Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the small-team dept.

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.)

34 of 364 comments (clear)

  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 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.
    4. 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."

    5. 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.

    6. 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.

  2. "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. 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 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.

    2. 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.

  4. 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.
  5. 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.

    --
    In Soviet Russia, Trojan exploits YOU!
  6. 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!
  7. 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.
  8. 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.

    --
    Nobodies Prefect
    Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. Ob XKCD... by Ellis+D.+Tripp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://xkcd.com/397/

    --
    Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
  12. 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.

  13. 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."

  14. 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.

  15. 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
  16. 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..

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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.

  20. 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.

  21. 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..."
  22. 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
  23. 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.
  24. 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.