# Mythbusters 2.0 [Spoilers] Format/Look



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

Didn't know where else to post this, so thought here. Not much really in terms of spoilers since they are changing the format and supposedly showing more of the builds but that makes sense since it will just be Jamie and Adam doing the tests rather then them doing a few and the build team a few. Also new cameras and post production pop-ups/overlays. It is a fresh look, but nothing too far from the original, just looks a lot nicer now.

http://www.discovery.com/tv-shows/mythbusters/videos/mythbusters-20/


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

1. Showing more of the build.
2. Dropping the other people
3. Don't devote episodes to just blowing stuff up
4. Realistic Myths

4 things I've been hoping for. 2/4 isn't too bad. This week testing if Simpsons is reality. Seriously???


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

ill watch


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

I'm not a big fan of the overlay graphics. Hope they don't do too much of that. It makes the show look a bit too slick and less genuine, IMO.


----------



## markp99 (Mar 21, 2002)

markb said:


> I'm not a big fan of the overlay graphics. Hope they don't do too much of that. It makes the show look a bit too slick and less genuine, IMO.


From the promo, that was my first thought. Too slick. Though, I will appreciate the deeper dive into the smaller number of segments.


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

I did not watch the last season or two of Mythbusters. When I heard they dropped the other 3 guys, I figured I'd give the show another try. Not that I didn't like those 3. I actually liked them quite a bit. I was just bored with the show. I'll watch the 2.0 version just to see what it's about.

I just happened to be looking at my DVR's "to do list" last night and saw the new season starts this weekend. Look forward to seeing it.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

I like what I saw in the preview, other than the new opening. Not that the old opening was much better, but the new one is too cookie cutter It's like every other "reality" show out there--too much slow motion, too much "people walking around with guns (saws, cake tools, etc.)".

I like the overlay graphics. It'll give them a chance to get a lot more science into the show without having to bring everything to a halt.

Unfortunately I'm still a couple seasons behind until Netflix or Amazon Prime gets some new stuff--so I'm a long ways out before I get this season.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

markp99 said:


> From the promo, that was my first thought. Too slick. Though, I will appreciate the deeper dive into the smaller number of segments.


I think that is the whole point, to make it look more professional, and less seat of the pants.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

eddyj said:


> I think that is the whole point, to make it look more professional, and less seat of the pants.


I thought the "seat of the pants" feel gave the show charm, something that was missing from some of the failed Mythbusters knockoffs that Discovery has tried in the past.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Well, the good news is that it didn't depart too radically from what they did before. It still looked and felt like Mythbusters. They didn't go too badly overboard with the graphics; perhaps a small number of them were unnecessary, but nothing that really distracted too badly from the show. 

They definitely showed the build process in far more detail than they ever did before, which I appreciate; it really showed how amazing Adam (especially) and Jamie are at building stuff.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

So the first episode (just aired) they have is a "Simpsons Special", where they test dropping cherry bombs into toilets and whether a "human" body can stop a wrecking ball. Looks like not much has changed.

Also I find the overlays distracting, especially when they don't provide any useful information. They are definitely overusing it for example.



Spoiler



A barking dog had a text overlay that said "Barking dog".


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

Twenty-six seasons of Simpsons and that was the best they could come up with?


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

morac said:


> Also I find the overlays distracting, especially when they don't provide any useful information. They are definitely overusing it for example.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I actually thought that was the best use for it. I laughed. Clearly shows they are aware that they can be overused, and were poking fun at themselves.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

morac said:


> So the first episode (just aired) they have is a "Simpsons Special", where they test dropping cherry bombs into toilets and whether a "human" body can stop a wrecking ball. Looks like not much has changed.


Except they didn't use a cherry bomb, and they didn't drop it in the toilet.

And the wrecking ball made no sense at all. Did the Homer doll really have the same properties as a human? And because they weren't able to replicate the true arc, and thus the power, of a real wrecking ball, the whole thing was beyond useless.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

midas said:


> Except they didn't use a cherry bomb, and they didn't drop it in the toilet.


They reproduced the effects of a cherry bomb. Just because they didn't actually use one in the tests isn't important. They often use an analogue when testing myths involving explosives on this show.



> And the wrecking ball made no sense at all. Did the Homer doll really have the same properties as a human? And because they weren't able to replicate the true arc, and thus the power, of a real wrecking ball, the whole thing was beyond useless.


They started off by pointing out that there isn't such a thing as a "real" wrecking ball of the type depicted in the cartoon, so there wouldn't be a way to replicate one. And pointed out that yes, the doll had relatively close properties.


