MYTHBUSTERS 2015 Season Thread

[intrinsical]

I think its because when there's violence in Game of Thrones, it tends to be over very quickly. Typically the truly violent and gory parts don't last more than 30 seconds.

There are different kinds of violence, though. I've read a lot of protest of its increasingly gratuitous use of rape. It's gotten to the point that one major website has refused to cover the show anymore.

Right in the first episode, there's incest and a child is murdered. I'm pretty sure rapes occurred somewhere in the very first season and in every season. So it is disingenuous to wait till the fifth season to protest.

In defense for the show, the actual deed is almost never shown on screen. So its more akin to major tv shows and movies that contain violence.

 

[Christopher]

Right in the first episode, there's incest and a child is murdered. I'm pretty sure rapes occurred somewhere in the very first season and in every season. So it is disingenuous to wait till the fifth season to protest.

And if you'd actually read the article, you'd know that's not at all what it's about. It's not the fact that rape is used at all, it's how it's used, the trend it's taken lately.

 

[Forbin]

I don't think Sansa's rape was gratuitous - it was a plot development that she was talked into marrying a horrible, brutal, perverted scumbag, and her hopes of changing her own fate as a perpetual victim were dashed. It was pretty much expected that her wedding night wouldn't be very... romantic. There's been much discussion over the semantics of the situation too - is wedding night rough sex rape, or marital abuse, or something else entirely? (not meaning to start that up here). The camera stayed in closeup on her face to show her emotions as the act began, then cut to another scene once we got what was happening. It wasn't really very graphic at all. It was an awful moment for a character, in a show chock-full of awful moments for characters.

 

[Christopher]

Well, I don't want to get into it either. This is absolutely not the place for that debate. But I've heard enough about the darker elements of the show that I'm very hesitant to watch it.

 

[davejames]

As bloody and gory as those three shows can be, for me it's always been the great writing, characters, and performances that have made those three shows so memorable. That other stuff is just there to help grab your attention or make you understand the massive stakes involved.

Besides, sometimes I think a good story needs to be a bit uncomfortable to watch, or to shock the hell out of you. And you certainly don't get much of that from most generic network shows out there.

 

[Christopher]

Besides, sometimes I think a good story needs to be a bit uncomfortable to watch, or to shock the hell out of you.

When it actually does need to be, sure. But if that's what a show does constantly as a routine practice, then it loses its power and becomes self-indulgence. If everything is always taken to the extreme, then the audience gets inured to the extreme and nothing stands out anymore. If it's saved for when it's most important, then it has much more impact.

Again, though, this is the Mythbusters thread, so it's not really the place to get into this.


By the way, has anybody heard any news about what Kari, Grant, and Tory are up to now?

 

[Trekker4747]

And, I dunno. Maybe I *am* "missing the point of art" when it comes to this kind of stuff. But when I see blood and gore in movie or TV show I don't see blood and gore. I see what it is, special effects and make-up. That doesn't mean that the message is not conveyed of what it is supposed to represent.

My greater point is more that I do not understand why some get so disturbed and grossed out about the more gory elements of some TV shows and movies. Why do these sort of things disturb a person? It's special effects and make-up. It's possible to realize that and at the same time to accept what's happening on screen as being real in the narrative.

I mean, it's like the effects in a Sci-Fi movie. I know how it's done to make it look real and so-forth, but that doesn't diminish the impact it has on the story being told.

I don't know why someone would deny themselves enjoy a good story being told, or good characters being presented (as is in the case with Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Game of Thrones) just because, ew. they show like blood and sort-of gross things from time to time. Well, okay, in The Walking Dead it's pretty much every week. But the make-up effects on that show are really good and there was a particularly gruesome death last season and a buddy and I both admitted it was one of the more gruesome deaths the show had ever done. We then both shrugged and took another bite of the hamburgers we were eating.

It looked good, it looked real. It'd be horrifying to die in that way, it'd be horrifying to see someone die that way. It's possible to realize how seeing this stuff almost on a daily basis would impact characters and disturb them and how it'd disturb you to see it in real life and at the same time acknowledge it's not real and not be bothered by it.

And at least on Breaking Bad the more gruesome stuff is pretty few and far in between. It's more likely to see people on the show being killed by gun shots or more "usual" means. The more terrible stuff (like dissolving the body in the bath tub) is pretty rare.

I dunno, I just never understood why some people are bothered by obviously un-real stuff to the point of trying to keep away from it especially when there's a good story behind the "gore" or entertainment to be had by the show or movie.

 

[davejames]

By the way, has anybody heard any news about what Kari, Grant, and Tory are up to now?

I'm surprised Discovery still hasn't cooked up a new show for them, given how popular they are with fans. I wonder if that's simply because they want to give the new Mythbusters a bit of space first? Or are they just having a hard time thinking of something that hasn't already been done? Or maybe there's still a bit of bad blood there with how the contract thing went down before...

I suppose there could be all kinds of different reasons.

 

[Christopher]

My greater point is more that I do not understand why some get so disturbed and grossed out about the more gory elements of some TV shows and movies.

