"MythBusters" Drops Kari Byron, Grant Imahara, Tory Belleci 364
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.)
My wife will miss Grant. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:My wife will miss Grant. (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?
Re:My wife will miss Grant. (Score:4, Interesting)
I wonder if "returning" to roots means smarter shows though or just trimming the budget?
It think it means declining ratings.
Re:My wife will miss Grant. (Score:4, 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.
Re:My wife will miss Grant. (Score:5, 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."
Those recaps are the worst part of the show. (Score:3)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
*cough* [smbc-comics.com]
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
It became too much blow shit up
...and their adolescent orgasmic reactions to explosions get old after a while.
Re:My wife will miss Grant. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:My wife will miss Grant. (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
I wouldn't say it's 60% less talent.
they were fillers for most parts. doing stuff like gluing furniture to the ceiling.
Re: (Score:3)
Indeed. The first engineer figured out that the soup would taste better if the latrine were downstream...science came later.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
straight from the OMFG NO dept (Score:2)
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?
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.... [kevinformatics.com]
Why all three? Who knows? But they each have a kick ass resume, that's for sure.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
their own show (Score:2)
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
Re: straight from the OMFG NO dept (Score:2)
Ob XKCD... (Score:5, Interesting)
http://xkcd.com/397/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
http://xkcd.com/397/ [xkcd.com]
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
Re: (Score:3)
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 b
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:straight from the OMFG NO dept (Score:5, 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.
Oh well... (Score:2)
I think two hosts are plenty, BTW. Dilution always hurts a brand when carried too far.
"Fan favorites"? (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.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"Fan favorites"? (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
"Kari was hired to be the tits"
Kari was hired to be the welder.
No Kari??? (Score:5, Insightful)
Bad fail, Mythbusters.
Re: (Score:3)
Fingers crossed.
Re:No Kari??? (Score:5, Interesting)
I can't say much for certain about Mythbusters, but I'm sure of one thing: Kari Byron's career is not over.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:No Kari??? (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
They asked for more money... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure if gone (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called severance pay. If you want it, then you'll be sure not to besmirch your employer.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Production (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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 Kar
Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product (Score:5, Informative)
Check out "Streamlined Mythbusters." It's a crowdsourced version of what you're lookng for.
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Huh, I guess you really can find everything on the Internet. Thanks for the suggestion; I've wanted something like this for years.
Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product (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.
Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product (Score:5, Informative)
When "Top Gear" is repeated on other, commercial channels, then yes, there are advert breaks.
Re: (Score:3)
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
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
People who watch Game of thrones are in it for the wieners. [youtube.com]
Re:Modern Television Style - Thanks Beyond Product (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."
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Perhaps this won't be a popular view... (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tested (Score:3)
Adam mentioned a shift in fromat in a Tested video a while back, this seems to fit along with that.
Just not enough content! (Score:4, Insightful)
Don't come back. We'll send your stuff. (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.
The show is filled with mostly nonsense (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
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 know
WTF? (Score:2)
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 tow
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe she will pop up elsewhere.
Re:good (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:good (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:good (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: good (Score:5, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
Kari was in episode 2 and randomly through season 1, Season 2 was the first trio (Kari, Tori, and Scotti)
Re:good (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!
Re: (Score:2)
Just wait to see if the cast members are replaced or not.
Re:good (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Two hosts makes for a less expensive show. And also, half as many myths makes for a less expensive show.
long in the tooth (Score:5, 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
Re: (Score:2)
Re:good (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.
Re:good (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:3)
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 [youtube.com], 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 t
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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 abou
A potential solution to your problem (Score:3)
You might find Mythbusters for the Impatient [youtube.com] useful. It is a Youtube channel that edits each episode down to about four minutes.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, because men need a pair of tits flashed in their faces before they'll do anything interesting.
Re: (Score:3)
I liked Scottie [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They seemed to have drunk/alcohol myth to test about once a season.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, yeah but, you don't play jazz. Do ya?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I met him and kicked his hipster punk ass.