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> They reproduced the effects of a cherry bomb. Just because they didn't actually use one in the tests isn't important. They often use an analogue when testing myths involving explosives on this show.


But the explosives they used seemed much more powerful than a cherry bomb. And, from when I was in grammar school, I can tell you what happens when you drop a cherry bomb in the toilet at school. Water floods (no shoot in the air) in all the other attached toilets in the room. But the one you throw the cherry bomb into just shatters. None of them come off the housings mounts.



> They started off by pointing out that there isn't such a thing as a "real" wrecking ball of the type depicted in the cartoon, so there wouldn't be a way to replicate one. And pointed out that yes, the doll had relatively close properties.


But real wrecking balls do exist. And they swing a lot more than 12 feet. As the arc increases, obviously so does the force. But as the force increases the cushioning power of a Homer would not increase. At full wrecking ball force Homer would have no more impact on the equation than a napkin.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

Does a cherry bomb really have 2 oz of gunpowder? That seems big versus the cherry bombs I remember from the 60s. Maybe so, they were seriously dangerous.

I've never put one in a plumbed toilet, but I did throw one in an outhouse hole once.

Once.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

midas said:


> And, from when I was in grammar school, I can tell you what happens when you drop a cherry bomb in the toilet at school. Water floods (no shoot in the air) in all the other attached toilets in the room. But the one you throw the cherry bomb into just shatters. None of them come off the housings mounts.


Sounds like you forgot to flush. 

The biggest problem I saw with the cherry bomb thing was that they were using tank toilets, but the schools I went to had tankless toilets.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

They should've used Miley Cyrus as a substitute for Homer.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

The main issue I had with the wrecking ball is that they made homer of foam, which of course can absorb the energy.

A real person would consist of mostly water, which as they pound into our heads in almost every episode... Water does not compress therefor if it were a real person on the wrecking ball it probably wouldn't have made as much of a difference.

There was another episode where they had two fat cops in the back seat of a police car, and the myth was that this would save someone seated between them. This myth was busted for the very same reason.

Still what can I expect when they are testing that crazy myth, a cartoon character could be made of foam I guess.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

john4200 said:


> Sounds like you forgot to flush.
> 
> The biggest problem I saw with the cherry bomb thing was that they were using tank toilets, but the schools I went to had tankless toilets.


Well that doesn't really matter too much I guess because the water doesn't go into the tank from the drain part, the tank just serves as a gravity fed reservoir. Tankless toilets just have to have a higher pressure to flush.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

vertigo235 said:


> The main issue I had with the wrecking ball is that they made homer of foam, which of course can absorb the energy.
> 
> A real person would consist of mostly water, which as they pound into our heads in almost every episode... Water does not compress therefor if it were a real person on the wrecking ball it probably wouldn't have made as much of a difference.


Didn't they fill Homer with water to better simulate a real body?


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

hmm, maybe I missed that part but I didn't think so. I remember them covering him in rubber coating though, so i guess it's possible.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Regardless I still don't think it was a proper "analogue" even if they filled him with water. There is no structure to keep everything in place, except some foam and rubber coating. 

Again, but maybe it's an appropriate "analogue" for a live cartoon


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

vertigo235 said:


> Regardless I still don't think it was a proper "analogue" even if they filled him with water. There is no structure to keep everything in place, except some foam and rubber coating.
> 
> Again, but maybe it's an appropriate "analogue" for a live cartoon


Exactly, they are not modeling a man, they are modeling a cartoon.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

vertigo235 said:


> The main issue I had with the wrecking ball is that they made homer of foam, which of course can absorb the energy.
> 
> A real person would consist of mostly water, which as they pound into our heads in almost every episode... Water does not compress therefor if it were a real person on the wrecking ball it probably wouldn't have made as much of a difference.
> 
> ...





eddyj said:


> Didn't they fill Homer with water to better simulate a real body?


Yes they did. They did it right before they strapped him to the wrecking ball.

Oh, and BTW: I want that full size Homer. I don't have a clue what I'd do with it, but that was just cool looking.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

vertigo235 said:


> Well that doesn't really matter too much I guess because the water doesn't go into the tank from the drain part, the tank just serves as a gravity fed reservoir. Tankless toilets just have to have a higher pressure to flush.


