Big giant laughs
Don't take it seriously, just go in expecting to be entertained.
"In a time of universal deceit,
telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
yes this show is awesome
share
MovieChat Forums > Big Giant Swords (2015) Discussion > Big giant laughs
When you suggest not taking the show "seriously", do you mean that the cast is consciously "acting up" for the camera?
That's certainly going to happen, but I suspect that what we see is fairly close to the participants' natural personalities.
No, I'm only saying to not go in expecting a documentary on the use of, or the metallurgy and manufacture of, edged weapons.
"In a time of universal deceit,
telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Mike does discuss metallurgy, in passing. But Moonshiners does a better job explaining the chemistry of fermentation and distillation.
You have a valid point, though. Unfortunately, "those days", when Discovery was a consciously "informational/educational" channel, are long-gone.
Last night Discovery ran a promotional ad bragging about how it had the courage to produce programming that no one else would. Of the titles that flashed by, virtually every one was a "reality" series. (Mythbusters seems to be the only truly educational program left -- and Discovery seems bent on killing it.)
Books on writing (especially screenwriting) emphasize that human beings are natural storytellers. The title sequence for Steven Spielberg's (generally awful) series Amazing Stories starts (or ends -- I forget which) with people gathered around a fire and an elder tribesman telling stories.
Reality programs make it possible to tell stories about real (?) people, that will hopefully involve the viewer and get him/her to return next week. This is difficult to do with an "educational" show.
How honest Discovery is in presenting "real-life" events isn't clear. It's not above programs that appear to be staged just for laughs (Mountain Monsters) or outright frauds, such as the ones about big, giant prehistoric sharks or the reality of mermaids. It portrayed the unmarried Steven Ray Tickle (yes, that's his name) as having a slatternly wife, then tried to spin him off into his own series, which was largely scripted.
The Weather Channel does a much better job. Prospectors focuses mostly on the digging, with little involvement in the characters' personal lives. (If you like geezers, you'll love Dwayne Hall. He's adorable -- and sharp and witty, too.) Why Planes Crash * is truly educational, and largely free of cheap exploitation. Highway thru Hell follows men who work in bad weather rescuing stranded trucks -- sometimes coming close to being killed. So You Think You'd Survive provides survival information for those in dire straits. Strangest Weather on Earth is about just that, with experts giving sometimes-garbled explanations of the science. The only worthless show is American Supernatural, which promotes an uncritical belief in superstition.
* Or as I call it, "How passengers are doused in kerosene and burn in an agonizing death from a 2000-degree bone-melting fire".
I'll have to take your word on the others, the only two I've watched are BGS and MB, and to be honest, MB has been irritating me for a long while, with their roundabout approach to busting myths. And without Kari, it's become hit or miss for me.
"In a time of universal deceit,
telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
What do you mean by "roundabout" approach? As an engineer, I generally agree with how they go about things. In my view, they do "good" science.
shareWhile watching them try and bust myth "a", they'll try approach "x", while I'm saying to myself "Nope, won't work because '...', try 'z'". So they play out the "x" scenario, which doesn't work because "...". So they try "y". Me: "Nope, '....', 'z'." Them: "Nope, '....', 'z'." I get that they need the filler to flush out the one hour slot, but I would have preferred they use the time by having Kari explain why it's better for the male viewers if she gets doused with cold water as opposed to warm water, accompanied by the weekly proof of concept cold water dousing in her outfit du jour. Yes, every week.
"In a time of universal deceit,
telling the truth is a revolutionary act."
George Orwell
Flesh out, I think.
I agree that some myths that can easily be busted simply by applying known principles of math, physics, or chemistry. But an important element of science & engineering is trying things to see what will happen. Going into an experiment assuming you know the answer can blind you to the non-obvious. *
A good example is pulling the tablecloth out from under a banquet-tableful of dinnerware. "Common sense" tells us (correctly) you need a very fast pull and very low friction. But instead of stopping with one attempt, they tried several approaches, to see if they could get the myth to work as described.
They often perform scale-model experiments before going to full size (eg, the cherry-bomb-in-the-toilet myth, or the launching-a-person-from-a-bent-tree myth). This, too, is good science.
I'm one male who has less-than-zero interest in Kari. She's a talented artist, but like most women, she's too-often loud, whiny, and pushy. And didn't she steal that poor lady's Social Security number?
I do miss the "away team", however. Discovery seems to want to sink Mythbusters. (Not repeating episodes during the week -- as it does with almost every other series -- is disturbing.) Though Adam thoroughly enjoyed himself, the last show was the first Really Dull episode I can recall. Perhaps Adam and Jamie -- who freely admit to not liking each other -- wanted more money to continue, and dumping Tory/Kari/Grant was the easiest way to find the cash.
* To quote Dr Land (remember him?): "We already know the answers. We just haven't asked the right questions." Science isn't about "facts" -- it's about asking good questions. Mythbusters does a pretty good job of this.