Is anyone else looking forward to this? He’s known as the Bad Astronomer, and is a notable skeptic more commonly known for taking on the moon hoaxers. I wish there was more skeptical programming on television, and if it’s good and does well, it could lead to a full series.
It’s a 3-part pilot that premieres on the Discovery Channel sunday 29th at 10pm (ET). You can see a sneak peak and a link to local listings here.
Phil used to be a Doper, actually. I am interested…don’t know if I’ll watch it on a regular basis, but I might check it out.
I’ll probably forget, but I’ll watch it if I don’t. I forget to watch a lot of things. (sigh)
Reminder bump. Just started.
Had I a TV, I would be watching this.
You need more than a TV; you need a cable account that’s more than basic, I think – I have basic cable, but not this channel.
I can wait til it comes out on YouTube.
Good good stuff. Hopefully it gets picked up.
Phil kept making faces that reminded me of Bert from Sesame Street. Especially when he found out the only six people worked at the place that tracks asteroids.
Damit, I forgot.
I think he needs to cut back on the Holy Halimokulas. I don’t want to see that phrase catching on.
It was entertaining but I hope the science content is expanded. The first fifteen minutes of the show were spend making a big explosion - which, as Plait pointed out, has really nothing to do with asteroids. At least when they blow things up on Mythbusters they try to have a reason for doing it.
What I came in to say. While watching it, my thought was “If that was a drinking game (drink whenever he said that), I’d be wasted by now and the show isn’t half over.”
Although to be fair, he mixed in some "holy cow"s and others too.
And then the same thought at the beginning “This looks like an episode of Mythbusters”.
Shoot, I missed it. Will have to check the schedule for future airings.
Oddly enough, I do have cable. And what the heck kind of basic cable doesn’t include Discovery? How do you get your Mythbusters fix?
What’s that even supposed to mean? I found it to be more of an irritation than I would have thought…
Other than that, it seemed really just to be Mythbusters in a different guise, though I did like the comic-y visual style. I wish there’d be a show that shows how science can be cool without needing to blow stuff up, though; it’s become a bit old by now. Also, it seemed a tad sensationalistic – would it have hurt the mass appeal that much to mention that the probability of an encounter with Apophis is estimated at about 1 in 250,000?
That said, I’m looking forward to other, more interesting scenarios (that lend themselves less well to creating huge showy explosions with little actual content) being discussed in the show – I’d like to see an episode on gamma ray bursts, for instance.
Holy Haleakala. Haleakala is a mountain in Hawaii where astronomers congregate to look at the stars.
I found the editing to be too frenetic. They rushed through things that they could’ve dwelled on a little longer. They seemed too eager to blow stuff up instead.
Ah, thanks for that.
Basic cable that I know about is the major (over-the-air) networks (NBC/CBS/ABC/Fox), PEG (Public/Education/Govt), 50 music channels, and a smattering of miscellaneous channels.
And 500 shopping channels.
Discovery, Disney, HBO, CNN, Showtime, etc. are extra cost.
I get my Mythbusters fix from DVDs or YouTube. Actually I’m not much of a fan of Mythbusters, anyway – too much sensationalism, too little realism.
I finally got to watch it, and found it was entertaining in a Mythbusters vein. Not nearly in-depth enough for the folks that hang out here, I suspect, but few shows are. Still, I think it was good, and my childhood, Cosmos-loving self would’ve loved it. If I remember in the future, I’ll watch it again. I thought Phil did well in front of the camera: clear, likable and entertaining. He kept things moving along, not as frenzied as Adam Savage, but not as laid-back as Jamie. The fast-paced editing I’ll put down to a concession to the average person’s attention span.
It was one of those shows I classify as “ten minutes of content crammed into an hour slot.”
I couldn’t even finish it. Phil, there are already fifty shows on television that set up explosions. Why ruin perfectly good science with a mound of dirt?
I liked it. Seemed like there was more real science content than a typical Mythbusters episode, which is good.
But priority one should be a new catchphrase; like everyone else, I found the "Holy Haleakala"s distracting after the second time and annoying after the third. Suggestions for new phrases to swap in occasionally:
[ul]
[li]Holy smokes![/li][li]Great Caesar’s ghost![/li][li]Sweet Mother McCree![/li][li]Holy Moses on the mountain![/li][li]Dahomey Namibia![/li][li]And of course, Sweet Zombie Jesus![/li][/ul]
“Sweet asteroid from East Detroit!”