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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 . 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.