Or it could matter a lot, since tankless toilets are designed for higher pressure, and may be more sturdy. The point is, they busted the wrong myth.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

vertigo235 said:


> A real person would consist of mostly water, which as they pound into our heads in almost every episode... Water does not compress therefor if it were a real person on the wrecking ball it probably wouldn't have made as much of a difference.


As was pointed out, they did fill him with water. I did not care for this myth because there were too many degrees of freedom with how to match up a cartoon character and cartoon wrecking ball with something real. For example, they opted not to put any sort of skeleton inside him. If this was a real myth, that would be a serious error. But with a cartoon? Who is to say if Homer has a skeleton? Or if he has one, how rigid it is? Anyway, they essentially used a foam water balloon to pad the wrecking ball. A skeleton could have made a big difference.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

john4200 said:


> Or it could matter a lot, since tankless toilets are designed for higher pressure, and may be more sturdy. The point is, they busted the wrong myth.


You are totally wrong. The Simpsons used a tank toilet:


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

john4200 said:


> As was pointed out, they did fill him with water. I did not care for this myth because there were too many degrees of freedom with how to match up a cartoon character and cartoon wrecking ball with something real. For example, they opted not to put any sort of skeleton inside him. If this was a real myth, that would be a serious error. But with a cartoon? Who is to say if Homer has a skeleton? Or if he has one, how rigid it is? Anyway, they essentially used a foam water balloon to pad the wrecking ball. A skeleton could have made a big difference.


They were testing the affect the body would have on the wrecking ball, and I'm fairly certain the presence/absence of a skeleton would have negligible impact.

If they were testing the affect the wrecking ball would have on the body, then a skeleton would be more important. (The results would be obvious and not worth testing - the guy would have many broken bones.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> They were testing the affect the body would have on the wrecking ball, and I'm fairly certain the presence/absence of a skeleton would have negligible impact.
> 
> If they were testing the affect the wrecking ball would have on the body, then a skeleton would be more important. (The results would be obvious and not worth testing - the guy would have many broken bones.


But it is not a man, it is a cartoon character, and we know they can take massive amounts of trauma without any problem at all!


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

eddyj said:


> You are totally wrong. The Simpsons used a tank toilet:


touche


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

vertigo235 said:


> There was another episode where they had two fat cops in the back seat of a police car, and the myth was that this would save someone seated between them. This myth was busted for the very same reason.


I don't think the myth was that Homer would survive getting crushed by a wrecking ball, only that the house would survive, so the myth really wasn't the same as the fat cops myth. In the cop myth, it could have done less damage, but it would still be fatal.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

i think the cop myth had to do with a non fat person being padded on both sides by fat cops

regardless, I never said it was the same, I was just pointing out that in that myth they explained the results by saying that fat people are basically not very good for "padding", in this case homer wouldn't be either, but I would think a water balloon filled with foam might be a little better.


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

markb said:


> I'm not a big fan of the overlay graphics. Hope they don't do too much of that. It makes the show look a bit too slick and less genuine, IMO.


I'm on the other side. I thought some of the overlay graphics were good and entertaining.

For some reason, I always get a BIG kick out of overlay graphics that "move around" with the thing they're pointing to accurately. I have no idea if this is automated nowadays (I presume it is), and not some peon manually moving it for every frame..


----------



## mattack (Apr 9, 2001)

vertigo235 said:


> The main issue I had with the wrecking ball is that they made homer of foam, which of course can absorb the energy.
> 
> A real person would consist of mostly water, which as they pound into our heads in almost every episode... Water does not compress therefor if it were a real person on the wrecking ball it probably wouldn't have made as much of a difference.


You apparently did not actually watch the full episode! They made this abundantly clear that they made the Homer facsimile approximating human density by filling it with water.. ("ugly bags of mostly water".. no they didn't say that)


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

LoadStar said:


> They were testing the affect the body would have on the wrecking ball, and I'm fairly certain the presence/absence of a skeleton would have negligible impact.


No.

They were testing the *e*ffect that a body buffering the wrecking ball would have *on the home demolition*. When we are testing the difference between a foam water balloon buffer and a foam water balloon reinforced with a skeleton buffer, it could make a significant difference on the damage caused to the wall. Skeletons are a lot harder than a foam water balloon, you know.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

mattack said:


> You apparently did not actually watch the full episode! They made this abundantly clear that they made the Homer facsimile approximating human density by filling it with water.. ("ugly bags of mostly water".. no they didn't say that)


Yes that's already been pointed out, thanks for adding your input though.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

mattack said:


> I'm on the other side. I thought some of the overlay graphics were good and entertaining.
> 
> For some reason, I always get a BIG kick out of overlay graphics that "move around" with the thing they're pointing to accurately. I have no idea if this is automated nowadays (I presume it is), and not some peon manually moving it for every frame..


