# Skeptical TV pilot to be shot soon **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [January 20, 2008, 2:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257 "2008-01-20T14:37:44Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 14\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![SkeptiJess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@SkeptiJess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkeptiJess)\ **Post date:** [January 21, 2008, 4:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/21 "2008-01-21T04:16:43Z")
I confess that the website for the TV pilot probably doesn’t give the best (most skeptical) impression. The use (twice) of the word ‘debunking’ is, I assume, what led **Liberal** to be concerned that Dunning (and the show) would be one sided. I’ve been listening to the podcast for over a year, though, so I’m more familiar with his skeptical bonafides. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see whether the pilot is sold and, if so, whether it lives up to the quality of Dunning’s other work. I think that there is a larger audience for skeptical programs than many think. _Bullshit_ is doing pretty well, and the National Geographic Channel has a nice skeptical show in _Is It Real?_, although I don’t know how popular it is with anybody but me… Time will tell, I suppose. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/22 "2008-01-22T02:07:57Z")
[QUOTE=Revtim] I’d be very surprised if this show succeeded. People don’t want the exciting supernatural to be explained away by mundane reality. They might at as well make a show where every week they tell a young child there is no Santa Claus. [/QUOTE] Ever seen _Jonathan Creek_? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Bird](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/3ec8ea/32.png) [@Little\_Bird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Bird)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/23 "2008-01-22T03:43:27Z")
I quite enjoy the podcast and will watch the show if it gets picked up. And of course it will be one-sided–if one side says Santa Claus is real and the other says he isn’t, would you expect both sides to get equal air time? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/24 "2008-01-22T05:05:53Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] Ever seen _Jonathan Creek_? [/QUOTE] What makes Jonathan Creek any more “skeptical” than Banacek? Just because the lead character’s a magician? ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/25 "2008-01-22T05:19:30Z")
I’m unfamiliar with Banacek, so I can’t compare them. However, Jonathan Creek was about investigating seemingly impossible situations, and explaining how they were done. Some of the cases were (apparently) supernatural, until he cracked them. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/26 "2008-01-22T05:23:52Z")
[QUOTE=Liberal] They admit to a bias. I see nothing “skeptical” about them. [/QUOTE] No, they don’t admit to a “bias.” Assuming that the impossible is impossible is not a “bias,” no matter how many times you say it. ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/27 "2008-01-22T05:24:44Z")
[Which is what Banacek did.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banacek) If Jonathan Creek is skeptical, then so is Banacek, which if you’ve ever seen the show, is kind of a stretch. Which I think the label assignment to Jonathan Creek is, sadly. It’s a good show, but not in the realm of what I think of as skeptical. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 5:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/28 "2008-01-22T05:27:40Z")
The fact that they expect the cast to work for free and travel at their own expense makes me wonder how many qualified applicants they’re really going to get. That sounds a little seedy to me. Don’t TV shows usually pay their casts? ---
**Author:** ![SkeptiJess](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ea666f/32.png) [@SkeptiJess](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SkeptiJess)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/29 "2008-01-22T06:45:58Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] The fact that they expect the cast to work for free and travel at their own expense makes me wonder how many qualified applicants they’re really going to get. That sounds a little seedy to me. Don’t TV shows usually pay their casts? [/QUOTE] According to the interview, the pilot is being made by the production company at it’s own expense, then they’ll shop it around for a buyer. The expenses will be high, even without paying the cast, so they are asking the castmembers to take a risk on the show being picked up. If it is, then the cast will be paid, of course. Dunning has never done any TV before, but the other guy has, and according to Dunning, this is how he’s usually done it in the past. I imagine this will limit their casting choices to people within easy driving distance of LA. ---
**Author:** ![Peter\_Morris](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/peter_morris/32/359_2.png) [@Peter\_Morris](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Peter_Morris)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 7:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/30 "2008-01-22T07:10:09Z")
[QUOTE=Leaper] [Which is what Banacek did.](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banacek) If Jonathan Creek is skeptical, then so is Banacek, which if you’ve ever seen the show, is kind of a stretch. Which I think the label assignment to Jonathan Creek is, sadly. It’s a good show, but not in the realm of what I think of as skeptical. [/QUOTE] One episode of Creek dealt with a woman who was seemingly dreaming about news stories several hours before they happened. Another episode showed someone meeting and speaking to a woman several hours after she died. On both occasions he spoke against any thought of the supernatural. I’d say that would count as skeptical, for a few episodes at least. Were there any comparable cases for Banacek? ---
**Author:** ![Leaper](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/4bbf92/32.png) [@Leaper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leaper)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 9:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/31 "2008-01-22T09:09:53Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] One episode of Creek dealt with a woman who was seemingly dreaming about news stories several hours before they happened. Another episode showed someone meeting and speaking to a woman several hours after she died. On both occasions he spoke against any thought of the supernatural. I’d say that would count as skeptical, for a few episodes at least. Were there any comparable cases for Banacek? [/QUOTE] Hmm. I see what you’re saying here, but I’m not sure how comfortable I am with it. Would Monk be considered a skeptical show, because it had the one episode with the psychic who apparently drives herself to the scene of a death while in a trance (where it turns out the husband drove her there himself as part of a murder plot)? Scooby Doo (at least the versions with actual mysteries in it, not the pure comedy ones, which led to “real” monsters and such)? Maybe they are, but somehow it FEELS like too loose a definition for me. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 9:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/32 "2008-01-22T09:32:27Z")
[QUOTE=Peter Morris] One episode of Creek dealt with a woman who was seemingly dreaming about news stories several hours before they happened. Another episode showed someone meeting and speaking to a woman several hours after she died. On both occasions he spoke against any thought of the supernatural. I’d say that would count as skeptical, for a few episodes at least. Were there any comparable cases for Banacek? [/QUOTE] I’ve never seen Banacek either, but wanted to add that one of the elements that (IMO) gives Jonathan Creek a skeptical flavour is that his sidekick (played by Caroline Quentin) is quite credulous - so he spends a fair bit of time patiently disabusing her of flights of fancy. ---
**Author:** ![lynne-42](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lynne-42/32/3138_2.png) [@lynne-42](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lynne-42)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 10:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/33 "2008-01-22T10:14:12Z")
Jonathan Creek and the Banacek you talk about are ficitional characters and the sories on their shows aren’t real. The way I read the show in the OP is a reality show. They go out an examine real claims of the paranormal. In which case they want someone like the slightly differently spelt [Banachek](http://www.banachek.org/) . He is a great magician as well as a long term debunker of weird and wonderful claims. But he is very successful and wouldn’t (I think) work for free, nor (I expect) have the time. I can’t speak for him! I can think of a number of people who would be fantastic in this sort of role, but most are well known in the skeptic community already. ---
**Author:** ![Musicat](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/musicat/32/20189_2.png) [@Musicat](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Musicat)\ **Post date:** [January 22, 2008, 1:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257/34 "2008-01-22T13:59:59Z")
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic] No, they don’t admit to a “bias.” Assuming that the impossible is impossible is not a “bias,” no matter how many times you say it. [/QUOTE] You mean it’s not possible to have a bias towards reality? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/skeptical-tv-pilot-to-be-shot-soon/434257.md?page=1)