the topic. In your example, we have a "fun" myth with low danger. Plus we have a high probablity of it looking cool on tape whether it works or not, which it probably will since the internet has several videos. I'd say "I think that was about twice as high" is a reasonable margin of error in that scenario.
Second, numbers and graphs don't mean much to most normal people. Take the "Will driving fast on a washboard make the ride smoother?" segment. They had some very good data from an accelerameter that actually had them questioning their perceptions. They also had a pyramid of wine glasses filled with water. The splashing water is easier for a normal person to translate into something they can relate to. A "horizontal acceleration of blah point blah blah m/s^2" means little, while most people have some idea the amount of force it takes to shake some water out of a glass (even if they don't know what force is).
In fact I thought they did a pretty good job of using the scientific method in that segment. When they got data they didn't expect they refined their experiment to eliminate variables and try to narrow in on what was *generally* happening.
Also I think when you hear someone mention science its usually Adam. Its safe to say that Adam doesn't always think things through. My guess is that what Adam usually means is he is *using* science, not *doing* science. Most people do not differentiate using scientific knowledge and using the scientific method. The show often uses scientific knowledge to make educated guesses about what will happen. Basically this is used to narrow "likely" outcomes. They use a fair amount of scientific knowledge for safety reasons as well. I'll even grant you that probably a good deal of the "using science" is some anonymous producer calling up a subject matter expert.
I will grant that they are taking short cuts. However, off hand I can't think of an episode where Jaime has stated that they were publishing their results in a peer reviewed journal.