Slashdot Mirror


"MythBusters" Drops Kari Byron, Grant Imahara, Tory Belleci

rbrandis (735555) writes In a video announcement Thursday on Discovery Channel, MythBusters hosts Adam Savage and Jamie Hyneman revealed that longtime co-hosts and fan favorites Kari Byron, Grant Imahara, and Tory Belleci are no longer on the show. "This next season we're going back to our origins with just Adam and me," Hyneman said in the video, which explained that the change took hold as of the season's last episode on August 21. (Our interview with the original-and-remaining Mythbusters is one of my favorites.)

364 comments

  1. My wife will miss Grant. by digsbo · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I won't mind so much. A shorter, more focused format will get me watching more again.

    1. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by rolfwind · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I will miss Grant too. He seemed to be the only one close to a scientist of the 3, as an electrical engineer and robot builder.

      Haven't watched the show for a while now. It became too much blow shit up and other dumbed down shit. Every episode. And yet it was still one of Discoveries smarter shows, as sad as that fact is.

      While I can fault their scientific method, they had some ingenius ways to test and bust some myths. I wonder if "returning" to roots means smarter shows though or just trimming the budget?

    2. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by Savage-Rabbit · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I wonder if "returning" to roots means smarter shows though or just trimming the budget?

      It think it means declining ratings.

      --
      Only to idiots, are orders laws.
      -- Henning von Tresckow
    3. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Grant is an engineer were did you come up with "scientist"? I used to watch the show however it became unbearable when they add the other three. Grant is creative when it came to robotics but so is Jamie. I makes no sense to have 5 hosts for a show when two Kari and Tory are dip shits. While the show is flawed I still cannot figure out why /.'s insist on bashing the show! Is it because they either believe hollywood bullshit, or because their not hosting or working for MythBusters!

      I guess unless their Bill Nye (who started out a comedian, If I remember right) who really did 4-5 grade science its not worth watching! The whole point of these shows is to get people interested in science, which is the highest complaint of /.'ers when they read how science is being cut from the budget, or when the south decides to stay completely dumb and stick to their witch doctor bibles.

    4. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 4, Informative

      I think they put Kerri and Tori on for personality reasons. And it worked for a good long while. Grant was probably because they actually needed a real engineer on the show to help build things, so why not put him on the air too. Bill Nye started as a Mechanical Engineer and studied at Cornell. One of his professors was Carl Sagan. He worked at Boeing before.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    5. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by guises · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Haven't watched the show for a while now. It became too much blow shit up and other dumbed down shit.

      That's true, but it was always the build team (Kari, Grant, and Tory) doing that. Standard episode breakdown:

      1) Teaser talking about something interesting, we'll call this "project one".
      2) First steps towards building project one.
      3) Go to something completely different with the build team, which possibly has some tangential thematic ties to project one.
      4) First steps towards this second project, we'll call this "project blow-up-something-and-laugh-about-it".
      5) Show some small scale models of project one, but don't go any further, just to hold the audience's interest.
      6) Flip back and forth between the two groups, making sure to hint each time that the audience might actually learn something next time.
      7) Finish project blow-up-something-and-laugh-about-it. Watch Kari, Grant, and Tori force out laughter and exclaim about how awesome that thing was when it exploded.
      8) Finally get around to finishing the interesting project. Hope that the audience says, "Better late than never..." and comes back for another episode.

      Really, I don't have any issues with Kari, Grant, and Tory. They seem like decent people and it was pretty clear that their excitement over the stupid shit was forced. The producers are to blame for the state of the show... In fact, I recall something where Adam was up on stage talking about Mythbusters production and pretty well said as much about one particular producer. None the less, if they drop the build team and don't replace them with something equally heinous the show will be better off for it.

      Incidentally, there are fan edits of Mythbuster projects where they cut out the cruft. Search for "Smyths."

    6. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by taustin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Grant is an engineer were did you come up with "scientist"? I used to watch the show however it became unbearable when they add the other three.

      That'd be season one (Kari Byron), season two (Tory Belleci) and season three (Grant Imahara). There were maybe two episodes without at least one of the three (and one of the ones you especially dislike) in season one.

      Grant is creative when it came to robotics but so is Jamie. I makes no sense to have 5 hosts for a show when two Kari and Tory are dip shits.

      They wanted an hour long show. The five of them have been spending 48 weeks out of every year filming to get ten episodes per season. With 60% less on-screen talent, it will be a completely different show. Perhaps better, perhaps worse, but not at all the same.

    7. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by TheP4st · · Score: 1

      Discovery. Smart. Show. Seriously, what the fuck! (please don't get me started on your mentioning of "scientific") Has it even been possible to put those three words in the same sentence since 2004?

      --
      "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
    8. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't say it's 60% less talent.

      they were fillers for most parts. doing stuff like gluing furniture to the ceiling.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by azcoyote · · Score: 1

      Grant is the only one I'll miss. I might watch the show again now that the other two are gone.

      --
      Incipiamus, fratres, servire Domino Deo, quia hucusque vix vel parum in nullo profecimus.
    10. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by Khyber · · Score: 0

      "Grant is an engineer were did you come up with "scientist"?"

      Engineering is a science, moron. Also, it's where, not were. Where did you go to school? Let me know so I can remember to not send my children there.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    11. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      It became too much blow shit up

      ...and their adolescent orgasmic reactions to explosions get old after a while.

    12. Re: My wife will miss Grant. by Deadstick · · Score: 2

      Indeed. The first engineer figured out that the soup would taste better if the latrine were downstream...science came later.

    13. Re: My wife will miss Grant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the comedian comment refers to Nye's time in the sketch comedy show Almost Live.

    14. Re: My wife will miss Grant. by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 1

      I didn't see that show. But he started out in engineering. Looking it up on Wikipedia, it looks like he was already working at Boeing when they asked him to do some sketches on Almost Live.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    15. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by sjames · · Score: 3, Funny

      Probably brought on by the audience being unable to figure out when the new episodes might actually be airing. They've had nearly random 'seasons' for a couple years with little promotion. They must have offended an executive somewhere, perhaps scuffed his shoe or took the last roll in the cafeteria.

    16. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by X0563511 · · Score: 1

      one of Discoveries smarter shows

      See, you're just interpreting the name of the channels incorrectly!

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    17. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by X0563511 · · Score: 2

      Nope. Engineering is the application of the results of Science.

      The scientists and mathematicians figure out how a principle works, and the engineer figures out how to put it to use.

      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    18. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by X0563511 · · Score: 2
      --
      For large sets, this will be our guide even unto death, for the LORD will work for each type of data it is applied to...
    19. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its is high time for the show to die anyway.

    20. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      the show has always been and always will be dumbed down. Name one episode that isn't. While at least blowing shit up is fun.

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    21. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by Khyber · · Score: 1

      http://www.esm.psu.edu/about/w...

      http://www.engineering.pitt.ed...

      http://engineering.berkeley.ed...

      Seems like a few known colleges would disagree with your assumption.

      --
      Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
    22. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Nope. Engineering is the application of the results of Science.

      Is that not a part of what we call "applied science" as opposed to "research science" or theoretical science?

    23. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by Rakarra · · Score: 2

      It can happen. Mythbusters seems like an oasis in the desert. Granted these days the water there is fairly muddy, but it's still decent.

      Judging from the promos you see during Mythbusters, and Discovery Channel seems like a total wasteland now.

    24. Re: My wife will miss Grant. by lobotomy · · Score: 1

      Hilarious. How did we get on the subject of mythology? Or have we moved into the Theatre of the Absurd?

    25. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by doccus · · Score: 1

      Yeah, heck I remember when Discovery was actually science oriented..before the lowest common denominator "reality" rubbish. Just like the learning channel actually had learning oriented shows.. Aah.. but ratings quickly replaced content as the focus of the networks.. "sniff" ;-(

    26. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by digsbo · · Score: 1

      Are we married?

    27. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by Wolfrider · · Score: 1

      --No offense to him, but Tory was IMHO the most expendable of the 3. Kari is attractive, easy on the eyes, intelligent, and made for good TV. Grant is a pretty good scientific thinker and made the explanations easy to understand, but he was kind of limited to a "hey let's build a ROBOT to do this" mentality for most of the projects. Granted I haven't watched the show for a while, but I will really miss Kari the most.

      --
      .
      == WolfriderV6 == I'm willing to admit that *I just might* be wrong... Are you??
    28. Re: My wife will miss Grant. by Draugo · · Score: 2

      Hilariously I just watched the QI episode where they discussed that and the revelation that "soup is better if latrines are downstream" came at the beginning of UK empire era and allowed them to conquer without constantly suffering from diarrhea :)

    29. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by Draugo · · Score: 2

      Duct tape episodes. No blowing shit up and interesting builds.

    30. Re: My wife will miss Grant. by Gravitron+5000 · · Score: 1

      Good to see you standing up for your beliefs Annonymous Coward.

    31. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by Quirkz · · Score: 1

      Thanks for this. I really like the show, but tired of them assuming I had the attention span of a rhesus monkey on crack. I've always wanted a more focused translation.

    32. Re:My wife will miss Grant. by jwhitener · · Score: 1

      No kidding. Random, and seemingly randomly aired around the world also. Like Australia being several weeks ahead for the release dates of episodes.... so odd. Why air in Australia first?

  2. I haven't watched in years by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I watched the first few seasons of Mythbusters but haven't watched in years and it has nothing to do with Grant, Tory, or Kari. They started testing all kinds of bullshit and making glaring E&O's in the process, to the point where almost every week they had to go on the Discovery forums and apologize for fucking it up. Waste of time better spent on other shows. I feel bad for the three who got the axe but I hope they didn't make that decision hoping to improve viewer counts.

    1. Re:I haven't watched in years by Anrego · · Score: 1

      I too enjoyed the earlier seasons much more than the later ones (I've only caught the occasional episode from the current season). Back when they had a limited budget and had to be clever (and thrifty) in testing the myths it added something to the show.

    2. Re:I haven't watched in years by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Waste of time better spent on other shows.

      What other shows? Do you expect Discovery will put up anything.. ANYTHING better? I don't, that network has slid into the abyss. It's as bad as TLC and the History Channel.

  3. straight from the OMFG NO dept by MoFoQ · · Score: 1

    nerd rage in 3, 2, 1....

    (note, "nerd rage" not "nurdrage" on Youtube)

    Question is, was it an amicable departure or.... something worse?

    Wonder if someone else will pick these three up for some other science show?

    1. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I get the feeling it was an amicable departure, that the three have other plans for their carreers.

      Though I do wonder why there was no departure video from the three as the change is a pretty significant event in the show, just Adam & Jamie telling us as the end credits roll...

    2. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by rolfwind · · Score: 2

      When it's all 3, I think it's a trimming of the budget thing. Or perhaps 2 of them really wanted to move on, and they didn't think they'd find a team that works on camera as well. If it were just say Kari, they could sub her with Jessy Combs. With 2 people, they'd likely collapse the team.

      As with Tasha Yar, my view is, when you have a winning show, stay on as long as possible and ride it out.

    3. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Departures are never amicable. Do you really think the three ex-employees one day said "The show would do a lot better without us, let's all quit"? Hell no, they got fired for being dead weight. All of the fond farewells they posted are bullshit politically correct lies so that they don't look bad to prospective future employers. They couldn't care less if the show fails now.

      I guess Grant at least has a "job" as Sulu on that fan-made Star Trek thing.

    4. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Panoramix · · Score: 1

      Hopefully.

      Personally, the only reason I watched sometimes was Kari Byron. I'll keep an eye on what she does next.

      I do wish Hyneman and Savage luck. I like them, really, just not enough to actively follow what they do. If they come up with something interesting and get people talking, I'll check it out. But I feel the Mythbusters are about to bust the myth that people will watch a programme that lets go of their young and winsome cast members.

    5. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by turp182 · · Score: 2

      Has to be budget. Seeing as most comments here said the earlier seasons were better (I haven't watched in a couple of years as well), ratings are probably dropping. And with that comes reductions in ad revenue. And with that comes cost reduction.

      In fact, IMDB ratings of the show, have fallen from 7.5 to 6.5 over the course of the show (turn on the Series Trendline):
      http://graphtv.kevinformatics....

      Why all three? Who knows? But they each have a kick ass resume, that's for sure.

      --
      BlameBillCosby.com
    6. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by AuMatar · · Score: 2

      No they couldn't. Her time replacing Kari during her pregnancy was painful to watch. Not saying they couldn't replace a single person leaving, but definitely not with Jessy.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    7. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by AchilleTalon · · Score: 0

      I never noticed Mythbusters was a science show. Really? Most of the experiments are useless shit. Real scientists don't need to perform these shitty expriment and can solve the problem with basic thinking and most of the time basic arithmetic. And the science, when there is, is rarely properly explained. This is pure entertainement. If you believe this is science, you should think Jackass, the movie, is a great science documentary.

