Talk:MythBusters

Country of Origin

As the show is produced by an Australian company (Beyond Television Productions) I feel the country of origin should be changed and this fact noted in the article -- Tsuite ^T/C 02:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Beyond Television Productions is a very successful Australian Television production company. And this was highlight on ABC's Radio National Program "The Science Show" http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/default.htm on 12/04/2008 Stevefrommelbourne (talk) 11:03, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• The show was conceived by Beyond TV and pitched to sell to the biggest possible distributor, Discovery. Beyond cannot create a show for SBS in the first instance because the market in Australia is too small to recover the cost. Discovery don't produce any shows as far as I am aware, they are not configured that way, they are a broadcaster. The country of origin must refer to the creative origin and the original IPs, if I buy a Picasso I don't become the painter; if Disney buys the film "Spirited Away" the origins are still Japan. Ex nihil (talk) 23:52, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this logic. I have no qualm with the fact that Beyond is Australian. However, the problem with your analogy is that not only was the show commissioned by Discovery (USA), but Beyond chose to locate production of the show in the US, starring a US cast, for a US market. I believe it's a definition issue of what "country of origin" is intended to mean in this infobox, and I don't think any of wikipedia's TV guidelines or projects actually define it. Perhaps a compromise of having both flags might be a solution? TheHYPO (talk) 03:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm thinking both flags at most should be shown for the fact it's produced and post-produced in Australia (not sure how much they write) but it was (first) made for the Discovery Channel an American Channel, company, set in American city, has an American Cast. EX: Ricky Gervais is English, there are many versions of The Office (US, UK, French, German) which all credit him as the creator but the Country of origin remains to the place it's in. Warmachine021 (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 04:56, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Wiki Site

They just launched an official wiki site here: http://mythbusters-wiki.discovery.com/ This is pretty groundbreaking for fans, but I didn't want to stick a link at the bottom like a spammer without discussing it first. Thoughts? Should this be mentioned? There's a lot of activity going on over there. --BMan 10:52, 22 Aug 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be a good idea to add a link to that wiki. It seems it's also a good source for the episode numbering (special or not ?) problem... --Geoced 09:46, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Available in HD?

I see a text at the beginning of the show that says "This Program Also Available in HD", yet I can't find a single spot on the Discovery HD Theater schedule that indicates an airing on that channel... But I do know that they are producing in HD due to the fact of HDV cameras on set. It is logical to assume there are also HDCAM cameras on set as well. --Jack Zhang 10:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

It's shown on Discovery Channel HD at the same time as the SD broadcast on the regular channel. It is not shown on HD Theater that I know of. KC0ZHQ (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, they're using XDCAM HD, not HDCAM. --Jack Zhang (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please try to integrate "Popularity and Influence"

User:293.xx.xxx.xx: Your edits to Mythbusters has been reverted for now. You did leave in your edit summary that no attempt to integrate this section has been made. This may be true, but I believe that this section of the article was rather important. I will try to integrate this section somehow into the rest of the article. Southern Illinois SKYWARN 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Reality show?

