Follow TV Tropes

Discussion Main / MythBusters

Go To

Dec 4th 2010 at 5:24:12 PM •••

There's a Genius Bonus for anyone that knows Morse Code when Adam tests out a curse-proof tool to ease the editors' workload. The beeps spell out HELLO.

Oct 13th 2010 at 5:31:39 PM •••

I can maybe understand why you might delete CMOA examples, provided you moved them to the Mythbusters CMOA page. But I don't understand why you would delete things like this:

  • Growing the Beard: The first season had a significantly slower pace than later seasons, one point being that the show would stop to have Heather Joseph-Witham give elaborate and unnecessary information regarding the myth. As well, a higher percentage of the show focused on Jamie and Adam's efforts to acquire the parts needed and their interactions with the bemused sellers (i.e. Jamie trying to get the JATO rocket). Evidently the charm of the show was still there, but the second season started featuring the Build Team and had a greater focus on the actual experimentation and their efforts to recreate the myth.

It isn't natter. It isn't something that belongs on its own page. There's nothing wrong with it. Why delete it?

Hide/Show Replies
Willbyr MOD
Oct 13th 2010 at 7:09:18 PM •••

I suspect that most of those that were deleted are under the new "subjective tropes don't go on works pages anymore" ruling; I checked Growing the Beard's page and it's got that banner. That being said, there's some of them, such as the Nausea Fuel, that are actually part and parcel of the show's content and should probably go ahead and be re-added, provided that they're edited to actually deal with the material that fits the trope and not audience reaction.

Edited by Willbyr
Mar 31st 2010 at 8:23:34 PM •••

I cut out the entirety of the Did Not Do The Research because the show is about experimentation and actually trying to do the research. Incorrect results based on fans arguing something outside of what they were testing isn't DNDTR but just fans complaining about how the test went or what results they wanted. Most of the items on the list were busted upon retesting (meaning they ultimately did do the research) or the fans arguing towards a different aspect of the myth. Also, the boat suction has already been discussed in the archived discussion.

  • Did Not Do The Research: Occasionally, the experiments fail to correctly identify what's being tested, resulting in totally incorrect conclusions. For instance:
    • Testing Scope Snipe with a modern scope rather than a period one.
    • Concluding that a rifle barrel won't peel open based on testing of new barrels when the phenomenon only occurs with flawed or old ones.
    • Concluding that since a tiny boat produces no measurable suction when sinking, neither would a 4.6 million cubic foot ocean liner.
    • Concluding that a snowplow could not blow a car off a road, without taking into consideration:
      • snowplows are usually used in icy (that is, slippery) conditions.
      • the myth claimed that the cars were blown off the road, not blown over (they tried to make the car roll)
    • Concluding that ancient stone arrowheads and sharpened sticks don't have enough of a difference in lethality to make the effort of making the former worth it... while ignoring the rather obvious factor of distance. (The same factor that somehow baffled them in "Helium Football")
    • Fortunately, the Mythbusters are Genre Savvy enough to anticipate this, and welcome revisits of their older experiments, with the new information (or complaints) their fans give them; some results have actually been overturned, as a result.

Hide/Show Replies
Mar 31st 2010 at 10:00:35 PM •••

I think Ancient Arrows still counts. They were trying to answer what made stone arrows worth the effort used to make them over sharpened sticks. I would think the arrows' range would make a major difference. If they addressed that, they left it out of the broadcast.

Apr 24th 2010 at 1:23:09 AM •••

In several cases (scope snipe, the rifle barrel) they tested the wrong thing to get their conclusion (wrong scope type for the first, didn't identify cause for the second). Suction was discussed and I believe I produced more than enough in witness testimonies and links to say it does happen when large compartments flood on massive ships, so their tiny boat evenly flooding obviously wasn't going to produce it.

May 11th 2010 at 12:23:07 AM •••

Evidently someone put it back without any real discussion on the matter. And I will say this, I am not fond of how DNDTR is used on the site. People will set up their own standard of research and then proceed to destroy it because it is a pet peeve of theirs. (There are still people complaining about the Archimedes death ray, after the Mythbusters brought in an MIT professor and his class to try and fail to replicate the myth.)

For example, the airdraft of a snowplow pushing cars off the road. There is almost no myth to test there, because if you have a poor driver on slippery roads then it is obviously possible. They said as much when talking about a semi truck passing you on the highway. Details don't always remain the same, I am almost certain there is a myth of the car rolling. That is what they tested.

They also tested the downward suction of a sinking boat, not the current produced by compartments filling with water. Those are two different things with different physics involved. Their conclusion for what they tested was sound, and what they tested is what you normally seen claimed in stories (such as Titanic, which said nothing about compartments filling up).

And then in cases of the Scope Shot and the Banana Peel Barrel they eventually retested the myth, so they eventually did the research. They may not have come to the correct conclusions on the first try, but that is actually call Doing The Research. You usually come to false conclusions before finding the truth. The scope and the barrel were busted for the circumstances they tested it for, only to find something that can replicate the myth.

Now I'm all for more legitimate DNDTR, like Jaime's claim of two 50 MPH cars hitting each other equals a single car 100 MPH crash (which was busted and Jaime admitted his mistake). But complaining about the myths in the show skews the page into more of a forum mode than it should be. Discussions about bad conclusions should go into the forums and not the page.

May 12th 2010 at 12:42:30 AM •••

Erm...The Titanic's first officer said he was sucked inside the ship by flooding compartments. The test was more or less a sweeping generalisation; they never even attempted to address whether increasing the scale of the vessel would introduce new ways for suction to occur during sinking, so I'd say that counts as not doing the research.

I'm not sure about the snowplough example (it isn't mine), but the other two were cases of them not doing enough background research to find out what the test should actually be about. The fact that they eventually did the research doesn't mean they did it in the first place, any more than patching out a Game-Breaker means it was never there.

Aug 8th 2010 at 6:41:15 AM •••

Re: Ancient Arrows and range:

In all fairness, their revisit of ninjas catching arrows with their bare hands considered this specific aspect. Their testing proved that an arrow had the same speed whether at point blank or several dozen yards away, thus would have the same kinetic energy and the same penetration regardless of distance.

I wasn't even thinking "increased lethality". I was thinking if stone arrowheads had a significant difference in range, it would be well worth it to ancient man, since the further away from your target you are, the less chance of the target spotting you and bolting.

Oct 1st 2010 at 7:27:02 AM •••

I have seen M-1 and 75mm barrels peeled in a Camp Lejeune armory. In each case a piece of a cleaning rod was the cause.

Type the word in the image. This goes away if you get known.
If you can't read this one, hit reload for the page.
The next one might be easier to see.
Top

Example of:

/
/

Feedback