      --
      Achille Talon
      Hop!
    8. Re: straight from the OMFG NO dept by UrinalPooper · · Score: 2

      Wasn't 'solving problems with basic thinking' the long-discounted Aristotelean method of scientific deduction?

    9. Re: straight from the OMFG NO dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Science isn't science without verifiable and observable results in the real world.

      Here's a thought experiment for you: how much phlogiston is in the ether in my butt?

    10. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by dnavid · · Score: 1

      Real scientists don't need to perform these shitty expriment and can solve the problem with basic thinking and most of the time basic arithmetic.

      For some definition of "real." Some pretty far-out definition.

    11. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by theshowmecanuck · · Score: 2

      Given their pay, royalties, and their appearance fees at just about any geek convention they wanted to go to (and probably still can for a while)... if they managed their money properly, they're probably set for life. Or would be in terms of what average folks try for.

      --
      -- I ignore anonymous replies to my comments and postings.
    12. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by kylemonger · · Score: 2

      First season TNG stunk so bad; we only watched because it was so good to have Star Trek back on the air. I could not blame Crosby leaving. It was the middle of the second season before the writing noticeably improved.

    13. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by anorlunda · · Score: 4, Informative

      I disagree. It may be entertainment, but the show is a great model for amateur science. Being amateur does not mean it is not science.

      You say, "Real scientists don't need to perform these shitty expriment and can solve the problem with basic thinking and most of the time basic arithmetic."

      Wikipedia's article on the scientific method says, "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

      I say it is your concept of science that is flawed.

    14. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I recall the time that Mythbusters announced that you couldn't possibly split one arrow with another because it was virtually impossible to hit one arrow with a follow-up.

      Then they were contacted by a few people who could, and could do so consistently.

      So, scientific? Not-so-much.

    15. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      ...before it took an abrupt dive with the last episode of Season 2. Fortunately, it did recover.

    16. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do realize that you quoted wikipedia right? Wikipedia depends on common knowledge, not truth so you might want to do some examination there. In truth, you are both right and both wrong. Example: If you want to see how fast something falls in a vacuum do you really need to set up an experiment when models already exist for such? Yes, if you suspect other forces or variable gravitational constants, no if you are doing a simple query.

    17. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      that the three have other plans for their careers.

      ...and all three got better offers at the same time?

    18. Re: straight from the OMFG NO dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wasn't 'solving problems with basic thinking' the long-discounted Aristotelean method of scientific deduction?

      Have you read Aristotle or just relied on what you think he said? Aristotle based his scientific writings on careful observation. Most people just don't bother to read what he wrote.

      For instance, when Aristotle wrote that heavy things fall faster than light things, this came from careful observation of heavy things falling faster than light things. He also observed that the difference in rate of fall depended on the density of the medium (e.g., air vs. water), from which he inferred the role of viscosity and concluded that in a vacuum heavy and light things would both fall equally fast. (See Physics, book IV, part 8)

    19. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by jedidiah · · Score: 1

      That's perfectly scientific. Even the alleged refutation you present is a nice example of the scientific method in aggregate. Anyone can dispute results and provide a counter example. They can also provide enough information so that YOU personally can replicate their results.

      Also... a few people making claims is not authoritative.

      And if a few people in 7 Billion can manage the feat then it is indeed virtually impossible from a numerical standpoint.

      That's the problem with a couple of "special effects guys" or even "a couple of real scientists". They may not be expert enough to evaluate certain types of claims. Handing this question off to the "scientific priesthood" would not have helped.

      --
      A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
    20. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Even the latter part of Season 2 was pretty terrible, though it DID have some excellent episodes (like the Borg episode, that one where Starfleet wants to take Data off the ship and disassemble him). I don't think it really got better until they added Jeri Taylor and Ronald D. Moore at the start of the third season.

      Poor Denise Crosby. Her character was really poorly written; I don't blame her for not seeing a future in the show. However, as she showed a few times when she returned as a guest on the show... she may have been one of the worse actor/actresses on the show at the time as well. I'm not sure she would really have blossomed like most of the others did if she stuck with it.

    21. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      What are you talking about? Clip shows are always great, and everyone says "this will be great" on finding out they're about to watch a clip show.

    22. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Departures are never amicable.

      That's... a really sweeping, untrue statement. Good lord.

    23. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by dottrap · · Score: 1

      But is the ratings decline reflective of revenue or an overall problem with the show? Over the past 10 years, television viewership has been falling in general, losing out to other forms of entertainment.

      However, the irony is that the cost for advertising in television is at an all time premium. This is because there is still no other advertising outlet that can capture such a wide audience at the same time with and also with well understood demographics.

    24. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by ericloewe · · Score: 1

      Sarcasm aside, as far as clip shows go, that one was especially awful.

    25. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've got it in one Anorlunda. Man's definition of Science (the path to knowledge I presume), is absolutely flawed. It does not consider the Idea of God at all
      and therefore cannot find Him and therefore Trust Him to solve the problems in this world. I am a true Christian who has obeyed the Lord (very simple plan really)
      and got what He says I should have as a result of being obedient to Him. If we follow the so-called Scientific Method, we are removed from the Hope that comes
      from Faith in the Lord. That is why man will destroy himself because he has deceived himself at the behest of the Devil. if you or anyone reading this wishes to
      save themselves from this untoward generation, read the book of Acts chapters 1 and 2 where Jesus said what to do (and don't leave Jerusalem without it). My name
      is Craig Abernethie and google Revival Fellowship for assemblies all around the world. Take care.

    26. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Samizdata · · Score: 1

      And, IMO, Kari has winsome in spades. And hearts. Clubs too. Oh, and diamonds.

      --
      It's not the years, honey, it's the mileage. - Colonel Henry Walton Jones, Jr., Ph.D.
    27. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Everyone seems to think of Kari, Tori and Grant as the kids, but its not really true. Savage just turned 47, Kari will be 40 in December, Tori and Grant will both be 44 in October. The only one not really in he same age group would be Hyneman, who's 58... They certainly bring a bit of youthful exuberance, but not much more than Adam.

    28. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. It may be entertainment, but the show is a great model for amateur science. Being amateur does not mean it is not science.

      You say, "Real scientists don't need to perform these shitty expriment and can solve the problem with basic thinking and most of the time basic arithmetic."

      Wikipedia's article on the scientific method says, "To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning."

      I say it is your concept of science that is flawed.

      Real scientists reference white papers and academic journals, not Wikipedia ;)

      With that said, I love Mythbusters experimental ways.

    29. Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept by EvilJoker · · Score: 1

      I suspect spin-off (or something along those lines)

  4. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'll admit I haven't watched mythbusters in a few years, so things could be entirely different now, but back when I did watch the show I actually found them more entertaining at times.

    To be honest, the show kinda got old for me. Explosions don't translate well to TV (at least not the cool parts), and every myth basically turned into a lame premise to load something up with high explosives.

    I'm morbidly curious to find out what actually happened here. I suspect we won't find out for awhile, as everyone will be civil for the sake of their careers, but I'm sure in a few years the muck will run out.

  5. Oh well... by djupedal · · Score: 1

    Time to scrub the "...best known for his/her work on DC" from WP.

    I think two hosts are plenty, BTW. Dilution always hurts a brand when carried too far.

  6. "Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The only shame about that is losing Grant Imahara. He actually built mechanically neat rigs and such for experiments in a more advanced way than Adam and Jamie tended to.

    It always seemed to me like Grant was hired to do some science, Kari was hired to be the tits, and Tory was hired to balance out the tits.

    1. Re:"Fan favorites"? by SternisheFan · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kari was indeed 'eye candy' for the male audience, that's not to be underestimated in the TV ratings game. She also pulled her weight when it came to creating/assembling some of the mythbuster's creations. She is a lovely mix of beauty and intelligence, and that's not a force not to be underestimated. Her loyalty to the show goes a long way, and her life acts seem to show a deeper persona. With TV, you need to have to strike a certain balance twixt the nerdy type and the everyperson. Time and fate will tell where each person goes from this parting of the ways. This trio of castoffs might just end up with their own version of Mythbusters, or singly prove their own mettle. Time will tell the tale.....

    2. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 5, Informative

      It should be understood that while her looks surely played a part in her getting cast on a permanent basis, that wasn't how she got in the door. They didn't post an ad looking for female models/actresses. She was an intern on the show, working there because she loved creating and wanted to work for M5. She got called on camera to help with a myth (by providing a mold of her butt) and that was what started it.

      Skill got her the position with the show initially,

      Also as you note, personality goes a long way, and she has a very good one for the screen. That is why Adam Savage is a part of the show. Mythbusters was originally pitched to Jamie Hyneman but he knew, correctly, that he wouldn't be able to carry a show like that alone because of his dry personality. So he suggested Savage, who he'd worked with in the past, in part because he's a goofball.

      With a show like that it takes a combination of skill and presentation to make it a hit, and that was what the hosts had, Byron included.

    3. Re: "Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You do know that Tory was on since season 1 right? He was on before Kari ever was because he already worked with Adam and Jamie.

    4. Re:"Fan favorites"? by radarskiy · · Score: 2

      "Kari was hired to be the tits"

      Kari was hired to be the welder.

    5. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So she got the part because she modelled her ass and yet she didn't get the part because of her looks? Wait, what?

      Sounds like you haven't seen her ass...

    6. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Kari was hired to be the tits,

      What a horribly distasteful thing to say.

    7. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What, is it horribly disfigured or something?

    8. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL I love how all of the white knights come out of the woodworks with their knee jerk reactions. It's as though you boys think she's looking at these posts and making a note of her defenders so she can have sex with them.

    9. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You just said her ass got her the job.

      Literally.

    10. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Scottie was all that, plus welding. I mean, it's TV, you sort of expect these things, but lets not pretend it was ever NOT TV.

    11. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "She was an intern on the show, working there because she loved creating and wanted to work for M5. She got called on camera to help with a myth (by providing a mold of her butt) and that was what started it.

      Skill got her the position with the show initially,"

      Did you read your own words? I... uh... her "skill" allowed her to show up and do odd stuff for free. Her butt got her the job...

      Not knocking her, just took me a few seconds to realize you weren't making a funny.

    12. Re:"Fan favorites"? by potpie · · Score: 1

      I must say I've never understood the need to include women solely for "tits" value. It must be a holdover from the pre-internet days. I don't care what gender you are or how many trucks it looks like you've been hit by; I'm watching Mythbusters for completely non-sexual reasons.

      --
      Esoteric reference.
    13. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed, in polite company one refers to the "titty meat".

    14. Re:"Fan favorites"? by bruce_the_loon · · Score: 2

      And of course all the idiots replying take the standard there is one and only one explanation to anything. People, there are often multiple reasons that something happens, and often all of them are actually valid.

      They weren't looking for a hot butt, just someone willing to have their butt moulded on international television. She was already interning at M5 and got chosen because her willingness to do that.

      --
      Trying to become famous by taking photos. Visit my homepage please.
    15. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She got called on camera to help with a myth (by providing a mold of her butt) and that was what started it.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jPubHtdiByQ

    16. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Right, because that must be the only reason to talk about a woman with decency. You must be single.

    17. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      They weren't looking for a hot butt, just someone willing to have their butt moulded on international television. She was already interning at M5 and got chosen because her willingness to do that.

      Pretty much this.

      Byron's butt modeling job did get her put on the cast, but not because of it's nice shape. It was that she was willing to do the particular myth, and they saw that she had other qualities, as in she really knew how to smile, and her personality was engaging. She could build things, and was game for a lot of silly stuff that a lot of women wouldn't do, except when they were just trying to get reality TV fame. She'd do it because she was part of the group. And yes, she was pretty.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    18. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      That is why Adam Savage is a part of the show.

      Ack. I think he's a douche. I'd rather watch Jami any day. Alone? Correctly no. But Adam is just too much.

    19. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      All of your relationships must be based on lies. Everyone judges everyone else. Also your idea of "decency" is just an opinion. That must suck for you to realise that your entire life is a sham.

      But yes, you're trying to be a white knight because you somehow, somewhere deep inside think it's going to bring you the pussy. Well you know that old saying "nice guys finish last"? Well it's true. Maybe you'll understand that when you grow up.

    20. Re:"Fan favorites"? by pubwvj · · Score: 1

      I thought Kari was hired to be the nasty, vicious, cruel, inhumane, sadistic person on the team. They could drop her any day and the show would be better.