For a while now, I've been trying to wrap my mind around how Mythbusters could be considered a "reality show". Sure, it's unscripted and stuff like that, but before there were other reality shows, they never called anything that had the same format which Mythbusters uses a reality show. Don't most reality shows have some element of competition in them? Mythbusters rarely has this (except when Jamie and Adam do build competitions, which Jamie hates). And reality shows are usually drawn out over weeks and weeks and focus more on the (usually very boring) interactions of (usally very boring) people during those weeks and "voting off" people, all usually while isolated on like, a desert island or in a house or mansion or something. I'm not sure if Mythbusters fits this genre. This is just my thoughts. Feel free to tell me why I'm wrong (I probably am). Nick Warren 15:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Mythbusters is a science show. Anyone who calls it a reality show is not being accurate. Grundle2600 (talk) 22:55, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The reality is (no pun intended) that MyBu is a not a reality show. But it's not because it's not comptetitive. It's because it's not reality. It's paid actors reading scripts much of the time, usually with the instruction and direction of a director and/or producer. Reality is generally defined by a cast who are not acting, in a show which captures their normal experiences, not scripted experiences. Sometimes they are competitive (Survivor), and sometimes they aren't (The Surreal Life). But as far as it is claimed, directors and producers don't say "hey, stand over there and tell Bob about the fire you just made" on reality shows. As well, typically in a reality show, the regular people are isolated from the crew. Contestants on Survivor can't discuss the show with the producers on how it should go. The cast of Mythbusters do. TheHYPO (talk) 01:25, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I've a vague memory that Grant used a phrase like "science-based reality show". Unfortunately, I don't remember which episode it was in - I was surprised, as I felt Mythbusters didn't fit the reality category, but he used such a phrase. Autarch (talk) 21:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

"Busted, Plausible, or Confirmed?" colouring

I added colour coding (Busted , Plausible, and Confirmed) to the sections explaining busted, plausible or confirmed to make it more consistent with sections like the list of episodes and earlier in the article, where colour coding is used. I hope nobody minds --DFRussia 04:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't about the colouring, but I thought I'd question the definitions for plausible vs. confirmed again. There seem to be inconsistant uses of these terms, especially lately. eg: the team seems satisfied that the real elephant was scared of real mice, yet only rated it plausible. However, without actually shooting any real fish, they rated fish in a barrel confirmed. Similarly, the dolphin's presense scaring away sharks - was rated plausible, when it seemed definatively proven. Beating the speed camera via 300mph rocket car was confirmed, and not plausible (as something that could happen but under extreme circumstances). It was also confirmed that superhero's can change into costumes in a phone booth, while ignoring the fact that it took them quite some time to do it (my assumption is there was no recorded cases of superheros doing so to confirm the myth) - why not just plausible? Why is handheld climbing winch only plausible vs. confirmed? They shot a gun in an over, and blew up a keg in a fire... why was one confirmed and the other plausible? TheHYPO (talk) 06:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

They actually explain this on one of the Behind the Scenes videos on the Discovery website. For example, the elephant one, they had good results, but they could not do them in the completely proper environment (An elephant in the wild, different colored mice) so that one could only be plausible. The fish one they did with pure science, and they did use a dead (But very complete and raw) fish. Plus, we all know about compression waves in water. The dolphin one they called plausible because they didn't have a real dolphin to try it with. They confirmed that high speed could beat the speed camera, but it would be almost impossible for someone driving down the road as a normal person to do. (Unless you have a street legal car that can do 300 MPH) The website has many other explanations. FMPhoenixHawk (talk) 01:22, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Blueprints?

Who draws the blueprints? I see to recall in earlier eps (yeah, I'm too lazy to check) that Adam and/or build team folk would actuall draw experiemetns and stuff on the blueprint paper, but nowadays, it's almost always just the myth title by an unseen hand. Any info on the blueprints? —Preceding unsigned comment added by TheHYPO (talk • contribs) 06:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

• In one of the "MythBusters Raw" videos on the discovery website, you can see the actual shooting of a blueprint being drawed, before it is speeded up. The person drawing them is a cartoonist called Dan Clowes. I don't know if he does all the blueprints for the show, though. --Geoced (talk) 10:38, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
  • I do know that the first season had adam drawing it...not sure about rest Matthew 17:41, 11 March 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 10minnickm (talk • contribs)

• Dan Clowes does most of the drawing, but occasionally Adam or Jamie will draw or write on the blueprints, but this is usually obvious. ~Churba —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.105.163.49 (talk) 14:41, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Workshop

The latest Discovery.com videos of Jamie touring M5 explicitly state that the build team have their own workshop. Should the lead (indicating main filming at M5) be altered to reflect this? TheHYPO (talk) 09:46, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