That doesn't mean they're wrong. It just means you don't understand. If you don't understand something that other people feel, that's your deficiency, not theirs. And the way to deal with it is to listen to those other people, not lecture them. Or at least respect their right to feel differently than you do.

By the way, has anybody heard any news about what Kari, Grant, and Tory are up to now?

I'm surprised Discovery still hasn't cooked up a new show for them, given how popular they are with fans. I wonder if that's simply because they want to give the new Mythbusters a bit of space first? Or are they just having a hard time thinking of something that hasn't already been done? Or maybe there's still a bit of bad blood there with how the contract thing went down before...

I suppose there could be all kinds of different reasons.

Developing and launching a new show could easily take a couple of years. I'm not surprised nothing's premiered yet. I'm just wondering if there's any hint about what they'll be doing next.

 

[RunawayStarShip]

Developing and launching a new show could easily take a couple of years. I'm not surprised nothing's premiered yet. I'm just wondering if there's any hint about what they'll be doing next.

I think Kari and Tory are working for the Travel Channel (at least for the time being). As for Grant... a lot of random stuff?

 

[Karzak]

Grant has been spending at least some of his time playing Sulu in the Star Trek Continues fan film series.

 

[Christopher]

Tonight's new episode is on at 8 Eastern, and involves flight-related myths, one about the U2 plane, the other about the dangers of drones. Here's a preview piece on io9:

http://io9.com/can-a-home-drone-kill-you-the-mythbusters-talk-drones-1720093439

 

[TheSeeker]

So far the U2 segment is pretty cool.

 

[Christopher]

The U2 segment was pretty fascinating, and it was profound and joyous to share Adam's experience of going to the edge of space and seeing the Earth below him as a planet. That was just beautiful, and I'm really happy for him that he got to do something so amazing. Of all the remarkable things the Mythbusters have gotten to do, this is one of the most extraordinary.

The thing is... they weren't really testing a myth. It was more a documentary than an experiment. There was no way to apply their usual procedures, or to actually compare it to other planes to judge how hard it was to fly. Judging from what we saw, it's definitely the hardest plane to get ready to fly, and the most complicated plane to launch, and probably the hardest plane to land... but the actual flying part seemed pretty effortless. As Adam said, it's doing exactly what it was designed for.


The drone stuff was more straightforward. Reassuring to know that the commercial ones are designed to be safe, though hardly surprising. Those custom jobs are a little more alarming, but then, you're in more danger of being hit by a car than of getting your throat slashed by a custom drone. Mainly it was cool to get to see the Mythbusters' own custom camera drone. And interesting to read in the article about how it's kind of replaced boom cameras. I gather filmmakers are using them a lot these days.

I wonder why the commercial blade cut the chicken but not the simulated neck. My guess is that it's because they were able to hold it there as long as they wanted, whereas a drone that hits an obstacle is going to falter and fall because its lift has been disrupted. So the blades are only going to hit once or twice instead of dozens of times.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

The thing is... they weren't really testing a myth. It was more a documentary than an experiment.

Yeah, but a pretty entertaining one. As far as mythbusting goes it might have been interesting to compare with say making a night landing on a carrier or comparing other planes somehow but it was a cool show about taking a ride in a U2.

I was trying not to notice what that yellow apparatus between Adam's legs might be at the end when he was dressed in white.

I don't remember how they introduced the other myth but I would think a drone falling from the sky onto one's head might be potentially dangerous or even flying the drone at full speed into the target in their horizontal tests.

 

[Christopher]

I don't remember how they introduced the other myth but I would think a drone falling from the sky onto one's head might be potentially dangerous or even flying the drone at full speed into the target in their horizontal tests.

Well, sure, but a full bathtub or a flight of stairs is potentially dangerous.

 

[Mr. Adventure]

I don't remember how they introduced the other myth but I would think a drone falling from the sky onto one's head might be potentially dangerous or even flying the drone at full speed into the target in their horizontal tests.

Well, sure, but a full bathtub or a flight of stairs is potentially dangerous.

Yeah, but if the question is are drones dangerous it seems like a reasonable concern. I wasn't sure if that was the question or if it was just specifically about the propeller blades.

 

[davejames]

I'm willing to cut them some slack with the U2 thing, since it was pretty clear from the start that it was more about going behind the scenes and getting to all these cool and interesting things about the program itself.

Although I do think it would have been nice to get at least some perspective from the U2 pilots themselves, since they've doubtlessly flown all kinds of different planes before and would be able to judge the relative difficulty of them.

And I admit I was a bit surprised by the drone myth, and how even the larger commercial version couldn't really do much damage. I thought for sure I had seen a story recently about a guy who got killed by his own drone when it accidentally cut his throat. But now that I think about it it might have been an RC helicopter that did it instead...

 

[Mr. Adventure]

And I admit I was a bit surprised by the drone myth, and how even the larger commercial version couldn't really do much damage. I thought for sure I had seen a story recently about a guy who got killed by his own drone when it accidentally cut his throat. But now that I think about it it might have been an RC helicopter that did it instead...

Maybe it was a drone transporting a propeller on a stick?

 

[intrinsical]

I bet Adam will be posting a tested video talking about his experience flying in the U2. I'll link it here when it arrives.