      Grant they should keep. Grant is science.

      Tori is a clown, a nice clown, but he doesn't add anything besides some fun and I would like him better without him being abused by Kari.

      What they should do is bring back Scottie. Scottie, Tori and Grant are a good team.

      It would be wonderful if the Mythbusters could recapture their 'youth' which is to say how great they were years ago. Too much personalities now.

    21. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      No, it's called common decency. While you're still flinging shit like a monkey and chasing ass, we more cultured grownups will be enjoying the finer things in life, and the finer women who appreciate it. Enjoy your fantasy world.

    22. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Nephandus · · Score: 1

      Proudly submitting to flagellation and making women nod like pseudo-enlightened guilty little male pig-dogs?

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
    23. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Nephandus · · Score: 1

      Tits and explosions are both visceral. Most were probably watching for that. Pseudo/quasi-intellectuality only counts so far. Consider Michael Bay movies and reality TV.

      1. Pretend shallow convolution makes a coherent premise.
      2. Blow up shit.
      3. Profit.

      Syfy officially doesn't even like your kind 'round there anymore.

      --
      "A soft answer turneth away wrath. Once wrath is looking the other way, shoot it in the head."
    24. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you were more mature and cultured, you wouldn't be shocked by anything said here. You aren't fooling anyone, junior.

    25. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Tori was "the muscle." Not saying he wasn't smart, because he seemed to be genuinely curious and excited.

    26. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      All of your relationships must be based on lies. Everyone judges everyone else. Also your idea of "decency" is just an opinion. That must suck for you to realise that your entire life is a sham.

      Or maybe most of us actually want to communicate in a more positive, less cynical way than an asshole posting AC on an Internet forum.

    27. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I must say I've never understood the need to include women solely for "tits" value. It must be a holdover from the pre-internet days. I don't care what gender you are or how many trucks it looks like you've been hit by; I'm watching Mythbusters for completely non-sexual reasons.

      shhh tits. men are talking.

    28. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually I miss Scotty. I thought she rocked! Does anyone know where she ended up?

    29. Re:"Fan favorites"? by hambone142 · · Score: 1

      Tory, Grant and Kari have gotten progressively over-animated recently. That detracts from any serious attempt at science on the show. Grant is as others have mentioned, the only engineer on the series but he's given in to the mousse and schlock. Too bad. It'll be interesting to see how this progresses. I'm wondering whether or not they're running out of material.

    30. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. Kari is certainly easy on the eyes but I, for one, think she has plenty of talent.

    31. Re:"Fan favorites"? by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      Go away kid.

    32. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      99% of the time she decorated and painted. She was the art person, let's not kid ourselves.

    33. Re:"Fan favorites"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, it got her the promotion at least. All things considered, I don't really have a problem with that :)

  7. Sounds like budget cuts. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The last several seasons have been very short.

  8. As always, change could be good or bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking for myself, I stopped watching a long time ago. At least a third of every episode is their narrator repeating things they've already said numerous times. If this "new format" means there's less of this wasted time then I won't mind, but if it means we just get more of the useless "recaps" from earlier in the episode, it will turn into the proverbial straw for me. YMMV.

    1. Re: As always, change could be good or bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They actually fixed that in the latest season. I used to fast forward an extra minute to 90 seconds after each break to skip the recap (in case we forgot where we are after 4 minutes of commercials?) but they've significantly toned it down. They've also stopped spoiling the results of the experiments ahead of time, which is nice.

  9. run its course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Meh.... I think the show has just about rum its course. Only so many things you can blow up, I guess.

    1. Re:run its course... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Meh.... I think the show has just about rum its course. Only so many things you can blow up, I guess.

      I never noticed the drinking part...

    2. Re:run its course... by anarcobra · · Score: 1

      I think they often gave those three really stupid myths to test. Too bad they gave them a really stupid myth to test in their final episode.

    3. Re:run its course... by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      They seemed to have drunk/alcohol myth to test about once a season.

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
  10. No Kari Byron, no sale by fnj · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    As if anybody with a Y chromosome would ever watch this without Kari Byron.

    1. Re:No Kari Byron, no sale by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 2

      Yes, because men need a pair of tits flashed in their faces before they'll do anything interesting.

    2. Re:No Kari Byron, no sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe they'll eventually have a replacement. But who?

    3. Re:No Kari Byron, no sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Haha, yeah... I'm not really sure what the hell your comment means. She's not there for her looks. She's there to do a job. Just because you can't get it up watching the show doesn't mean they have failed in making it. Her looks are not important.

    4. Re:No Kari Byron, no sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      W.I.S.E.S.T. (Women In Scholarship, Engineering, Science & Technology) love Kari Byron. Now Ms. Byron really doesn't have a science background, but she *is* smart, and adds to the show. Oh and what the hell am I rambling about: she looks HOT in a bikini. Sure you can get the same information by doing a Google search or taking a peek at Wikipedia, but Kari Byron's format is more well rounded.
      Geeks can have raging hormones and be sexist pigs too ya know!

    5. Re:No Kari Byron, no sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yes, because men need a pair of tits flashed in their faces before they'll do anything interesting.

      You MUST be a woman.

    6. Re:No Kari Byron, no sale by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2

      I liked Scottie

    7. Re: No Kari Byron, no sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      On one hand, I resent her sexist remarks. On the other, I'd like to ask if she needs help with anything. :)

    8. Re:No Kari Byron, no sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're wrong. Sure everyone says it's skills or whatever that matters, but push comes to shove it's the one with the better tits that sells. I'm not saying she's stupid, as I don't watch the show, but thinking looks don't play a major role when selecting an actor or actress is foolish.

    9. Re:No Kari Byron, no sale by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      Yes, because men need a pair of tits flashed in their faces before they'll do anything interesting.

      Dunno about you, but it usually causes me to do something stupid.

    10. Re:No Kari Byron, no sale by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >I liked Scottie

      EEUUWW

  11. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    RIP

    RIP

  12. No Kari??? by PvtVoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    WTF?? Another female geek role model bites the dust. She's smart, she's gorgeous, she's clever, she's witty. We need way, way, more women like her on TV.

    Bad fail, Mythbusters.

    1. Re:No Kari??? by Almonday · · Score: 2

      True, although I'd honestly prefer to see her in a more independent role and this split, however amicable (or not) might still provide that kind of opportunity for her. The last few seasons she's been playing up the eye-candy bits to the point where I can't tell what she's truly ok with and what some producer decided needed to happen, because you know...smart boobs, geeks with disposable time/income, etc.

      Fingers crossed.

      --
      Posterity, my posterior.
    2. Re:No Kari??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yeah, its a reall tragedy that a woman lost her job, the two guys probably had it coming... but her??!!

    3. Re:No Kari??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      honey boo boo will grow up to fill the role.

    4. Re:No Kari??? by goodmanj · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I can't say much for certain about Mythbusters, but I'm sure of one thing: Kari Byron's career is not over.

    5. Re:No Kari??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, I take it that you are a "barefoot and pregnant" guy? You like your female in the kitchen with the babes?

    6. Re:No Kari??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      . She's smart, she's gorgeous, she's clever, she's witty. We need way, way, more women like her on TV.

      She's gorgeous kinda i guess, other than that the rest can be said about her writers, there is no shortage of Kari Byrons on TV. they just didn't get cast in a role that implies any intelligence

    7. Re:No Kari??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not?

      We need tits and "sciencey stuff", after all. Mostly just tits.

      And sciencey stuff. Because actual science is haaaaaaaaaard. Like you will be. Because look at my tits!

    8. Re:No Kari??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The question is why ... because right now we send a very, very strong message to minorities (other than asians) that they don't belong in science. If a black kid doesn't see a black engineer or scientist, he's going to get a very clear message that black guys don't belong in science or engineering. If he's in the ghetto, the only place he's going to see black scientists or engineers is on TV. That's why it's important. He isn't going to see that in his neighborhood. Should we throw him away just because it feels wrong to over-represent a minority?

    9. Re:No Kari??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need more women like her in my basement...

    10. Re:No Kari??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She's pretty, and therefore your judgment is clouded. She's a sculptor/artist who got her ass molded. Now her role is to yell "WOOOOO!" when things explode.

      You people whine when these channels play reality TV to cater to the uneducated masses, yet you gobble this shit up. Sad.

    11. Re:No Kari??? by fazig · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Minority group perhaps, but that doesn't mean that they don't deserve encouragement.

      Looking back at my time at the university there were very few female students. A true minority, if you will. Most of those women were rather geeky and talking to some of them revealed for me that they didn't have it easy growing up with their particular hobbies. The female geek seemed to have an extra hard time in society because they performed in a field that was somehow attributed to boys and frowned upon by other girls of younger ages, making them social pariahs, because they weren't interested in most of that "girly" stuff, that simply every girl at that age had to be in head over heels. Now I realize that this is clearly some sample bias, but combined with all the efforts universities take nowadays to encourage women to enter the STEM fields and their little success it made me curious.
      These things lead me to believe that the lack of women in the STEM fields is mostly a result of cultural stereotyping, which begins at an early age. Most likely it starts at home with their parents, TV shows that their parents watch and so on. Therefore I think that Kari Byron did serve as a useful role model for people that deserve a role model, a women being successful doing geeky stuff while not being super boring. While you may question the "science" that was done on the show and find out that it is of little value to scientific literate people, they actually managed to reach a lot of the rest, perhaps got them curious and thinking about some of that rather mundane stuff.

    12. Re:No Kari??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if you feel women are a minority group, you need to get out more and/or look at a few more social statistics...

    13. Re:No Kari??? by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      I'd have to agree. I get the distinct feeling this is a setup for a spinoff show. I just hope the "build team" is given a decent idea to work with.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
    14. Re:No Kari??? by Threni · · Score: 1

      > WTF?? Another female geek role model bites the dust. She's .... gorgeous

      lol! What about Mr Walrus - is he gorgeous too?

    15. Re:No Kari??? by PvtVoid · · Score: 1

      We need way, way, more women like her on TV.

      Yes, let's over-represent a minority group on purpose.

      Women are a majority in most developed countries. Where do you live, Afghanistan?

    16. Re:No Kari??? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 1

      We need way, way, more women like her on TV.

      Yes, let's over-represent a minority group on purpose.

      Yes, people with talent are overrepresented on TV. Most of us prefer it that way.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    17. Re:No Kari??? by Livius · · Score: 1

      Bear in mind that, besides over-representing and under-representing (false dichotomy fallacy), there is a third possibility, known as reality.

    18. Re:No Kari??? by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      We need way, way, more women like her on TV

      They'd be silly to hitch their next decade to TV. They have plenty of fans if they want to Kickstart a YouTube channel.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    19. Re:No Kari??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That depends on the type of show, there are a lot of people and shows on TV that are just dragging down the gene pool.

    20. Re:No Kari??? by DrGamez · · Score: 1

      Get lost kid.

  13. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    lol they must have really screwed up for all three of them to be fired at once

  14. Re:good by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

    Maybe she will pop up elsewhere.

  15. They asked for more money... by Almonday · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ...and the show "went back to its roots." Nothing to see here, move along.*

    --
    Posterity, my posterior.
    1. Re:They asked for more money... by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      They asked for more money... ..and the show "went back to its roots." Nothing to see here, move along

      The show was (has?) "jumped the shark" and they had to do something to revive the franchise. Getting rid of the Pretty Inturns is a great idea to breath life back into a show that should have been canciled several years ago.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    2. Re:They asked for more money... by Enry · · Score: 1

      That's my guess. I still watch it (the TiVo just grabs episodes). One thing that was really telling was just before Christmas 2013 the Mythbusters were on tour and I was expecting to see all 5, but only Adam and Jamie were there. Another item was they had a preview of the coming season along with a discussion of Adam's busted hand. That season in the spring and the one that just concluded now seem to be filmed in the same 'season' as there were parts of the preview we saw that weren't until the past few weeks, and an episode that had Adam's broken hand.

      My daughter loves watching the explosions. I kinda missed the more in-depth design and builds that Adam and Jamie did in the earlier seasons and each episode got really busy hopping between myths. It's probably a combination of going back to roots and the 'other three' asking for more and getting turned down. From what I can see it wasn't a bad break, so maybe Kari/Grant/Tori are going another show?

    3. Re:They asked for more money... by Almonday · · Score: 1

      Good point...and after a moment's reflection, I think I agree. The show has gotten tired in recent years and if the three of them aren't already actually, tangibly banking on their contributions thus far, then yeah, it's time to move on for all involved. This move also opens up opportunities for Adam and Jamie to revamp the show with a new formula, which might be awesome...or not. Time will tell.