It turned out not to be as bad I had feared.


----------



## dtivouser (Feb 10, 2004)

Whelp, I just created a season pass for Mythbusters. First time in... ages.


----------



## windracer (Jan 3, 2003)

I don't mind the reboot so far, but we're one episode in. The motion/overlay graphics are a little distracting, I miss the blue graph paper sketches and "caution: science content!" notebooks, etc. But it's a cleaner look I guess ... Windows 8 Metro interface for MythBusters! ;-)


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

I like the new look, and the graphic overlays are just irreverent enough to poke fun at themselves. It adds a kinda fun "easter-egg" effect.

eta: Also glad the old "build team" is gone. They were entertaining at times, but I usually FF through those parts to get to the Adam and Jamie myths. 

Also, did Jamie really have to build that auger to dig the round holes? Couldn't they have just used a shovel to dig a hole, and a round balloon or other spherical device to dig until it was perfectly round? The auger seemed like overkill. But yeah, this is mythbusters, I'm surprised he didn't use some C4 to blow a hole in the ground and then smooth it out with the auger.


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

The "myths" and "science" still suck, though...


----------



## squint (Jun 15, 2008)

Hank said:


> Also, did Jamie really have to build that auger to dig the round holes? Couldn't they have just used a shovel to dig a hole, and a round balloon or other spherical device to dig until it was perfectly round? The auger seemed like overkill.


They could have dropped a wrecking ball from a helicopter to create the holes in the ground.


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

squint said:


> They could have dropped a wrecking ball from a helicopter to create the holes in the ground.


If they'd had a wrecking ball that size, they wouldn't have needed the holes.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

squint said:


> They could have dropped a wrecking ball from a helicopter to create the holes in the ground.


 The could have used a lighted stick to make the fire?
Chicken, egg.

One point, such as it was, is that real wrecking balls are not used much any more and are not perfect spheres.


----------



## john4200 (Nov 1, 2009)

Hank said:


> Also, did Jamie really have to build that auger to dig the round holes? Couldn't they have just used a shovel to dig a hole, and a round balloon or other spherical device to dig until it was perfectly round? The auger seemed like overkill.


Huh? Dig a hole with a balloon?

The auger made sense, clever and efficient. Especially since he mostly reused it as the frame for the wrecking ball.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Watched it, it was entertaining, did not "plausible" or "busted" anything in the real world. I miss the Kari eye candy; maybe they could have a girl in a bikini walk thru every once in a while.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

john4200 said:


> Huh? Dig a hole with a balloon?


Ok, let me spell it out for you. I said "use a shovel"..



> Couldn't they have just used a shovel to dig a hole


.. to dig a hole which is an approximate round shape. Then.. as a sphere template, us a balloon to see what parts of the hole need more digging _with a shovel._

If you add up all the time Jamie used to build a huge auger, it would have been much less time to have two guys dig two holes with a big shovel, and then round it out with spades or other hand tools using the balloon (or any other big easily movable sphere) as a guide.



john4200 said:


> The auger made sense, clever and efficient. Especially since he mostly reused it as the frame for the wrecking ball.


It may have been clever, but it was far from efficient. Also, the rebar half-sphere frames were separate units from the auger. They were pre-built and on-site ready for the concrete as soon as the holes were completed.


----------



## Jagman_sl (Mar 14, 2001)

Hank said:


> It may have been clever, but it was far from efficient. Also, the rebar half-sphere frames were separate units from the auger. They were pre-built and on-site ready for the concrete as soon as the holes were completed.


But isn't that the Mythbusters way? For me, part of the fun is seeing what Adam and Jamie come up with in the shop vs just doing it in a conventional way. Sometimes the ideas are really clever, sometimes no so much. But, for me at least, it's still a fun watch.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Yeah, I'd vote for Jamie's auger over a balloon shovel any day...


----------



## heySkippy (Jul 2, 2001)

That auger was a great tool for the job. Using shovels and a balloon is silly in comparison.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

As I said, the MB way would have been to use some C4 to blow an approximate round hole in the ground! I'm surprised they didn't do that.


----------



## Frylock (Feb 13, 2002)

While the auger may be inefficient for this one project, it does seem like they could use it again for other purposes. Jamie seems to be a big fan of building a device that he can then use or re-assemble into something else later on.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I didn't think it took Jamie all that much effort to build the auger anyway. It was a few welds and bending some sheet metal. Any of those guys could do that in their sleep.


