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.'"
What about Keri. I want to know about my favorite Redhead......
It's either on the beat or off the beat, it's that easy.
I moderate therefore I rule!
--
Adam usually does things the long difficult way and it usually ends up in failure. Jamie's plans always seem to work and they are well constructed.
Adam makes the show watchable because his idea's and his personality make it interesting TV, while you have Jamie at the same time showing you the right way to do things.
This combination is what makes good viewing and evenly balanaced between entertainment/humor and education.
I would hate to watch the show with someone who couldn't stand up to Jamie, Adam does this well and thats why the show works so well. If Jamie was allowed complete control everytime, it would be boring.
A friend of mine was a PA assistant on the show at one point, and says that they actually do NOT get along very well...
His science is far from "stellar". Often, it's quite poor. One should never watch MythBusters for anything but its entertainment value.
Isn't it quite obvious that "entertainment value" is the primary purpose of the show? Mythbusters wasn't ever supposed to be a seriously educational show. It is interesting entertainment, like the geek equivalent to professional wrestling--just like WWE isn't real wrestling, Mythbusters isn't real science.
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.
Well, the methodologies of professional researchers would make the average TV viewer fall asleep--even the average Discovery Channel viewer. The majority of viewers will indeed miss the flaws in their inivestigations, but it isn't hard research. For the minority who DO catch the flaws and care enough to be bothered by them write Adam and Jamie and popint out their oversights--they don't do much to hide that fact and have on occasion revisited myths.
But the educational value it does provide is quite petty, and often quite bad, as it misinforms the viewer.
Well, considering that Adam and Jamie are not acutally professional scientists or educators, but rather skilled technicians in the field of motion picture effects, I do not think most people would rely on their show for serious education purposes (though it might be great material for high school science classes for critical analysis of their investigative methods--where they go right and wrong). If someone comes away from that show unquestionably believing everything in it is completely untained, scientific conclusions then they have more to worry about than being misinformed--they need work in their skills at critical thinking.
I for one just like to watch the banter between Adam and Jamie, and seeing things explode, burn and crash. And Kari getting painted silver, and, well, being eye candy. They should hire another red-head geek-chickie...like Kate Botello perhaps.
Kari and Kate and a tub full of ballistics gel....mmmmmm.....
On the other hand, if you find that their science is continually bad, perhaps you should step back for a second and re-examine your own science. I've gotten in a few arguments online where people go "The Mythbusters got it all wrong" and usually it's the case the the Mythbusters were much closer to the truth than the online folks. A good half of the time people just don't pay close enough attention and think they're testing something they're not.
For instance, earlier today I saw a guy online complain about how the busted the myth that shooting people with bullets will knock them back. He said that any police officer knows that when you shoot someone they get knocked down, but what he didn't realize was that the Mythbusters were testing if bullets could actually knock you back like in the movies (though plate glass windows, or even just literally pushing you back), not if someone shot with a bullet would fall down. I think the Mythbusters got it spot on, and they even did the math on the show to point out that the physics aren't with having a handgun bullet actually propel a person on planet Earth.
I read the internet for the articles.
That may be the case, but your average viewer has an even poorer concept of science, so at least its making people interested in something other that which cute intern is going to sleep with over-endowed doctor on Gray's Anatomy.
Matt (Plasma Physicist, Science Evangelist and Mythbusters Fan)
Norman Cook's Ode to Sl
What a load of absolute bollocks. They're just normal, average blokes with enough wit and luck to be earning good money doing what they want to do and having fun at the same time.
If the personalities they present to the camera are real, and there's no reason to think otherwise, they show just as much compassion, concern for others and acceptance of personal responsibility as anyone.
"I've got more toys than Teruhisa Kitahara."
I have a PhD in chemistry, and I have learnt stuff from mythbusters. I now know that the terminal velocity of a penny is lower than that of a human, and that high velocity rounds shatter when they are fired into water.
The show is entertaining, and has a science flavour. It is better to have light-weight science that people watch, than heavy-weight stuff that only the scientific elite understand. I see it as a kids show, meant to recruit the next generation of scientists. Sure the science is simplistic, but at least there is some science on TV.
If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.