      --
      Posterity, my posterior.
    4. Re:They asked for more money... by Almonday · · Score: 1

      Maybe so, and perhaps we're all better off for it: your post reminded me that 1) not every young female viewer of Mythbusters is necessarily looking to Kari as a role model just because she has two X chromosomes, and 2) not every male viewer is necessarily panting over Kari's public presentation just because her boobs are more visible (but not necessarily less ample) than her brain. Booms are good. Positive female role models in the sciences are good. Paying people something roughly commensurate with their contributions over 10+ years? Also good.

      --
      Posterity, my posterior.
    5. Re:They asked for more money... by Guru80 · · Score: 1

      They very well might have asked for more money but I think there is a very good chance this is just an effort to make one or two seasons more profitable as ratings fall and call it a good run. I love Mythbusters but I rarely watch anymore even though it's still as entertaining as ever. After 10 years and close to 1000 myth's busted it's pretty much routine. Seen one myth busted you've seen a thousand type of thing at no fault of their own. That's a heck of a run for that type of show.

    6. Re:They asked for more money... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Rumor has it that this the move was due to an unaired episode where they tested the fan-favorite myth that Tory is Kari's baby daddy.

      It went a little something like this: After four the cheek swabs and seven different commercial breaks promising "coming up next on Mythbusters..." they finally get the test results. Tory throws a tantrum and storms off the set. There are a few awkward glances. Finally Adam grins and says "Grant, you sly dog." Then Jamie walks off camera and returns with two pink slips.

  16. Not sure if gone by Deathlizard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's really too early to tell, but it seems like they're taking this way too well and keep mentioning they're next adventure.

    It's possible that they're going to star in their own show that Discovery is not willing to announce yet.

    1. Re:Not sure if gone by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

      It's called severance pay. If you want it, then you'll be sure not to besmirch your employer.

    2. Re:Not sure if gone by jd · · Score: 2

      Discovery got caught using fake footage in documentaries. No scientist should be working with a channel that is peddling fraudulent material. History lost a lot of reputation with their academically bogus Ancient Aliens stuff, but at least they didn't try to offer photographs and videos they themselves doctored as "evidence".

      If the three have projects worth taking seriously, they won't be projects on Discovery. HBO has less of a credibility issue.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    3. Re:Not sure if gone by C0R1D4N · · Score: 0

      Ancient Aliens is History Channel (A&E networks), Mythbusters is Discovery Channel (Discovery Communications)

    4. Re: Not sure if gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And? The post you replied to already stated those facts.

    5. Re:Not sure if gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      understanding the success of Mythbusters, the great appeal of the three and the longtime tradition of television spin-offs: I can see no universe in which these Kari, Grant and Tory have their own show(s). the only thing one should really wonder is if this will be one show or three.

    6. Re:Not sure if gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ancient Aliens is History Channel (A&E networks), Mythbusters is Discovery Channel (Discovery Communications)

      And?... How does that differ from what he said? Did you comprehend what he was saying at all?

    7. Re:Not sure if gone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit, is it?

    8. Re:Not sure if gone by EvilIdler · · Score: 1

      Grant worked on robot battle shows before. MythBusters wasn't his first show. I guess he also has his modelling career to fall back on.

    9. Re:Not sure if gone by Rich0 · · Score: 1

      I think History jumped the shark for me when I watched that WW1/2 miniseries a few months ago. The Mass Effect soundtrack was amusing, but the real winners were the Japanese Arleigh Burke destroyers. Ancient Aliens didn't really bother too much since I couldn't be bothered to watch it.

      Honestly, those Battle-360-type shows never really impressed me much. They could use all that 3D/etc to do something to help me understand how the battles took place. Instead it involves a lot of pictures of a few soliders behind sandbags with the camera weaving around bullets suspended in mid-air, which has little to do with the actual battle.

    10. Re:Not sure if gone by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      It's really too early to tell, but it seems like they're taking this way too well and keep mentioning they're next adventure.

      It's possible that they're going to star in their own show that Discovery is not willing to announce yet.

      I have seen over and over again that if you're an idiot if you publicly burn your bridges. It gets you nothing save maybe five minutes of feeling better for ranting, and it's a black mark that prospective casting directors and producers will see when you throw public shitstorms about -business- that happens on nearly every production.

    11. Re:Not sure if gone by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      History lost a lot of reputation with their academically bogus Ancient Aliens stuff,

      Oh right, the Hysterical Channel.
      I miss the Hitler Channel. And that Modern Marvels show was pretty good a decade ago, and they did a pretty nice Hatfield/McCoy special.
      Now it's "History made today," an excuse for them to air reality shows. Ax Men, Ice Road Truckers, Swamp People.

  17. Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Production by sr180 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I am a big fan of the show, but Ive stopped watching it because of the modern style of production - geared to those who have ADHD.
    Modern shows now lead the viewers into the direction of the show... So, you have a few minutes of introduction, then a quick preview of whats coming up, then an ad break. Then after the ad break, they show you what you saw earlier, a quick little update, and then another flash forward to what you'll see coming up. Repeat repeat repeat.
    With ads, it drives me mad. Without ads, its even worse. 10 minutes of real content gets padded out to a full 45 minute episode. So Ive quit watching - which is a pity, because the small bits of content embedded in the forward flashes and back flashes is usually quite good.

    --
    In Soviet Russia the insensitive clod is YOU!
  18. Shes not that great by ArchieBunker · · Score: 0

    Outside of the show shes pretty average. She only looks good in relation to the rest of the crew.

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:Shes not that great by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      I'd really love to know where you live- if that's average I need to move there. Average for TV, maybe. Average for real life, not even close.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
    2. Re:Shes not that great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then tell me you'd say no if that climbed into bed with you...

      Yeah. Thought not.

    3. Re:Shes not that great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed, walk the aisles of a supermarket in the mid-west and you discover "double wide" isn't always related to descriptions of homes in trailer parks. Sometimes you can't even see the cart they are pushing.

      However, on the West Coast in urban areas, she's somewhat above average but not a lot. I think she's a bit lower in looks than what I've dated seriously on the average, but maybe I'm biased because I don't have a particular attraction to gingers.

    4. Re:Shes not that great by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Come out here to Europe. I see lots of women who put her to shame every day just walking down the street. Maybe you people living in America are just so used to seeing average or less that you think it's normal.

    5. Re:Shes not that great by AuMatar · · Score: 1

      Been to 10 countries in Europe, from Finland to Italy. Definitely some attractive women, but the average isn't too different from America- just perhaps more ethnic in areas.

      --
      I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
  19. Re:good by v1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    lol they must have really screwed up for all three of them to be fired at once

    My money's on "they asked for more pay for the next signing and couldn't reach an agreement". That will always boil down to some point between "you shouldn't have demanded more than you were worth" and "we probabably shouldn't have broken the cash cow's leg".

    Only time will tell.

    --
    I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
  20. Perhaps this won't be a popular view... by toygeek · · Score: 3, Insightful

    But I think it's a good move. I always thought they were trying to do too much in one episode. And really, who can argue with focusing on two really awesome dudes who love to blow stuff up?

    More isn't always better, sometimes its just more.

    1. Re:Perhaps this won't be a popular view... by jd · · Score: 1

      Then make the episodes longer. Or have one set of presenters on the first show (they're usually paired) and the others on the second show. Or eliminate redundant footage so that you can have two or three times the content. Or eliminate the advertisers, sorry adverts, and get three times the running length.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    2. Re:Perhaps this won't be a popular view... by PJ6 · · Score: 1

      But I think it's a good move. I always thought they were trying to do too much in one episode. And really, who can argue with focusing on two really awesome dudes who love to blow stuff up?

      More isn't always better, sometimes its just more.

      Too much in one episode? Are you kidding me?

      There's a lot of unnecessarily repeat after commercials and switching between myths. This is particularly annoying when watching on Netflix, where there are no commercial breaks.

      Most episodes could be dramatically improved by cutting their length by 30%.

    3. Re:Perhaps this won't be a popular view... by Tom · · Score: 1

      With you on this one. Adam and Jamie are the Mythbusters and for everything they've done, all the others (there was one other woman for one or two seasons and a few temps for a few episodes) never seemed to be more than additionals.

      Also, did everyone notice how little interaction there was between the teams for a long time now? I remember it was higher in the beginning. But for a long time now, it seemed like two similar shows edited together, not one show.

      Mythbusters has been going downhill for a few seasons, I have hopes this move will reverse that trend.

      But yes, it's probably not a very popular position.

      --
      Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    4. Re:Perhaps this won't be a popular view... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They only "try to do too much" because the producers fill have the goddamn episode with flashbacks of what we just watched four minutes ago.

  21. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by _xeno_ · · Score: 2

    So, you have a few minutes of introduction, then a quick preview of whats coming up, then an ad break. Then after the ad break, they show you what you saw earlier, a quick little update, and then another flash forward to what you'll see coming up.

    You left out the part where the flash forward is often misleading and designed to make the next part seem more interesting than it really is. So you start the show with an exciting preview, then a bit of content, then another exciting preview. Then ads. Then a recap, then the discovering that what looked interesting in the preview was entirely uninterested followed by another deceptive preview.

    But MythBusters does it even more annoyingly: they'll combine Adam and Jamie doing Myth A with Tori, Grant, and Kari doing Myth B. So you end up getting those little recap, content, preview segments first for Myth A and then for Myth B, followed by a block of ads. It makes the entire thing completely disjointed and pads out what should be two mini-episodes into a single 45 minute episode.

    I've kind of wanted to take a MythBusters episode as aired and edit it to remove the preview/recap stuff and merge Myth A and Myth B into a single block of content and see how much content I'm left with. Except I'm too lazy to bother pirating an episode to do that.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  22. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  23. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    AGREED! I'm going entirely off topic here, but I don't know what American producer decided that this format was a good idea. It's repulsive. You don't see this on the BBC. If Top Gear ever did this, they'd be flushed down the toilet -- which is why the American version of Top Gear on the "History" channel is just so terribly unwatchable. The History channel is one of the top offenders promoting this kind of banality, and it's a shame that the Discovery channel and so many others have caught this same illness (I'm looking your way, "Science" channel). American television producers are farking idiots.

  24. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Blame Discovery (and History, and all the other copycats). It's a fucked up format designed by morons in order to pad minutes and fill out advertising when they otherwise have very little real content.

  25. Never again by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will not watch this show after this. I never watched it in the first place so not much is going to be different.

  26. Tory - Brian Dunkleman by the-matt-mobile · · Score: 1

    I always thought of Tory as the Brian Dunkleman of Mythbusters. You know, that guy who hosted with Seacrest during the first season of American Idol that no one remembers. They should have dumped Tory when he tried to electrocute Adam with the Ark of the Covenant, and no one would have minded.

    1. Re:Tory - Brian Dunkleman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      My understanding is that it was a producer who pushed for that (offscreen), and not Tori. I also read that said producer was fired shortly later.

    2. Re:Tory - Brian Dunkleman by Horshu · · Score: 1

      To this day I keep getting Tory and Kari mixed up when they talk about them. I hate to say it, but I'll be glad to see Male Tory go.

    3. Re:Tory - Brian Dunkleman by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > They should have dumped Tory when he tried to electrocute Adam with the Ark of the Covenant

      Tory was against it.

      http://youtu.be/OewF8lXDzFY?t=23s

      Also, it was a producer who made them do it. He was fired.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dAcMqWLBK8U

      (Adam's memory is bit hazy. It wasn't 100,000 volts and Grant wasn't in the show yet.)

  27. Re:good by pepty · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Maybe. But their ratings are down so more likely they realized that 2 hosts makes for a much less expensive show to produce even if the other three aren't demanding salary increases, They might lose a few viewers for dumping Kari but they won't take a hit on the other two.

  28. Ob XKCD... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Interesting
    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
    1. Re:Ob XKCD... by Baloroth · · Score: 2, Insightful

      http://xkcd.com/397/

      I often agree with Randall, but in this case I think he's (mostly) wrong. Yes, ideas are tested by experiment. Properly constructed experiments. That means repetition, controls, statistics, the whole nine yards. If scientists used Mythbusters-style experiments we'd still think light objects inherently fall faster than heavy ones (after all, most lighter objects do fall slower than heavier ones, thanks to air resistance). You don't think people in the "unscientific darkness" didn't actually try out a lot of the things they got wrong? Of course they did. They got it wrong because they ran their experiments improperly. And Mythbuster's often does as well. To be fair, "it didn't work this time, lets try it out 99 more times to make sure" doesn't really make entertaining television, and that's generally all Mythbuster's is: entertainment. They have the seeds of science (experimentation), but science is far more than that alone. The problem is, when people look at what they do as actually being science, they end up thinking you can confirm a scientific theory with a single experiment run with 20 minutes of work. And the conclusion to that thought process is looking at the weather report and dismissing global warming because it's a particularly chilly summer. Or saying "hmm, well [some action] didn't kill me this time, it must be perfectly safe."