----------



## YCantAngieRead (Nov 5, 2003)

Not really totally on topic, but a question.

I watched this show religiously and over and over again, then lost interest in season 8 somewhere. 

I picked it back up a few months ago. And I notice a big change in Jamie. And even moreso now in season 10.

He laughs more, seems a lot more comfortable, makes more jokes.

Anyone else notice that?


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Jamie said in the very beginning, he hated the cameras and being surrounded by people. He just wanted to work alone in his shop.

That slowly changed over the seasons.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

That's very true he is much different now.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I don't know if they'll do it more often, but tonight's (1/17) episode had a "Watch with Jamie and Adam." I thought that it would just be them tweeting along, but it actually was a full streaming show on their website. It featured live Q&A, a special guest, and a contest.

Surprisingly, most of the content is during commercial breaks (when I'd think they'd want people watching the TV, not their computers. But, whatever.


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

I'm so confused. I swear I watched Adam construct that bullwhip on YouTube or somewhere else at least a year ago.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

GoPackGo said:


> I'm so confused. I swear I watched Adam construct that bullwhip on YouTube or somewhere else at least a year ago.


It was the footage released at Comic-Con (then on the web) to demo the new format of Mythbusters.


----------



## MikeAndrews (Jan 17, 2002)

Hank said:


> Jamie said in the very beginning, he hated the cameras and being surrounded by people. He just wanted to work alone in his shop.
> 
> That slowly changed over the seasons.


I'm thinking that being the executive producers, Adam and Jamie made the decision to save the cost of the other on air talent. They're using, possibly the same, "off camera" crew to help with stuff.

I'm trying to wrap my head around how up until now they had the 2nd crew do 1 or 2 myths in the same hour. I guess now Jamie and Adam are doing 3 and they spend more time showing Jamie and Adam doing the build?

We've had more of Adam showing his model making skills, which probably is more in his wheelhouse.

Notice that they no longer have the drawn cartoon demonstrations. I wonder if Kari did those.

I'm totally lost though, after 10 years, without the "Who ARE the Mythbusters" intro.  Now they get right to the myths.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

MikeAndrews said:


> I'm thinking that being the executive producers, Adam and Jamie made the decision to save the cost of the other on air talent. They're using, possibly the same, "off camera" crew to help with stuff.
> 
> I'm trying to wrap my head around how up until now they had the 2nd crew do 1 or 2 myths in the same hour. I guess now Jamie and Adam are doing 3 and they spend more time showing Jamie and Adam doing the build?
> 
> ...


Eric Haven was the individual behind the "blueprint drawings." Well, originally it was Adam, but that was only for the very early run of episodes.

On his podcast, Adam said that the new format isn't any harder or easier on them to produce than the old one. He says that previously, Adam/Jamie would have done the same amount of building for the show previously, but the show just didn't permit them time to show it.

Adam also said that their goal for the new format is 2 myths, or perhaps 3 if a couple of them are smaller (like the two related whip myths in the 1/17 episode).

As far as who made the decision? Yeah, I'm definitely getting the feeling that it was Adam and Jamie (perhaps one of them more than the other, hard to say on that one).


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

I would have liked to see them investigate whether the incas could have built the poison dart contraption. How would it have remained armed all those years? And would the darts have actually still been poisonous?


----------



## GoPackGo (Dec 29, 2012)

Just saw Selma. Found myself pulled out of the movie for a moment when I recognized S15E02's bullwhip expert as a bullwhip cracking, horse riding, racist police man.


----------



## Worf (Sep 15, 2000)

I think I have to admit I like the rebooted look - I found the old format in the later seasons a mass of myths without showing the setup behind them, enough so that well, my eyes sorta glazed over and you wonder if they could've done more to test it. It was just fast fast fast.

This time we see more of the build and it produces a more interesting show that's not just 5 minute clips of a myth. Now it's a nice slower pace showing the setup much more clearly. Hopefully this will mean less "we DID try this but it got cut" moments.

The old format was busy, the new format is nicely paced. I know I kept having to replay segments because it's a blink-and-you'll-miss-it and then be left completely confused.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Finally watched these.


midas said:


> But the explosives they used seemed much more powerful than a cherry bomb. And, from when I was in grammar school, I can tell you what happens when you drop a cherry bomb in the toilet at school. Water floods (no shoot in the air) in all the other attached toilets in the room. But the one you throw the cherry bomb into just shatters. None of them come off the housings mounts.