By that he probably just means they have a section section within the main M5 building. Peachey88 ^{(Talk Page | Contribs)} 04:03, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think they actually have their own building, but from the various parking lot shots of the two shops, they are either on the same lot or back to back. FMPhoenixHawk (talk) 01:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't this what the references to M6 and M7 are? The former was the first separate site, but it didn't work out. Autarch (talk) 21:07, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Buster

I think the best solution here is to consolodate all of the info in the "Buster" section here into List of additional MythBusters cast members#Buster. Then this page's buster section can be cut down to a paragraph or two with a "main article:" link to the additional cast page. TheHYPO (talk) 09:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

If I'm going to to be helpful here I would say Buster is not a cast member. He's a crash test dummy. T.Neo (talk) 17:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is true, but he is not notable enough to deserve his own page (in my opinion) and that leaves the options of including him here, or including him on that page. Since he was already listed on that page, I decided that the most efficient route would be to include him there so there is not a big section in this article on one relatively minor element of the show (buster). The cast members page has a section on "non-human" cast. If the show wasn't non-fiction, the page would be characters, not cast - he would be more appropriate as a character than cast. TheHYPO (talk) 18:32, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I see what you mean. T.Neo (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticism

Shouldn't there be a criticism section? — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:38, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have a source on some published critisism of the show, you can absolutely start a section. If it's just a place to say "some people think that..." with no sources, then no. TheHYPO (talk) 06:11, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

==There are no known sources of criticism of the perfection that is Mythbusters (sic). Just because any first year college physics student can find fault in many of their implicit assumptions, citing explanations based on newton's laws does not meet the stringent rules of their wikipedia protectors.

A common first year calculus problem involves calculating the optimum speed to run through falling rain to minimize wetness. The mythbusters experiment had fundamental design flaws, but their math-deficient protectors refused to accept it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.126.95 (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I own the Mythbuster DVDs, and have watched some shows a number of times. I quote the Mythbusters, etc., however I strongly agree with BQZip01. The TV show is juggling ratings, cost, audience interest and knowledge, viability, along with (as they've said in the show) the wishes of the producers. This isn't a scientific show, where the professional reputation of Savage and Hyneman will suffer irreparable damage if they say something incorrect. The "give and take" speculation even endears them to the audience. It can be expected, therefore, that they make mistakes. The point could be made, limited in extent: four or five sentences, with quotes from their own web site. Alpha Ralpha Boulevard (talk) 05:24, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Warnings and Censorship

Living in British Columbia, Canada, I can confirm that Mythbusters does indeed have several 'Do not try this at home' safety warnings spaced throughout each episode while playing on Discovery Canada. Thus, I am removing Discovery Canada from the list of broadcasters that don't show the warnings. If someone is able to produce proof that it is indeed missing on Discovery Canada, please add it back. Talonird (talk) 06:41, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

GA?

Has this article been nominated for Good Article status? Seems to me that it's got the qualifications. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 18:19, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it is anywhere near being ready for a GAN. Southern Illinois SKYWARN (talk) 18:54, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

It does need some copy-editing issues reasolved, and the images need to have their non-free rationales re-formatted. It probably needs a peer review, so I'm going to submit it. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 20:03, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

MythBusters fans want to bust the E-reader

McDuffee, Keith (April 18, 2008). "MythBusters fans want to bust the E-reader". TV Squad. www.tvsquad.com. Retrieved 2008-04-18. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Would make for an interesting investigation. Cirt (talk) 18:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry that I did not clarify when initially posting this, this is a potential source that could be used in the article. Cirt (talk) 13:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

 Done. Utilized citation to add info to the article. Cirt (talk) 13:17, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Biased article

The whole article looks more like a PR page maintained by Mythbuster staff. They continously fail to use a scientific method, they have failed in using the right equipment, and at times they blatantly use the wrong materials to accieve a FAIL, speciffically in things that should fly, but will not due to materials being sevaral times their supposed weight.