      Scientifically educated people don't come to that conclusion, of course, but those people aren't the problem.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    2. Re:Ob XKCD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And it would be tedious to watch and receive no attention.

      Yes, the experiments are rather questionable in terms of their accuracy and reliability, but quite frankly so are a lot of real science experiments. You've still got morons out there that'll tell you that eating lots of fats leads to cardiovascular disease despite the fact that ones intake is a poor predictor of future health conditions. You also get dentists telling people that teeth need brushing and flossing in order to be healthy; despite the fact that for millenia brushing wasn't the norm.

      Not to mention all the BS that is psychology research.

      Mythbusters has serious issues in terms of how the science is covered, but the current crop of scientists aren't doing so hot themselves.

    3. Re:Ob XKCD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You also get dentists telling people that teeth need brushing and flossing in order to be healthy; despite the fact that for millenia[sic] brushing wasn't the norm.

      Okay, I was following you and nodding until I hit this.

      On the average, people didn't make it past their 40's, the lucky(?) ones who lived to 60 generally had few if any teeth left. Most adults had chronic painful tooth decay and gum disease -- but that rarely killed them (some other infection is likely what killed them) so it wasn't that important.

      If mankind doesn't descend into another dark age, middle/upper class people in 500 years won't be able to imagine how even the richest people today managed to put up with their crude and primitive lifestyles (like, dying of cancer??? or heart disease???). And that will be due to advancements (like flossing and brushing) in medicine. They would be perplexed as to why Steve Jobs died -- even with his stupid medical decisions during much of his treatment.

    4. Re:Ob XKCD... by Megol · · Score: 1

      You also get dentists telling people that teeth need brushing and flossing in order to be healthy; despite the fact that for millenia[sic] brushing wasn't the norm.

      Okay, I was following you and nodding until I hit this.

      On the average, people didn't make it past their 40's, the lucky(?) ones who lived to 60 generally had few if any teeth left. Most adults had chronic painful tooth decay and gum disease -- but that rarely killed them (some other infection is likely what killed them) so it wasn't that important.

      If mankind doesn't descend into another dark age, middle/upper class people in 500 years won't be able to imagine how even the richest people today managed to put up with their crude and primitive lifestyles (like, dying of cancer??? or heart disease???). And that will be due to advancements (like flossing and brushing) in medicine. They would be perplexed as to why Steve Jobs died -- even with his stupid medical decisions during much of his treatment.

      So many myths that need busting in this post...

      People have been cleaning their teeth in most civilizations including using mouth wash and brushing - often using things like chewed twigs which both provides a refreshing feeling [TM] and a free brush. Try it, it really works.

      People have been aged over 90years old even in primitive societies so your idea that 40 years of age was unusual is patently freaking false.

    5. Re:Ob XKCD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I often agree with Randall, but in this case I think he's (mostly) wrong. Yes, ideas are tested by experiment. Properly constructed experiments. That means repetition, controls, statistics, the whole nine yards.

      You seem to be completely missing the point of the show - and of television for that matter. Science is not done on TV, nobody would be watching it because it would be as interesting to most people as watching green paint dry on growing grass. Mythbusters is not about doing science, it's about making (young) people interested in, and enthousiastic about doing science. In that sense, the show has done more good than all (living and dead) theoretical physicist in the world added together.

    6. Re:Ob XKCD... by kheldan · · Score: 2

      Heh, yeah, this.
      I haven't had cable in a few years now, and frankly IMHO Mythbusters, after the first few seasons, stopped being original or creative on a regular basis (it still had it's moments), and while Kari Byron was, very obviously, added to the show for sex appeal (much as Jeri Ryan was added to Voyager), she did contribute to the show. I think it's future is now going to be rather uncertain for it. Might be better if Mythbusters was a 'special' instead of a regular weekly series, frankly, there'd be a much higher signal-to-noise ratio.

      --
      Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
    7. Re:Ob XKCD... by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Actually, he only said the average was 40 and it was (or around 45, depending on source). He just neglected to point out that it was because of excessive infant mortality.

    8. Re:Ob XKCD... by Deadstick · · Score: 1

      You also get dentists telling people that teeth need brushing and flossing in order to be healthy; despite the fact that for millennia brushing wasn't the norm.

      ...nor was keeping your teeth into your eighties -- if you lived that long.

    9. Re:Ob XKCD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You don't think people in the "unscientific darkness" didn't actually try out a lot of the things they got wrong?

      People today still believe the bullshit notion that tongues have specialized ares for each tastes, despite the fact that they perform the experiment each and every day that putting things in your mouth taste the same wherever they are in your mouth.

      To be fair, "it didn't work this time, lets try it out 99 more times to make sure" doesn't really make entertaining television

      And a boxer's training regimen would make a very boring movie, if it wasn't for the magic of the montage.

    10. Re:Ob XKCD... by Sanians · · Score: 1

      The problem is, when people look at what they do as actually being science, they end up thinking you can confirm a scientific theory with a single experiment run with 20 minutes of work.

      Reminds me of the myth going around last winter about the government spraying some chemical into the air which was creating unmeltable snow. All kinds of YouTube videos of people holding up a cigarette lighter to snow, and it "not melting" and "turning black as the chemicals burn." Yes, it was bullshit, but people could go outside and grab their own snow and do the experiment, and when they got the same results, they were all like "OMG, it's true!"

      My sister had enough sense to realize it was bullshit and brought it to my attention for an explaination. The snow melts, it just doesn't melt quickly because melting isn't as simple as "raise it from 31 degrees to 33 degrees" as the amount of heat required to do that is the same amount of heat required to heat it from 33 degrees to 177 degrees, and so it isn't going to happen as instantly as people expect. As for the black, that's from the chemicals in the lighter flame, as the cold and the moisture cause incomplete combustion, depositing carbon onto the snow.

      And the conclusion to that thought process is looking at the weather report and dismissing global warming because it's a particularly chilly summer.

      ...or, as the mythbusters did, one might set up an experiment where you toss a little extra CO2 into a cubic meter of air and observe that it now captures more heat than the control, completely ignoring that the environment is a complex system with feedback loops and regulation mechanisms that make it incredibly difficult to model.

    11. Re:Ob XKCD... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're right, but the problem is getting people into the "scientific" mindset. That's what Randall was saying. If you can get someone to think, "I'll believe this when it's held up to an experiment," it follows that the experiment must be repeatable and controls variables that influence the result in order to be valid. It's more about getting science's foot in the door, than a full-blown lesson in the scientific method. As with most lessons, it's best to get the fundamentals of a concept down, before moving on to more advanced concepts of a topic. And that is what Mythbusters tries to do, just the fundamental concepts.

    12. Re:Ob XKCD... by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      Interesting that he chose dentistry. Over at Science Based Medicine I learned about the new Science Based Dentistry group. They are a few years behind the medical field, but this group is trying to push for more scientific rigor in the field of dentistry. In the podcast that introduced me to the Science Based Dentistry folks they actually mentioned the fact that most of the "best practices" of dentistry have not been rigorously studied. They pointed out a recent study that demonstrated that flossing doesn't actually help prevent gum disease and didn't really provide any benefit to dental health. Completely against the "conventional wisdom" - and to be honest pretty much completely against common sense. Apparently this was the largest and most rigorous study on the topic ever performed. Since it isn't my field of interest, I didn't follow up, but I still found it very instructive that something as "scientific" as dentistry is so weak on clinical studies.

      Medicine has its own problems in that regard. Most primary care level doctoring seems to be experience based and informed by science, more than purely scientific. Sadly, I ran into the result of this just this week. My pediatrician recommended what she termed an "herbal remedy" that they had samples of in the office. She wasn't sure if it worked, but she offered a free sample. I told her I suspected woo, but took it anyway. Once I got the box in hand I could see that not only was it based on completely made-up herbal history - it was a 5C homeopathic preparation of the herbs in question. Pure, unadulterated snake oil. Really a sad state of affairs.

    13. Re:Ob XKCD... by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      On the average, people didn't make it past their 40's,

      For much of human history, that has not been true. Sure, the average may have been in the 40s, but once you reached adulthood, you had a pretty good chance of reaching your 60s and 70s.

    14. Re:Ob XKCD... by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      If all you are doing is trying to prove something is possible, and it happens, then you don't need any more than one run. Obviously it can happen. If it doesn't happen, you haven't proven anything, but that is where you need the many reruns of the experiment and that is where they can fail the scientific scrutiny.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
  29. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by jd · · Score: 1

    The assumption seems to be that as 90% of kids 15 years ago were diagnosed ADHD, 90% of the target audience now must also have ADHD. Except for Game of Thrones viewers, who apparently have other issues.

    --
    It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
  30. Prediction by j3p0 · · Score: 1

    Tory, Grant and Kari get their own show on the new "Blowing Stuff Up" channel

    --
    "A Little Song, A Little Dance, A Little Seltzer Down your Pants" -Chuckles The Clown
    1. Re:Prediction by RackinFrackin · · Score: 1

      Or better yet, they go to PBS and do a reboot of 3-2-1 Contact! But who would play be the bloodhound gang?

  31. Re:good by BTWR · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is what happened.

    When Friends and Big Bang cast members decide to unite for higher paychecks, the executives cave. A few years ago, some of the minor stars on CSI tried to do the same and were canned immediately.

    I think they were trying to set a precedent for 2nd/3rd tiet actors/participants in a show that such actions will result in a 100% paycut. I can't totally blame them either.

  32. Will Smith and Norman Chan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Maybe these guys will step up. I loved them on Tested.

  33. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    There are people who shorten these episodes to cut the repeats and some of the filler
    http://www.reddit.com/r/smyths
    "These 'Streamline' edits run shorter because they are missing teasers, cartoons, flashbacks, repetition, idents, history lessons, fun facts, "we're experts", and anything else that slows down the show."

  34. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by goodmanj · · Score: 1

    The explanation I've heard is that the show is shot and edited for Australian television first, where it takes the form of a half-hour episode (without commercials? not sure). For the American edition, they pad it up to an hour with commercials, but can't really add new content so it's just repetition.

  35. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Check out "Streamlined Mythbusters." It's a crowdsourced version of what you're lookng for.

  36. Re:Cut the cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know I too pulled the plug on the TV. But DAMN dude the amount of smug there would burn a hole in the universe.

    Is my life 'better' without tv? Not really. Is it worse? Not really. Its just different.

  37. Re:good by FatdogHaiku · · Score: 5, Funny

    ..."we probabably shouldn't have broken the cash cow's leg"...

    But, Grant could build it a new one, with a Ninja sword built in!

    --
    You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office
  38. Tested by belg4mit · · Score: 2

    Adam mentioned a shift in fromat in a Tested video a while back, this seems to fit along with that.

    --
    Were that I say, pancakes?
  39. Re:good by jythie · · Score: 1

    Is it actually confirmed they got fired? I would not be surprised if M7 went on to other projects.

  40. My guess is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....it was budget cutback time. Not really sure how long Mythbuster's is going to last regardless. Haven't watched them since the magic bullet debunk since they were idiots to use a combustion propulsion (gun powder) instead of compressed air (CO2). I tried to post that observation but haven't heard a peap. :)

  41. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by nolife · · Score: 1

    Top Gear UK does small recaps after the commercial breaks. They do not actually talk and explain what you missed like you forgot from 5 minutes ago, they kind of randomly throw in some replay of quick clips of something that already aired a second time.

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
  42. Re:Cut the cable by nolife · · Score: 1

    Is this you? Sounds like it.
    http://www.theonion.com/articl...

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
  43. Just not enough content! by Pro923 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm surprised no one said it... I think they've just run out of Myths! A lot of the new shows - it really seems like they're reaching. And as other people did mention, they have about 15 minutes of content in an hour of show with the commercial->recap->brief content->preview->commercial->repeat format. Yeah, I just really don't think they can make another season of shows without halving the number of myths that they have to come up with..

    1. Re:Just not enough content! by sound+vision · · Score: 1

      Perhaps no one's said it here yet, but it's definitely what I was thinking. The last episode of MythBusters I downloaded focused on Star Wars myths - things like "Is it possible to swing over a 40 foot chasm with a grappling hook?" and some others that were only marginally more interesting.

      This was also the first episode I've seen in say 5 or 6 years. I did watch another just to make sure it wasn't a fluke, but the other one sucked too. I was stunned at how much suckage the show developed - even 5 years ago I think I could feel it slipping, which is why I stopped. If it were just the filler and time-wasting content, that would be one thing. But they have clearly run out of actual concepts to test, as well.

