I was watching the latest episode of Mythbusters about ricocheting bullets when a nagging thought was raised by myself. “Surely Adam and Jimmy knew that the copper bullet would be smashed to bits by the steel platings.”
There won’t be any suspense or any incentive to drag the show out if they do the experiment ‘the proper way’ first. So was the first set of tests where the bullets were smashed to pieces staged, or genuinely part of their experimental process?
The whole thing is “staged” in that they wouldn’t put a show on the air until they’d repeated an experiment several times and usually they know what to expect.
Really? Why not? A lot of the experiments they do kind of fizzile without the hypothesized effect (I’d even venture that the majority do so), so its not like they’re afraid of having a non-dramatic result shown on air (they usually compensate for this by just blowing up whatever they’re experimenting on at the end of the segment, so that the people at home at least get to see something go boom, but they make clear that at that point their just having fun, and that the myth has already been show to be “busted”)
As far as I know that isn’t true. They don’t try anything without the cameras rolling and they always show their first attempts. That’s why so many experiments kind of fizzle out or go wrong. Obviously if something takes thirty attempts to finally get they edit out all those attempts but they generally say how many times it takes. They also outright fail fairly often.
More to the OP, that whole myth was based on bullets bouncing off steel girders then coming back and hitting the shooter. To test the myth they had to start with steel or else what’s the point? They busted the myth in the first five minutes of the show then the rest of the show was (as usual) just trying to replicate the results of the said myth through other methods.
>“Surely Adam and Jimmy knew that the copper bullet would be smashed to bits by the steel platings.”
They definitely feign ignorance to make the show fun and for the audience to feel like theyre on some journey of discovery with the hosts. Most of their myths are easily researched and the conclusion of their tests is probably easy for their research staff to guess. The producers weigh whether those tests make for good entertainment.
Im sure theyre surprised from time to time, but from what I can tell is a pretty big production with lots of planning and research, not exactly “two guys messing around” like they like to present it as.
Sure, they know that, and you know that, and many of us here would know that (plus most people who’ve seen the show before: bullets get mashed when they hit anything hard.), but the point of the whole show is to actually try it, and then show the results to the idiot masses that think they know bullets ricochet.
They’ve been wrong enough times before to know they can’t ever assume a particular result.
There’s also the point of getting high-speed footage of the attempt, too, even if they figure they know what will happen.
The OP is proposing that they faked testing a copper jacketed bullet hitting a metal plate? How do you think they showed the effect other than doing it straight?
And if they’re going to show the effect, then why not do it first, just in case some surprising result occurs?
QFT.
Plus, the show is Mythbusters. If they went to trying figure out how to make it work and just said “we know the myth isn’t true,” it kinda defeats the purpose of the show.
It is scripted in the same way that any other show is scripted. In some ways, Mythbusters is even more formulaic than House is. If it’s on American TV and some producer is responsible for it, it’s scripted.
One time when it was very obvious they knew the reality behind the myth was when they were checking the myth that if you sneeze with your eyes open, they will pop out of your sockets. Adam tested this by sniffing some pepper and then holding his eyelids open. Obviously he wouldn’t have done this if he thought there was any possibility of the myth being true.
I guess that’s true in the sense that Mythbusters is bound by the physical laws of the universe.
There are certain portions that are obviously scripted and it’s easy to tell because the acting is so bad. Typically it’s two people engaging in a back and forth discussion of whatever and it’s obvious the conversation is a construct aimed at informing the viewer.
Jimmy???
Wow. I didn’t know that. Do you have any ideas on how we might be able to test this experimentally?
First, you get some explosives…
Sometimes the myths they are busting are commonly held misconceptions that they, as people familiar with the laws of physics or principles of chemistry, are aware of the facts, but most of the rest of us have grasped the wrong end of the stick for most of our lives. So they have to demonstrate to prove it.
Having said that, sometimes the results surprise even them. And sometimes they are unable to prove anything either way, because the tests are inconclusive, or they fail, or they’re just unable to convincingly recreate the circumstances.
But I do think they are overdoing the number of excuses they concoct for more and bigger explosions.
Yes, they were clearly shocked when the tests showed that elephants really were “afraid” of the mice!:eek:
True.
Actually the mice and the elephants got together before the taping and agreed to fake it because they were afraid that otherwise Jamie and Adam would blow them up for a dramatic finish.
I guess faking enthusiasm is staging. The last few seasons have been geared towards a younger audience. Grant and Tory over do it sometimes. “All right kids, can Tory slide down a ski lift cable with his blue jeans!” 
You could tell Tory thought the whole myth was lame. But, they got to fill air time.