Examples include the car NOT blown over by a 747, the pressurised water&air rocket that failed to lift Buster.193.75.62.25 (talk) 12:48, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

If you feel the article needs balance, a "Criticisms" section might be an option. Your biggest hurdle is that any such criticism will need to be very, very well sourced if it is to remain in the article. Just your say-so that they screwed something up is not enough. You will need to source very well your stuff or it is almost certain to be reverted right back out of the article. - TexasAndroid (talk) 13:36, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

And the fact that they have admitted this, and accept audience critisism, and that even the car that was blown over was re-tested in a later episode. Not every scientist gets everything right every time. If you have SOURCES for your problems with the show, you can include them. TheHYPO (talk) 04:25, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

If I need a "source" for 75489072349+1=75489072350, I can't assert it here. Some of mythbuster's claims are almost that obvious to college-level students of math and physics, however, no authoritative books would waste space using them as examples. I am starting to suspect that a mythbusters insider is involved with editing this page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.172.126.95 (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

And if this were an encyclopedia for science and physics students, you would have a valid point. But... it's not. And as such things need to be explained simply and, not sources but, third-party sources need to be provided to eliminate bias and POV pushing. I don't know how familliar you are with wiki etiquette but the charges you are leveling are very inflammatory and insulting. unless you have some level of proof the best way to proceed is to find contrary sources (not physics text books with theories but others who have done the same thing and succeeded) and post them. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I think there should be section stating that their results should not be taken as absolute truth like most people think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.17.11.18 (talk) 09:45, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

agreed, what bothers me and i'm a lot of people is that on their show they constantly refer to what they are doing as science and i think it is misleading. the problem is that they go "through the motions" of science, forming a hypothesis, isolating variables etc. with any actual understanding the scientific method and scientific integrity. they are doing the public a disservice and i think they are excellent example of cargo cult science —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.34.27.132 (talk) 21:30, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

There's a difference between "science" and "scientific fact". If I do a single experiment, it is still a science experiment. It may require a number of repeated attempts to be considered scientific proof, but that does not negate scientific content and relevance. Again, if you have ARTICLES or SOURCES to cite, it is perfectly appropriate critisism for this article, but your own personal opinions aren't what wikipedia is here to broadcast. Furthermore, they don't claim to always get it right, or they wouldn't be so open to revisit myths. TheHYPO (talk) 07:23, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Recording

Because of the length of time that has passed since the template was added, as well as the fact that [[1]] the User in question does not have this article listed as either being read or as an article they are currently recording, I suggest that the template be removed. mauler90 (talk) 07:30, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine, but why not ask the user personally before you remove it. TheHYPO (talk) 07:42, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I am currently waiting for a response on the users talk page; however, they also did not respond too a question about it from May 21, so I am not very optimistic. mauler90 (talk) 17:05, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

And it's not July 11th and still nothing from the original editor. I'm removing the tag. padillaH ^{(review me)}_{(help me)} 12:42, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Use of Plausible rating - rewrite?

The second paragraph of the Plausible rating section needs to be re-written, as it sounds speculative and OR-ish in its current form. Is there any documentation of Jamie and/or Adam talking about how frequently the rating is used compared to Confirmed or Busted? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 16:26, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Taken care of. Willbyr (talk | contribs) 14:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

News / linkdump

I assume you've all read this all over the Internet, but in case you haven't:

Arphid Watch: Mythbusters and RFID - Adam Savage explains why there isn't going to be a segment on RFID security ever.

Shinobu (talk) 01:02, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Equipment

I'd like to kill or seriously retrofit the "equipment" section. Right now it reads pretty much like a big list of any object someone has seen them use two or three times on the show. I believe it is fairly trivial to note that they use Quick-releases or servos or accelerometers... it is incidental to the show itself and it just happens to be something that someone has decided is "cool" and should be noted. They use hammers and paint and wood and beams and blow torches and fire extinguishers frequently, but since these are seen as "common" items, no one has mentioned them. I don't think servos are any different. They are merely tools used to accomplish the build they are doing. Shockwatch and Accelerometers are merely a devices used to measure a variable... no different than rulers, protractors, electricity multimeters...