A lot of that was probable that they never showed a full scale "unclogged" test . There was always lots of extra water stuck in the pipes (trying to replicate the geysers)

Usually toilet plumbing isn't clogged so the cherry bomb's explosion would be primarily transmited through air trapped in the pipe; rather than shoving a solid slug of water into the toilets' traps. (And so I suspect the result would have been much closer to what you were familiar with)


----------



## bikegeek (Dec 28, 2006)

I like the new format but miss Kari.


----------



## nirisahn (Nov 19, 2005)

I thought I'd miss the build team, but I don't. I like seeing more of the setup and the slower pace. It was getting too frenzied.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Jonathan_S said:


> Finally watched these.
> A lot of that was probable that they never showed a full scale "unclogged" test . There was always lots of extra water stuck in the pipes (trying to replicate the geysers)
> 
> Usually toilet plumbing isn't clogged so the cherry bomb's explosion would be primarily transmited through air trapped in the pipe; rather than shoving a solid slug of water into the toilets' traps. (And so I suspect the result would have been much closer to what you were familiar with)


I thought that they said that they were simulating the clogged condition for the reason you state.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

JYoung said:


> I thought that they said that they were simulating the clogged condition for the reason you state.


They needed the clog to achieve the amount of water in the geyser. Without the clog, very little water spewed out, which would not have matched the myth.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

eddyj said:


> They needed the clog to achieve the amount of water in the geyser. Without the clog, very little water spewed out, which would not have matched the myth.


Right - it wouldn't have matched the myth, but _might_ have matched what midas was used to from real life.

(IOW I was guessing that the major difference, leading to the destruction of the toilets, wasn't the size of the cherry bomb but rather the state of the pipes)


----------



## midas (Jun 1, 2000)

But the full scale testing didn't match what they got with the small scale test. When the results don't match you should, IMO, test the way the myth actually shows it. I still don't think it would work, but my logic tells you that can't base anything on a test that doesn't scale.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

Ok, the video game myth episode may be the worst thing they've ever done. Starting with...not a myth, or even related to the term myth. Basically, can you run an obstacle course with 80 lbs of crap hanging off you as fast as without? NO! Is fruit ninja like using a real sword? NO! They've had more than their share of silly episodes, but this one really pissed me off. Dumb, pointless and useless.


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

Yeah, this episode was pretty pointless.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I still enjoyed it, but yeah especially at the beginning I wasn't excited about the myths.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

I didn't mind it, but it definitely seemed more like something they wanted to build than an actual myth to be tested. And on that level, I thought it was kind of cool.

I think the Fruit Ninja part was just Adam wanted to have fun with a sword.

I think if you get "pissed off" at this episode, you need to recall the lyrics to the theme to MST3K: "Just repeat to yourself, 'It's just a show, I should really just relax.'"


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

I'm surprised the early seasons of this haven't been syndicated, and shown on local broadcast stations.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

LoadStar said:


> I didn't mind it, but it definitely seemed more like something they wanted to build than an actual myth to be tested. And on that level, I thought it was kind of cool.
> 
> I think the Fruit Ninja part was just Adam wanted to have fun with a sword.
> 
> I think if you get "pissed off" at this episode, you need to recall the lyrics to the theme to MST3K: "Just repeat to yourself, 'It's just a show, I should really just relax.'"


I NEVER got pissed at MST3K!


----------



## Hoffer (Jun 1, 2001)

Yeah, the video game episode was kinda weak. Obviously it is going to take longer to go through a course when you're loaded down with stuff. The fruit thing I'd say Adam just wanted to slice fruit with a sword. 

It really seems crazy to me that they can turn 2 simple things into an hour long show.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

I guess there's no myths left to bust and they have to make up news ones now. 

What's next? The "myth" that a real world coyote could survive falling off a cliff?


----------



## DUDE_NJX (Feb 12, 2003)

I'll be shocked if the show gets renewed for the next season.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Have they done the lemmings myth yet?


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

I knew they jumped the shark when they got rid of their eye candy.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Have they done the myth that you can jump a shark with a motorcycle? 

Now that would be funny.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Jumping it while waterskiing would be better.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

BrettStah said:


> Jumping it while waterskiing would be better.


Oh right... That's what it was. You know what they say, memory is the second thing to go.


----------



## markb (Jul 24, 2002)

DUDE_NJX said:


> I'll be shocked if the show gets renewed for the next season.