      Maybe it'd be better for them to save the myths for one or two episodes per year.

  44. Thank God, Kari sucked by Gothmolly · · Score: 0

    Bring back Scotti. Also, Tori sucked. Grant and Scotti are all you need. Tori is a tool, good for comic relief when you need a doofus to eat a chili pepper, and Kari was just T&A.

    --
    I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
  45. Re:Cut the cable by I'm+New+Around+Here · · Score: 1

    Well, yeah but, you don't play jazz. Do ya?

    --
    If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
  46. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You just described most nonfiction books, shows, anything.
    One gem with a lot of useless padding and buildup.

  47. Better? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I always liked the original ones better than the later shows with the expanded cast. The early ones they did stuff, the later ones bounced around for half an hour talking about doing stuff. Although Grant rocked, I always felt the other two actually brought the show down a notch.

  48. Re:"Fan favorites"?-both of them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kari did have nice tits.

  49. Re:good by asmkm22 · · Score: 1

    Just wait to see if the cast members are replaced or not.

  50. Speculations... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. The show had a budget for stars salaries. Adam and Jamie demanded higher payment or they would walk. The producers said, okay, to that. But they two stars used up the budget for the stars. Everyone else goes. This has happened on prior TV shows, where the big stars demand higher wages and they get it at the expense of lesser stars, although I can't think of one offhand.
    This issue has also lead to the ensemble cast, like Friends, NCI. By attempting to cast multiple stars with no clear cut The Star, producers have more leverage with salary negotiations. "What? You want how much an episode? You do realize you are only one of 8 stars. I bet the show can go on without you."

    2. Kari...oh heck. When you looked up on the Mythbuster's site, okay, when I looked her up the site several years ago, right under her name it said, "Sorry guys, she's married." It really did. Another aspect she brought to the show was an infectious perky enthusiasm.

    3. The future. The 3 ex-Mythbusters all had lives before, and projects on the side during Mythbusters. That will continue. Although I would like to see them prove time travel by going back in time and taking over the show. That would be fun.

    End of rant. Now I gotta go blow something up (cause I ran out of my meds).

  51. MOD PARENT UP by rsmith-mac · · Score: 1

    Check out "Streamlined Mythbusters." It's a crowdsourced version of what you're lookng for.

    Huh, I guess you really can find everything on the Internet. Thanks for the suggestion; I've wanted something like this for years.

  52. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Mashiki · · Score: 1

    People who watch Game of thrones are in it for the wieners.

    --
    Om, nomnomnom...
  53. This is very good news by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The quality of their segments was very questionable i.e. "lets make it explode", etc. Apart from Grant, I didn't really like Kari or Tory they were quite annoying.

    I honestly can't wait for it to go back to Jamie and Adam! At least with those guys it's all about the science and not the gimmicks.

    Great move guys I for one applaud you!

  54. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    American TV likes to start with extremely long "base" contracts... Usually 7 years with a fixed amount for all of them... Up front, to starving actors before they can work at all. So when you see a show hit season 8 that's exactly what happened. The "wages for union scale" pay finally ran out and it was the first time to renegotiate after SEVEN YEARS of work.

    Most TV actors only earn OK money.. Maybe low six figures (to live in Hollywood) and out of that have to pay agents, unions, fancy dress, etc.

  55. Re:good by whereiswaldo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I stopped watching Mythbusters last year when I found myself fast forwarding every episode to the end to see what happens. Too much fluff, and in some cases not enough rigor in their tests for my liking. I don't blame the hosts, though - they put a ton of effort into making the show and tried to make it entertaining.

  56. Spend more on Shark week! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm SURE they will spend more money doing Real Science on Sharks for Shark Week!!!

  57. Re:good by Xeno+man · · Score: 4, Interesting

    That is an option but not my guess.

    My money is on "studio offered much less than they were making last season and wouldn't budge" The three decided it was better to move on to something else either as a group or individually then to settle for less money. They are relatively young and fairly popular right now so it's a good time to move on to something else as Mythbusters won't last forever.

    Jamie and Adam are both older and will NOT be seeking work after Mythbusters is done so even if they were offered less money for another season, they would be content to accept as it still would be decent money. I'm guessing Mythbusters gets one or two more seasons until it's canceled all together, nothing lasts forever on tv.

  58. Re:good by superdude72 · · Score: 1

    Two hosts makes for a less expensive show. And also, half as many myths makes for a less expensive show.

  59. Don't come back. We'll send your stuff. by kamitchell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What an impersonal goodbye. Just an announcement from Adam and Jamie, some video clips, and a stock photo.

    While I could believe Adam's thanks for all their work, he seemed strained somehow. I think the network did it, after the wrap of filming for the last episode.

    It really lacked the warmth that a heartfelt goodbye, shot in the M7 workshop with a handheld camera, hugs, and tears.

    I speculate that the network forced the reconfiguration of the show after filming of that episode ended.

    Sad, really.

    1. Re:Don't come back. We'll send your stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't make a show of it, and that's bad? How do you know how they handled the actual announcement to the people involved?

    2. Re:Don't come back. We'll send your stuff. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was almost agreeing with you, but then I tried to picture how it'd have looked with the trio on camera going back and forth.
      Goodbyes are normally painful and awkward enough as it is. Having one on camera would be barely watchable - just a stream of thank-yous and praise going all around, and perhaps a tear or two.

      I think they took care of a somewhat difficult situation in the best way possible. At least they didn't go the easy route and have them simply not appear in the next season without explanation leaving the audience to wonder what happened, something Mythbusters themselves have done in the past.

  60. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What's really sad is that even the new Cosmos series was infected with some of this production style, as has Nova in recent decades.

    I remember old Nova shows and James Burke's Connections with fondness, but now I am wondering if that is just that I was so young that I didn't notice the pandering to idiots...?

  61. Fark moderators, can you come to slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this stuff is really not acceptable

    1. Re:Fark moderators, can you come to slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Can you leave /.?

    2. Re:Fark moderators, can you come to slashdot? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      thanks for your opinion. i'll just put it in the circular file.

  62. The show is filled with mostly nonsense by Streetlight · · Score: 1

    Most of the show's "experiments" are nonsense or the results are obvious. Science isn't done this way. Never was, never will be. I'm waiting for them to do seances and contact the dead to prove something. Or conclude that because they can't contact the dead that need try to invent a new way to contact the dead, so stay tuned.

    --
    In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act. George Orwell
    1. Re:The show is filled with mostly nonsense by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      At the beginning of the show, it was 'lets see if Hollywood special effects can be done without using special effects. No. Now here's how the special effects were done.'

      Then, for a while, it was actually busting myths.

      Now, it's 'Does physics actually work?' I stopped watching when I saw an episode where they were challenging the assertion that, given a vehicle moving at 30 mph, with a rear-facing air cannon that would shoot at tennis ball at 30 mph, the ball, when fired from the moving vehicle, would simply drop.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    2. Re:The show is filled with mostly nonsense by Sanians · · Score: 2

      I stopped watching when I saw an episode where they were challenging the assertion that, given a vehicle moving at 30 mph, with a rear-facing air cannon that would shoot at tennis ball at 30 mph, the ball, when fired from the moving vehicle, would simply drop.

      Really? I mean, I'm not going to challenge your assertion that the show has gotten pretty bad lately, as it's certainly gotten bad since season two began, but I wouldn't criticize them for testing something everyone thinks they know just because it is actually true.

      One of the most interesting episodes I saw was when they were testing something Jamie said in an earlier episode: That if two trucks collide at 55 MPH, it's like one truck hitting a brick wall at 110 MPH. At first I thought "duh, everyone knows that's true" and I continued to think that as they set up experiments, right until they were about to let two clay blocks swing into each other at which point a light bulb lit up above my head, and so I quickly hit the pause button and thought about what was going to happen, and realized that since each block of clay was simply going to stop the movement of the other, each was going to end up in the same condition it would have been in had it simply slammed into the "immovable object" instead, and thus two vehicles each going 55 MPH in a head-on collision is exactly like just one vehicle hitting a brick wall in a 55 MPH collision. ...and I suppose it's solvable with math too, given e = m * v, and so if two objects slowing down one unit of speed yields two units of energy, or one unit per object, then one object slowing down two units of speed yields four units of energy, which is four times as much, even though the difference in speeds is identical in each case. ...but I was certainly misinformed about how it worked, and I don't think I was the only one, so it was totally worth doing an episode on, indeed it was one of my favorites since I actually learned something.

      Who knows, maybe the tennis ball episode was someone else's favorite, as it showed them something they either didn't know, or just hadn't really ever thought about.

      What annoys me is when they start testing movie myths that I'm pretty sure no one would believe anyway, or when they perform experiments in stupid ways, or omit basic information to try to make it seem like the outcome isn't as predictable as it is. I don't mind that they do the experiments, I just hate that they play dumb about the outcome rather than look for some way to inject some intelligence into the experiment despite the predictable outcome.

    3. Re:The show is filled with mostly nonsense by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      I would have no problem at all if they simply moved the show to 'look how cool physics is!' As long as that's what they billed the show as. And as long as they weren't trying to be all overblown about it.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    4. Re:The show is filled with mostly nonsense by radtea · · Score: 1

      One of the most interesting episodes I saw was when they were testing something Jamie said in an earlier episode: That if two trucks collide at 55 MPH, it's like one truck hitting a brick wall at 110 MPH. At first I thought "duh, everyone knows that's true" and I continued to think that as they set up experiments, right until they were about to let two clay blocks swing into each other at which point a light bulb lit up above my head, and so I quickly hit the pause button and thought about what was going to happen, and realized that since each block of clay was simply going to stop the movement of the other, each was going to end up in the same condition it would have been in had it simply slammed into the "immovable object" instead, and thus two vehicles each going 55 MPH in a head-on collision is exactly like just one vehicle hitting a brick wall in a 55 MPH collision. ...and I suppose it's solvable with math too, given e = m * v, and so if two objects slowing down one unit of speed yields two units of energy, or one unit per object, then one object slowing down two units of speed yields four units of energy, which is four times as much, even though the difference in speeds is identical in each case. ...but I was certainly misinformed about how it worked, and I don't think I was the only one, so it was totally worth doing an episode on, indeed it was one of my favorites since I actually learned something.

      First, E = 1/2 m*v^2, not m*v, although your later statement seems to acknowledge that.

      Second: you are correct that the two situations are not the same, because the energy in the center-of-motion (zero momentum) frame of the two vehicles is what matters (you can think about this as the kinetic energy that is available to deform the vehicles in the crash, leaving them with a lot of bent metal and no momentum after the crash.)

      With two trucks moving toward each other at equal and opposite velocities, the zero momentum frame is the just the ground, where the total energy is m*v^2 (twice the energy of each individual vehicle).

      In the case of hitting a wall, the wall has effectively infinite mass, so the zero momentum frame is moving with an infinitesimal velocity toward the truck, and the total energy is 2*m*v^2 (where "v" is still 55 MPH and the multiplier come from squaring the factor of two in front of it to get the full 110 MPH of the single truck).

      So in the case of hitting a brick wall, there is twice the energy available. This is quite different, conceptually, from the explanation you've given, which is wrong. In the case of a vehicle hitting a brick wall at v = 55 MPH the energy is just 1/2 m*v^2, not m*v^2 as in the case of two colliding vehicles, or 2*m*v^2 as in the case of a vehicle at 2v hitting the wall.

      The history of science teaches us that what is intuitive to any particular person is unrelated to the best way of understanding the world, and your reasoning is a nice example of this: it got you part way toward a correct conclusion, but fell short of the full understanding that the general principles of Newtonian physics give us.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    5. Re:The show is filled with mostly nonsense by Sanians · · Score: 1

      First, E = 1/2 m*v^2, not m*v, although your later statement seems to acknowledge that.

      Yes, Slashdot ate my unicode.

      So in the case of hitting a brick wall, there is twice the energy available.

      I should have made it more clear that I was talking about energy per vehicle, but I left it as a given, since it was the whole point of the episode. Jamie had, in the previous episode, claimed that hitting a similar vehicle at a similar speed in a head-on collision was as deadly as hitting a wall at twice the speed, but fans on their forums had pointed out that it was actually identical to hitting a wall at the same speed.

      In summary:

      car vs. wall = 1 unit of energy
      car vs. car = 2 units of energy, or 1 unit per car
      car at 2x speed vs. wall = 4 units of energy

    6. Re:The show is filled with mostly nonsense by cwsumner · · Score: 1

      No, everyone does -not- know it is true! Kids need to see these things. Many -adults- need to see these things...