This section should either be killed entirely, or rewritten in wording much reduced. I just tried to start an example here, but I hoenstly can't think of a phrasing that sounds encyclopedic and not trivial, other than "here are a bunch of things they use a lot that I personally thought were cooler than just a hammer and some wood". I'm going to try again:

In testing myths, the Mythbusters regularly make use of their warehouses which are well stocked with typical and uncommon building materials. To gauge results that don't yield numerical quantities, the teams commonly make use of several types of equipment which can provide other forms of observable effects. When testing physical consequences to a human body which would be too dangerous to test on a living person, the Mythbusters commonly use analogs; initially, they mainly used crash test dummies (most notably one they named Buster) for observing blunt trauma injury, and ballistic gelatin for testing penetrating trauma. They have since progressed to using Pig carcasses when an experiment requires a more accurate simulation of human flesh, bone, and organs. They have also occasionally molded real or simulated bones within ballistics gel for simulations of specific body parts.

I'm going to stop there, because, as I'm writing this, I'm realizing that a very similar paragraph already exists under "Format", which makes this whole comment rather stupid. If it is already disussed in Format, why is there a pointless trivial list right below of it many of the same things? I'm therefore killing the materials list, and perhaps moving material/procedural-based stuff from "format" to a subsection. TheHYPO (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

RFID

I killed the little note on RFID, because I feel it's trivial. Noting the references I just added, from the Last HOPE conference, Discovery has killed at least one other episode due to advertiser concerns (that Adam mentioned at this conference - could be many others), and has killed lots of other ideas in general. TheHYPO (talk) 23:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the actual link in the last HOPE ref? Willbyr (talk | contribs) 04:37, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know, but at this point, I have killed the controversy section again. Since it was all (apparently) a misunderstanding, and a 3rd party "This is what I heard" statement from Savage is fairly unencyclopedic when confronted with a challenge from other partys directly involved, I'd say this rates as simply a trivial misquote by Adam, and doesn't rate as a major controversy that in two months anyone will care about other than trivially. TheHYPO (talk) 13:25, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Right now there is no text indicating that they have killed shows or stories based on advertiser pressure. Shouldn't this atleast be in the warnings and self-censureship part? Carewolf (talk) 14:08, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Kari pregnant?

It looks like Kari might be pregnant -- she's wearing dresses a lot more than usual in what are, I believe, the most recently filmed segments. Given the non-linear nature of shooting and broadcast, it's hard to be sure. And is this newsworthy, even if she were? It'll break even more fanboys hearts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.55.53 (talk) 03:13, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

First off "wearing dresses" is not a proper citation. We'd need to find confirmation in some news source before putting it int the article. Second, "Fanboy", while not directed at anyone, can be taken personally, please be careful with it's use. Padillah (talk) 12:10, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

I agree any woman wearing dresses or even putting a pound or three is hardly proof of pregnancy. And it also bears little relevance in general. If she were, it could mean a Pregnancy Special "We put Kari to the test in the only expirement in Mythbusters history to START with a bang". Heh imagine the disclaimer at the start (US broadcast only): Adam: "Don't try this at home." Jamie: "You have to be joking, I'm not saying anything. I want my agent." As for the fanboy comment, it was meant in a lighthearted fashion.

Question remains, hypothetically so far, if Kari is pregnant, is that worthy of Wiki? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.50.55.53 (talk) 05:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

She has her own article; go debate it there. This has absolutely nothing to do with this article unless she, at some point, it causes her to leaves the show or some other actual bearing on Mythbusters, the subject of this article. TheHYPO (talk) 06:06, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Mythbusters Live

Reporting from the Mythbuster's Live show 10/5 in Portland Oregon from [Portland Metblogs]