Perhaps. It's not a good sign that their budget has been cut (firing the build team) and they've been moved to Saturday nights.


----------



## doom1701 (May 15, 2001)

I watched the Games episode while I was traveling. I'll echo most of the comments here--I found it really weak. Back when the show started and it was just the two of them, they did 3-4 myths per episode. These two "myths" were so incredibly stretched out that I lost interest--but I kept watching because I was stuck in a hotel room and had nothing else to do.

I do like the new visuals, though.


----------



## LifeIsABeach (Feb 28, 2001)

Spoilers for next episode of Three Stooges myths:

1. You can stop someone from poking you in the eyes if you hold your fingers up vertically in front of your face. Plausible - if the poker doesn't have really long fingers. Don't try this at home with an NBA player.

2. Running a saw across someone's head will cause the saw to deform and no injury to the sawee. Busted!


----------



## cannonz (Oct 23, 2011)

LifeIsABeach said:


> Spoilers for next episode of Three Stooges myths:
> 
> 1. You can stop someone from poking you in the eyes if you hold your fingers up vertically in front of your face. Plausible - if the poker doesn't have really long fingers. Don't try this at home with an NBA player.
> 
> 2. Running a saw across someone's head will cause the saw to deform and no injury to the sawee. Busted!


# 2 only works on curly.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Just watched the Doom myth.. I thought it was fun, especially when they got that buff guy to do it quicker than Jamie or Adam on the control runs. I found it interesting.

I FF through the fruit ninja thing though. I might go back and watch it if I'm bored.


----------



## Big Deficit (Jul 8, 2003)

The show's name should be changed to "Cool stuff Adam and Jamie want to do". The whole "myth' part of the show is busted. I never understood the attraction and popularity of drifting as a sport beyond maybe it being the anti NASCAR form of auto racing. Above all? Duct tape rules!


----------



## eddyj (Jun 20, 2002)

At least the drifting vs. conventional thing was indeed a myth (that it is faster). I was OK with that.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

We just watched the Fruit Ninja segment and I though it was fun. Lighthearted, but fun nonetheless. My only gripe with that segment was in the real game, it appears that gravity is different (less) that IRL.. the fruit would fly up and decelerate slower, and then start falling at a much slower rate than in reality. Given their focus on <scare quotes> science </scare quotes>, I'm very surprised that Adam at least didn't mention that glaring difference. Not that they could have really changed the gravitational pull to make it better match the game physics.


----------



## zordude (Sep 23, 2003)

Hank said:


> We just watched the Fruit Ninja segment and I though it was fun. Lighthearted, but fun nonetheless. My only gripe with that segment was in the real game, it appears that gravity is different (less) that IRL.. the fruit would fly up and decelerate slower, and then start falling at a much slower rate than in reality. Given their focus on <scare quotes> science </scare quotes>, I'm very surprised that Adam at least didn't mention that glaring difference. Not that they could have really changed the gravitational pull to make it better match the game physics.


I seem to remember Adam mentioning the difference in the in game gravity/physics multiple times.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

zordude said:


> I seem to remember Adam mentioning the difference in the in game gravity/physics multiple times.


The only time he mentioned it was when he said the jugglers would have to get their throwing arc correct so the fruit hit their apex at the proper height. I don't recall him ever saying anything about the physics being different between the game and RL.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

Hank said:


> The only time he mentioned it was when he said the jugglers would have to get their throwing arc correct so the fruit hit their apex at the proper height. I don't recall him ever saying anything about the physics being different between the game and RL.


I just watched it and came her to post about enjoying the new format without the useless bits. Really enjoyed the videogame myth episode.

Adam definitely mentioned two differences. The first was that the fruit in the game was way bigger than it would be in real life. Said something like an apple in the game is the size of a watermelon in real life. The other was that the gravity of the game was not scaled to real life.


----------



## DancnDude (Feb 7, 2001)

Yeah I remember him mentioning that, and also showing a "fast-forward" of the game playing at what it would look like had it used real-life gravity. I was also thinking it was odd that they didn't come up with a way to adjust his real-life score with the game score or at least mention that the two scores can't be compared due to the different variables.


----------



## BrettStah (Nov 12, 2000)

Yeah, the difference in gravity was mentioned - not sure if it was mentioned by the narrator or by Adam/Jamie though.


----------



## morac (Mar 14, 2003)

eddyj said:


> At least the drifting vs. conventional thing was indeed a myth (that it is faster). I was OK with that.