  63. Re: good by taustin · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Except, of course, the show's been on for 11 years, not seven. The newest of the B team is Imahara, who joined in 2005, nine years ago. They've already renegotiated contracts at least once.

    Either they demanded more money, the ratings are down enough to want to cut costs, or they've got something else planned - they may get their own show.

    Or, of course, they may all just be tired of filming 48 weeks out of every year, to get ten episodes.

  64. Re:Cut the cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It seems to me only with TV can there be this really common "Let me demonstrate how I don't watch TV by telling you how much I know about TV."

    Does anything else work like this?

  65. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Fleetie · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Top Gear" in the UK does not HAVE commercial breaks! It's made by and shown on, the BBC, whose main TV stations have no adverts at all (except for their own forthcoming shows).

    When "Top Gear" is repeated on other, commercial channels, then yes, there are advert breaks.

    --
    "Absorbing your worst..."
  66. WTF? by adolf · · Score: 1

    I'm actually rather OK with this. Though Kari is fun to watch and has certain skills (particularly welding and being hot), and Grant is very talented with nuts and bolts and software and robotics, I actually like Mythbusters mostly for the hard science (even if wrong) of Jamie, and the manic presentations of Adam.

    Who was the other one again? Oh, yeah, that other guy.

    Anyway, I remember Mythbusters with just Jamie and Adam. I miss it: Two well-versed, very smart people arguing against each other but toward a common goal is a win every day.

  67. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by adolf · · Score: 1

    AFAICT, the format of Mythbusters hasn't changed in a very long time.

    There is a certain cadence of it which has not, AFAICT, varied since the show included "the kids."

    One of the producers of Mythbusters is said to listen to it in her car, and if she can't follow and understand the episode by voice alone, it gets redone.

    (As your attorney, I think you're trying too hard to coalesce your own aging mindset with the continually-renewed world around you. Give it a rest. Things move on.)

  68. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That being said..why the **** does it matter what she looks like?

    Because that's why they put on the show? She seems smart enough and, because she is not classically beautiful, seems obtainable for many male geeks who are conditioned to be very suspicious of the Penny types who have rejected them so many times in the past.

    Personally, physically, she doesn't move my alert meter to "oh my FSM, she's frigging adorable", but I wouldn't kick her out for eating crackers in bed if I were single and hadn't been in a relationship in a while (okay, let's be honest, a week or two). Certainly her looks wouldn't stop me from dating her though if her personality was attractive (hard to judge that on scripted shows - some assholes come across as warm and friendly on television).

  69. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...that's why they put HER on the show...

    Why no edit after post function (with a history log for those who care to quibble over the edits)?

  70. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But, didn't the sidekicks start later?

  71. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    And, frankly, they moved into second derivative myths long ago.

  72. long in the tooth by globaljustin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ah man...Mythbusters...

    I'm a fan, for sure, but it seems that even casual fans like me can sort of see past the veneer of production. It's kind of in my nature to analyze a show (as it is w/ many on /. i'm sure) and pick apart their production decisions.

    So, when it comes to Kari, Byron, and Grant...I think they should have seen this coming a decade ago.

    They're great, and they added value to their presence over the years. I always liked their segments.

    But if we're analyzing production decisions, it seems that they should have tried to get their agent to get them more work, or maybe a spin off...their presence was never going to be more than bit parts...part timer gigs. Even the popularity of the show can't make more time in the timeslot...it's just there was a maximum ammount they could physically contribute due to time constraints per episode.

    I'm sure fans will remember the super-cool welder chick from, i'm guessing, seasons 2-5...she moved on and I figured the others would do the same, having a rotating cast of experts go in and out over the years...except for Kari...she seemed like a good foil for the guys.

    Anyhow, Mythbusters was always better than it's show. You could tell that dumb network people were putting weird constraints on them...ex: voiceover narration from some random in Tasmania or w/e...and other parts...but it is always going to be great for what it is...

    but yeah...IMHO the three of them should have seen this coming

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  73. their own show by globaljustin · · Score: 1

    Wonder if someone else will pick these three up for some other science show?

    there is *plenty* of demand for such a thing...and the advertisers are certainly there as well

    they could make it all 'STEM' and 'girl power' and just clean up...pop science is huge right now

    --
    Thank you Dave Raggett
  74. Re:Cut the cable by PopeRatzo · · Score: 1

    Is this you?

    No, but I met him and kicked his hipster punk ass.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  75. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Take a look at the smyths subreddit. They edit Mythbusters episodes to remove all of that flash-back/flash-forward stuff, turning those 45 minute episodes back into 10 minutes of content.

  76. Drop? no dummies? by pereric · · Score: 1

    Drop them? How, and where? What will they be testing? Aren't they usually using dummies for such?

  77. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    >forward flashes

    Hell, I am still pissed they cancelled Flash Forward.

    This is just too much, now Mythbusters is being cut back.
    Gadget Show in UK as well. Again.

    Fuck TV man. The sooner it goes independent, the better. Internet is the new TV.

  78. Re:Cut the cable by PopeRatzo · · Score: 0

    It seems to me only with TV can there be this really common "Let me demonstrate how I don't watch TV by telling you how much I know about TV."

    Well, you gotta think most of that is the fact that 63% of all news on the Internet is about TV. Seriously.

    You can learn a ton about what's happening on TV without watching TV. For example, let's do a little experiment. I'm gonna pick a popular web site at random, say, "Buzzfeed" and go there right now. OK, hold on....

    I'm back. Of the six top stories on Buzzfeed, three of them are about TV. Now this is the front page, where all the stories are aggregated, and I just looked at the top six stories without scrolling down.

    There's a story about "Where has Jennifer Aniston been?" which I assume involves a significant amount of cosmetic surgery and possibly rehab. Next is (I shit you not), "How The TV Version Of “Clueless” Ruined Everything". I don't know what that could possibly be about, but the headline is tantalizing. I mean this TV show fucking ruined everything! Finally, the #6 headline is another story about television coverage of #Ferguson, of which there have now been more of than actual news stories about #Ferguson. This is an interesting phenomenon of it's own, with the media loving to talk about how the media is covering something, especially some horrible thing.

    I didn't look, but I assume that if I were to scroll down there would be more headlines about people who play this "Game of Thorns" (which sounds painful) or one of the ubiquitous stories about how that guy on the reality show you don't watch turned out to really be a horrible person in real life.

    --
    You are welcome on my lawn.
  79. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by citizenr · · Score: 1

    and except for the fact science channels on Youtube (Vsauce for example) get more views than Game of Thrones/sopranos/lost.
    So on one hand you have this myth of what is popular, on the other you have millions of people craving for content similar to Sagans Cosmos.

    --
    Who logs in to gdm? Not I, said the duck.
  80. Re:good by MrL0G1C · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I think they worry too much about what constitutes a good myth.

    I'd like to see a lot more smaller myths tackled - that'd get rid of the 'fluff' and like some have mentioned, they spend too much time repeating stuff - at least 3-4 times they say what they are going to do.

    They need to stop catering for an extremely low common denominator.

    If they made the episodes available worldwide, DRM free 1080p with the ads and repetitions removed, I might find it hard to resist snapping them up even at $2 each.

    --
    Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
  81. Re:Cut the cable by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Call me when you cut the internet cable. Then I'll be impressed.

  82. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by mwooldri · · Score: 1

    I agree on the recaps on one point alone: some features are split up, often with "The Star in the Reasonably Priced Car" segment of the show. When the main feature is returned to, then yes there is a brief recap.

    However, on domestic BBC TV, there are no adverts.

  83. I can has spinoff? (Re:No Kari???) by mwooldri · · Score: 1

    I think that yes, a spinoff featuring Kari, Grant and Tory would be a good idea, and I would also think that they should work under the Mythbusters brand. However given that, I would have no idea what exactly the show would be about with these three. Maybe if Mythbusters is getting back to basics, the spin off could get more serious... show be called "Myth Re-Busters", take certain earlier "plausible" myths and re-do them but using more stringent scientific methods. Leave Adam and Jamie to do the laughs and the bangs. That way people who got too turned off by the presentation and the showmanship of the original series can turn on to something more to their liking... and if the general public are ready for something a bit more serious then ratings shouldn't be a problem either.

  84. Re:good by HalAtWork · · Score: 2

    When you see the same scene replayed 5 times, before and after commercial breaks, and ten they flash back to it... It gets annoying. They could do the same show in 1/2 the time. Now they want to cut out 1/2 the crew and things they're doing? Doesn't bode well...

  85. Re:good by justthinkit · · Score: 1

    If they'll do it to the cast of ST:TNG, they'll do it to anyone.

    --
    I come here for the love
  86. Re:good by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

    What is it about Brits and redheads, anyway? Prejudice occurs worldwide over every possible trifling difference, but this one has to be the weirdest.

  87. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is definitely not true. It airs in Australia as a 1 hour show on all the channels it airs on. Furthermore, in the US they're allowed 17-18 minutes of ad breaks per hour (42-43 minute show) and in Australia they're only allowed 15 minutes of advertisements per hour.

  88. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I stopped watching when they ran out of myths and began to bust stupid stuff from TV and movies. Stuff that no one would believe to begin with. Guess what, that stuff all got busted.

  89. Re: good by mitzampt · · Score: 0

    Then enlighten this entire forum, smart ass :)

    --
    uhm...
  90. Re:good by tommeke100 · · Score: 1

    Jamie and Adam won't be seeking work after Mythbusters? Jamie is 57 and Adam is actually only 47 years old ! Unless Mythbusters runs until they're 80, I'm sure they'll be looking for other gigs after this one. There is no retirement age in media, unless you're physically unfit to do the job or nobody wants you anymore.

  91. Re:good by cupantae · · Score: 2

    in some cases not enough rigor in their tests

    That was the problem for me with Kari, Grant and Tory. Sometimes I think they actually failed to test the myth because of some issue with their setup. I wouldn't mind that if they used it to add discussion about what constitutes a real test, or maybe suggest some way that it still could possibly be true. Invariably, they would just claim that this is "totally busted!"
    It's just annoying. It's like they don't want you watching the program if your standards are too high. Goddamn it, that's what science is about!

    I can't expect them to be as good as Adam and Jamie - they've got a lot of experience in making things happen from working in special effects. Some of their setups are quite ingenious. But watching these other fools pretend to do the same thing is just sad sometimes.

    And yeah, as people have been saying, the fluff factor is worse than ever. Those little acted out bits with silly music are horrendous. What a waste of time and effort. Just do the myths. Watching clips on youtube is far better than watching on TV.

    --
    --
  92. Re: good by Khyber · · Score: 1

    "Or, of course, they may all just be tired of filming 48 weeks out of every year, to get ten episodes."

    That's pathetic. Over a month per episode.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  93. Too many explosions and guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I love the traffic myths and the airplane myths. Smarter stuff that applies to my life.

    As much as I like the performers, I am glad they are making the change.

    1. Re: Too many explosions and guns by kyjellyfish · · Score: 1

      Let's think positively... they may be losing their Mythbusters gig, but it will give these "actors" the opportunity to advance their solo careers. Or in Grant Imahara's case, his "Sulu" career...

  94. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by nolife · · Score: 1

    Understand, on BBC America, it has commercials and those small recaps I was referring to fall in line with what you are describing.

    --
    Bad boys rape our young girls but Violet gives willingly.
  95. Re:good by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

    Oh hell, Jamie and Adam are guilty of the same thing - missing the obvious. I just watched the stripped down version of testing the myth that being in the presence of an attractive member of the opposite sex 'dumbs you down'. Test was read the color of the word and not the text. On the second time through, both sexes' scores improved. and J&A were surprised. Wow. The same people taking the same test a little later in the day (usually called practice) improved. They simply concluded the myth was busted and didn't at all consider the practice session. There are a number of other episodes where the obvious was ignored as well.

  96. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd just like to point out that I have ADHD and I can't stand this style of television. Even as a kid, I preferred my science-entertainment in a Mr Wizard kind of way: "Hey kids, we're going to do a thing. This is how we do it. We're doing it. Look at this amazing thing we've done!"

  97. So, what is the show version of their departure? by LanceUppercut · · Score: 1

    They are being let go in the real life. But what is going to happen to their characters in the show universe? Are they getting killed off? I suggest a gruesome industrial accident.

  98. Re:good by Vrallis · · Score: 1

    Oh hell, Jamie and Adam are guilty of the same thing - missing the obvious. I just watched the stripped down version of testing the myth that being in the presence of an attractive member of the opposite sex 'dumbs you down'. Test was read the color of the word and not the text. On the second time through, both sexes' scores improved. and J&A were surprised. Wow. The same people taking the same test a little later in the day (usually called practice) improved. They simply concluded the myth was busted and didn't at all consider the practice session. There are a number of other episodes where the obvious was ignored as well.