Is there a "real" myth that drifting is faster? From a science standpoint that myth doesn't make any sense since by definition drifting is losing traction with the road and when there's no traction the car loses forward momentum, so it would seem fairly obvious that drifting would be slower.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I think most people are smart enough to know that drifting isn't faster, but if you watch a lot of movies or TV shows, they certainly make it seem like drifting is "better" because thats what they always do.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

morac said:


> Is there a "real" myth that drifting is faster? From a science standpoint that myth doesn't make any sense since by definition drifting is losing traction with the road and when there's no traction the car loses forward momentum, so it would seem fairly obvious that drifting would be slower.


Except that the car doesn't slow down as much to go around the corner, and the engine is revving much higher, so you should be able to carry more speed out of the corner and get back to top speed more quickly.

I would have liked to see the professional drifter do both a control lap and a drifting lap in his race car to see which was faster. I don't think that beat-up old Integra was a valid way to test whether drifting was faster.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

I think the main problem with Drifting is that because your rear tires lose traction you can't power out of the turn like you would if you properly decelerate and then power out of the turn without losing traction.


----------



## Tobashadow (Nov 11, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> Except that the car doesn't slow down as much to go around the corner, and the engine is revving much higher, so you should be able to carry more speed out of the corner and get back to top speed more quickly.
> 
> I would have liked to see the professional drifter do both a control lap and a drifting lap in his race car to see which was faster. I don't think that beat-up old Integra was a valid way to test whether drifting was faster.


Someone drifting has to rotate back around to straight before they can power back out of the corner or risk over rotation if they apply too much power. Where as standard stab and turn driving is already on the power pulling away from the corner at that point.

What ever you gain drifting in the apex is lost in the exit of the corner compared to a competent stab and turn driver.

I can get more specific about the maneuver to do both if you don't understand.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Ok, Thanks. I don't know how I missed it, because that's the first thing I noticed, and was waiting for them to address it.


----------



## vertigo235 (Oct 27, 2000)

Drifting is more about Style than speed. The professional Drifter knew before he even started that it wouldn't be any faster, thats why when he finished they just chalked it up as busted.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

The only problem I had with the drifting episode is that it's stuff I've seen them do on "Top Gear" and "Fifth Gear" many times already. It felt to me like "been there done that."

Well, "season" over. (I say "season" because I have to imagine they ordered more than 5 episodes, so they'll probably be back in a couple of months.)


----------



## RonDawg (Jan 12, 2006)

DevdogAZ said:


> I don't think that beat-up old Integra was a valid way to test whether drifting was faster.


That wasn't an Integra. It was a Nissan Silvia S13 (240SX), a popular "drift" car because it is RWD (Integras, like almost all Honda products, are FWD) and tuner mods for the engine and suspension are widely available. All the duct tape used to hold it together might cause you to mistake it for something else 

EDIT: I also found the commercial for when that car was new...back in 1989. They were drifting them even back then:


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

BrettStah said:


> Yeah, the difference in gravity was mentioned - not sure if it was mentioned by the narrator or by Adam/Jamie though.


IIRC it was mentioned by Adam; but only at the very end in his wrap-up talk.



vertigo235 said:


> I think most people are smart enough to know that drifting isn't faster, but if you watch a lot of movies or TV shows, they certainly make it seem like drifting is "better" because thats what they always do.


It actually seems to depend on the traction of the surface. Rally drivers drift the heck out of dirt corners, and I seriously doubt it's because they like looking cooler at the expense of speed.

But semi-loose dirt (or snow) is so low friction that you probably _do_ get round faster with AWD clawing the car round the corner.


----------



## Hank (May 31, 2000)

Jonathan_S said:


> IIRC it was mentioned by Adam; but only at the very end in his wrap-up talk.


Ah hah!!! My tivo cut off the episode right at the beginning of the wrap up segment.


----------



## Tobashadow (Nov 11, 2006)

Jonathan_S said:


> IIRC it was mentioned by Adam; but only at the very end in his wrap-up talk.
> 
> It actually seems to depend on the traction of the surface. Rally drivers drift the heck out of dirt corners, and I seriously doubt it's because they like looking cooler at the expense of speed.
> 
> But semi-loose dirt (or snow) is so low friction that you probably _do_ get round faster with AWD clawing the car round the corner.


On dirt or gravel you either drift it or the front wheels will just slide. Your actually steering with the throttle, in dirt oval track (which I have experience on also) racing if your car is setup right you could run laps without ever turning the steering wheel other than to correct for holes or dips in the surface.


----------