    If I remember correctly, the claim made, which they said was backed by other studies of this particular test, was that due to the nature of how the brain worked--the whole point of this particular test--studies showed practice had little to no effect.

  99. A potential solution to your problem by Wescotte · · Score: 2

    You might find Mythbusters for the Impatient useful. It is a Youtube channel that edits each episode down to about four minutes.

  100. Those recaps are the worst part of the show. by Sanians · · Score: 2

    I remember years ago when I first set up MythTV, and set it to record MythBusters. It eventually recorded the episodes from the first season, when they still did several myths per show, but finished one before starting on the next one. Watching those episodes was like heaven compared to the newer format. No "this is coming up later" and "this happened earlier" segments both before and after each commercial break. You have to wonder how much interesting footage they're leaving out so that they have time for all of those recaps.

    1. Re:Those recaps are the worst part of the show. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I would much rather just see them taking their time building shit (they have the footage; they run fast framerate montage sequences in almost every episode) than have those stupid recap / preview segments, or the unnecessary "the myth didn't work, so let's add C4!" bits.

  101. Grant also plays Sulu by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Watch Star Trek Continues online. You'll see Grant plays Sulu. He is a very talented person with a wide open career ahead of him.

  102. Outlaw Byth Busters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I think the show Myth Buster should be outlawed by Congress, can not see how Congress can allow a TV show to have more fun and screw off more than they do.

  103. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here you go:
    http://thepiratebay.se/search/mythbusters/0/99/208
    Even less than 2USD a piece.

  104. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hm. Teasers, flashbacks, repetition, indents? and "we're experts" ... definitely get rid of that stuff. But fun facts and history? I think that should stay. They give context and external topics to explore. While not strictly necessary in determining myth or fact they are still generally interesting to knowledge seeking, scientific minded individuals. Is anyone making edits with those segments in tact but the others stripped?

  105. My memory might be a little fuzzy. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I seem to remember that in the early episodes where the trio appeared, they were all doing Very Useful Things to assist with the myth being busted. Then at some point, it seemed to move to where they were doing something completely different instead of assisting with the main myth. Weren't they even called "The Build Team" originally? Mebbe they shouldn't have made the awesome assistants compete with the hosts.

  106. Re: good by JMJimmy · · Score: 2

    Kari was in episode 2 and randomly through season 1, Season 2 was the first trio (Kari, Tori, and Scotti)

  107. Bill Nye the Science Guy by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 1

    As a long-time "Puget Sound"-ite, I was always under the impression that - prior to his big break with Almost Live - Bill Nye had already been trying to break into comedy and/or show business (although he was indeed a Boeing engineer).

    I do know that he didn't start out as "Bill Nye the Science Guy" - it was a name John Kiester offhandedly coined which stuck (because, frankly, it was perfect for him).

    --
    #DeleteChrome
  108. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by dens · · Score: 1

    No no no no! What makes Top Gear what it is is the 3 personalities and the constant ribbing of each other. The American ones just have no personalities. I tried watching it for 3 episodes, but just barely made it through those and then stopped.

  109. Time to switch formats by sanitysama · · Score: 2

    Can't exactly say I'm disappointed they're leaving. They were not what the show really needed. This is a good opportunity for them to rethink the show's format and improve it. The current formula they've been following since season one has grated my nerves to the point I can no longer watch or enjoy the show. The piece-to-camera filler with the "oh-so-witty" worksafe quips and filling in at least 20-35% of the show's runtime with recaps of footage we've already seen is just agitating more than entertaining to me. I'd honestly prefer it if Mythbusters moved away from the "youth science variety program" format into a more serious, documentary-style science show aimed at mature young adults. They could focus more on the details of the scientific approach, explain their reasoning with scientific facts, explain the history of the logic they use in their approach, and give us raw cuts of footage of their experimentation. It'd not only be more informative but it'd shift the target audience to those actually interested in science rather than kids & teenagers who just like seeing things blow up or catch fire. Those kinds of things may be seen as entertaining by television executives, and it may help the show get good ratings and attract the interest of big companies willing to pay for advertising slots alongside the program, but concentrating mostly on big explosions and great balls of fire doesn't really help make the show be seen as a "learning" program.

  110. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by _xeno_ · · Score: 2

    Worse, on BBC America, they actually edit out large portions of the show.

    Remember that the original show is nearly an hour long without commercials. So for the US version, they edit it down to the standard 44 minutes so they can include 16 minutes of ads. Which means you're missing anywhere from 12-20 minutes of content depending on original. (Based on Netflix run times.)

    They've started showing the initial airing of a new Top Gear in hour 20 minute blocks, but repeats are always the edited versions. There's some stuff that's simply never been shown on US TV because it was edited out for ads.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little relative jumps, all alike.
  111. Very much of this. Also they refine/repeat myths. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Very much of this. Also they refine/repeat myths.

    One of the best parts of the show is when viewers point out possible errors or omissions and the mythbusters retool and redo an 'experiment' to address such concerns and complaints.

    Again - crude when compared to the controls of hard science, but definitely pushing people in the direction of scientific thinking.

  112. Re:good by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

    Too much fluff, and in some cases not enough rigor in their tests for my liking.

    In some cases? I'm not sure they have ever conducted a test that would be considered scientifically rigorous. I would suggest that if they were to submit their work for publication it would get bounced right back, but I've seen what passes "peer review" these days so I won't.

    --
    'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
  113. Still no pancake total collapse theory episode by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All these years and still no episode testing the pancake total collapse theory of how skyscrapers can pulverize themselves into microscopic dust and collapse at freefall acceleration into their own footprint leaving a pool of molten iron which remains for weeks and months after the fact?

  114. Re: good by taustin · · Score: 1

    If you think you can go better, you should contact the show's producers. It's a very time consuming show to produce.

  115. Re:good by mindwhip · · Score: 1

    That was the claim - and it is mostly correct - but they interpreted "practice had little to no effect" to mean that every time you try this test you will do no better than the first which is wrong. While practice has no effect, not having ever done the test before on the first attempt will have a negative impact on the results for at least part of the first attempt. Also the Stroop test isn't really suited to measuring the kind of 'dumb' they were supposedly testing for.

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
  116. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    WTF is up with this stupid fucking Slashdot.beta? Every damn post is duplicated, 2-3 times. What a piece of crap. Too bad they don't bother testing...

  117. Re:good by mindwhip · · Score: 1

    Truth being they don't really need to seek work even if Mythbusters was to be cancelled. Adam and Jamie, and as far as I'm aware the 'B team' still do their 'day job' of building movie and TV special effects when they aren't actively working on myths. Of course whether or not the B team still want to work for Adam and Jamie now is a different matter...

    --
    [The Universe] has gone offline.
  118. good i did not like them by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i stopped watching they ack like they are trying to entertain 5yo the show will get good again

  119. Re: good by Khyber · · Score: 1

    Making experiments is my forte. It was at one point and time a huge part of my job.

    --
    Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
  120. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by sound+vision · · Score: 1

    Top Gear definitely does the recap/preview thing though, and not always at the beginning of the show. Admittedly it is done much more tastefully than the new Mythbusters. Commercials and the recaps are separate issues, but they can both combine for a multiplicative annoyance.

  121. Re:good by Rakarra · · Score: 2

    I'd like to see a lot more smaller myths tackled

    One of my husband and I's very favorite myths is one of the simplest, and it's one of the ones you can do at home too: Phone Book Friction, asking if you interleave the pages of two phone books together, can you pull them apart again?

    The answer (spoilers ahead): Yes, but it takes a great amount of force. Even two cars couldn't pull them apart. It was a simple myth where everyone, hosts included, thought it wouldn't take that much force -- they're just two phone books! The episode was excellently paced as they tried test after test, each time upping the ante until finally they used two TANKS to finally separate the phone books!

  122. Re: good by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Yep, I admit I am an asshole, but I get hotter women than you ever will.

    When you conveniently limit hotness to women you were able to bag, then that's an easy claim to make.
    Redheads are hot.

  123. Re: good by mitzampt · · Score: 1

    Point taken, AC.

    --
    uhm...
  124. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Whiteox · · Score: 1

    Close but no cigar. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but it went like this:

    Towards 2000 (Beyond production) - a 1hr episode by Australians for Australians in the 90's
    Beyond 2000 - Same though after 2000 AD - then came Mythbusters for the US market.
    The 2 original shows were future science, gadget shows and had no Mythbuster content. The 43 minute show format is purely a US production.
    Note: Jamie and Adam are here in Oz right now and have a stage show where they are mythbusting all by themselves.

    --
    Don't be apathetic. Procrastinate!
  125. Hottest redhead by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    Other than Christina Hendricks. Sad day to see kari go.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  126. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Geez, yeah every peice of intellectual property should be available for 4$, DRM Free, without ads. Damn AppStore/iTunes.

  127. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I meant less than 4$. Damn user input sanitization.

  128. Lose Adam and keep the Mythbusters Three by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adam has always been a waste of space in my opinion. He's goofy and for some reason a lot of nerds identify with him, but in nearly every episode, Jamie does 90% of the useful work and Adam the minor 10%, usually something cosmetic. They should cut his overpriced salary and keep the other three.

  129. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by LienRag · · Score: 1

    There are people who shorten these episodes to cut the repeats and some of the filler http://www.reddit.com/r/smyths "These 'Streamline' edits run shorter because they are missing teasers, cartoons, flashbacks, repetition, idents, history lessons, fun facts, "we're experts", and anything else that slows down the show."

    I'd be happy to skip teasers, flashbacks, repetitions and idents; but to keep history lessons and fun facts (I don't remember seeing cartoons nor what is "we"re experts")...
    Why did they cut these?

  130. I think it's high time they did something to shut by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Perhaps do a show that demonstrates that there is nothing at all suspicious about the collapse of WTC-7. I've had it with the controlled demolition loons showing up in every online discussion.

    Jamie and Adam: Do the world a favor and put the CD thing to rest already. It's time.

  131. What they really should do... by Draugo · · Score: 1

    is to stop spoiling the myth results during opening scenes. Drop the highly annoying US style editing where watchers apparently have the attention span measured in seconds and you have to repeat half of the program after every commercial break (which there are an astounding number in US apparently) and go through the program one myth at a time instead of bouncing from topic to topic (again I suspect because of the apparent attention span of general US public).

  132. Kari by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I will miss Kari, she was so hot and wild, won't be the same.

  133. Good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Means less of this:

    Welcome Back to Mythbusters!
    Before the ad break, Adam and Jamie were looking into *the reason you tuned into the show*"

    *Clips you've already seen of Adam and Jamie trying a few things, usually with explosive results*

    "But before we get back to that, here's that *other, less exciting Myth that is being busted*"

    *Segment entirely devoted to other myth*

    "After the break, Adam and Jamie will return to continue on *the reason you tuned into the show*"

  134. Re: good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They claim that people do not get better with practice. But the mythbusters could still have had half the test subjects take the first test with the opposite sex observer and the other half take the first test with the same sex observer.

  135. Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, I'm an Aussie and it has always run for an hour here (around 50 mins + ads)

  136. Re:good by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Adam is 47, Grant and Tori will be 44 in October, Kari will be 40 in December. There is not much difference in age there. Only the Hyneman is really older at 58

  137. Cutting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, we could start by cutting the show by 30 minutes by removing the 'after the break' and the recap . . .

    That, and, stop testing, say, euphemisms?

    How about this? Some of the "of course you can't do that" crap, you test, if you want, when it's OF COURSE not true, don't farking air it!

  138. Yawn by daniel.lynn.mills · · Score: 1

    It always blew me away how much stuff these people waste debunking some silly "myth" that a reasonably intelligent person could figure out on their own. My 5 year old, however, did find the show entertaining.

  139. Dirty Jobs has this problem too by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

    Great show, just running out of stuff to do

  140. end of mythbusters by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    this will be the end of "mythbusters" in Germany.

  141. Still some interesting myths by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kari was the best reason to watch the show

  142. "Coming up on My--bu----s" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... because with 3/5 of the team gone, they should drop 6 letters from the name of the show ...

  143. It's still going? by Mex5150 · · Score: 0

    I'm actually amazed this terrible show is still going. The basic premise of the show is if two mediocre SFX guys and/or three (whatever they are, children's TV presenters, or something, not scientists anyway) can't do something quickly, easily, and above all cheaply, it's totally impossible! I've never seen so much bad science in one place (outside of a creationist museum, that is).