|
I know it's past, but Everest kicked my rear end completely. Very interesting and they managed to get a solid story out of the whole deal. And it ends on such a brutal note (everyone has frostbite on their extremeties, one guy loses something everywhere and one bastard from another expedition has to be left to die. I also got into The Deadliest Catch and, as already mentioned, is amazingly awesome. They do a great job of covering the working parts involved in crab fishing and it was very easy to get into. I also have no small respect for people that can work in those conditions.
|
#
¿
Apr 5, 2007 19:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
LordOfThePants posted:I hate to keep bumping this when there's so little interest, but I have a Deadliest Catch question. Well, they did show different ports that some used (I think it was Sig that went to a port his family has always been going to). There's a possibility the price per pound might vary accordingly. Also, each crab is of variable weight. If they're pulling in monsters on one boat and others that simply qualify, that could be a significant change in overall value. The younger captain came in short on his weight quota, possibly because of small, light crab. Also, any deaths or undersize might be discarded when they weigh in but their original count would hold.
|
|
#
¿
May 12, 2007 00:27
|
|
|
Yeah, their fast and loose approach to science won't be doing anybody any favors on that subject. Mike Rowe on Larry King wasn't all that bad, but seriously King is a hurdle the viewer has to deal with to get to the interesting guest. I just don't take to his style of interviewing at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2007 06:09
|
|
|
Dr. Memory posted:Supercomet is on right now. Watch Earth get spanked for its sins. The acting is par for the budget, but I love how they're integrating informative stuff into the storyline.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2007 02:19
|
|
|
Fernando is quite possibly the most optimistic human being imaginable. "500 miles from the impact site, saved most improbably from the destruction and wandering on a molten wasteland, Fernando heads out to find his nearby family." Why you gotta be such a B, comet? 
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2007 03:14
|
|
|
That was intensely entertaining and I think informative. One question though: they basically didn't mention anything about radioactivity. I was under the impression that a severe comet impact would distribute radioactive material into the atmosphere and would drop fallout everywhere. Am I wrong in that because they didn't even touch on that. They did cover a lot of climactic and physical effects of the impact. Need to do more reading, I think. Good special, that was.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 8, 2007 04:08
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the same issue with Bullshit is affecting Mythbusters. The juicy topics have run dry and they're working on topics that just don't have as much of a draw and have even less depth in terms of physics or science behind them. Firing cigarette butts from a gun? I don't really want them to stop as I still enjoy a setup here or there. The Hindenburg one was just amazing and extremely compelling throughout. I'd rather they just comb through Snopes and find as many legends as possible that they haven't tackled yet. Take a half year off or something.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 18, 2007 01:36
|
|
|
Grandpa Pap posted:Throw zombies in there and I'm sold. You can see down by the Baby Gap there's a two week old zombie there. He looks ferocious but could be a great source of protein. When you're stuck in a second rate mall, trying to capture a zombie is a risk at best but there are precious few sources of food now that the Sbarro has been closed so I'll have to make do. ... Mmm, that's not half bad. Say's his name was Chuck.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2007 20:26
|
|
|
I was profoundly impressed at how functional their batcar was. Not just functional, but how successful they were at operating it. It was so beautiful how their grappling hook, the steel structure, and the little obstacle course worked for them. Obviously a failure because of the impossible instantaneous force on the line, but that they nailed the shot and careened into the fake wall had me really happy like any of their greatest build projects. Also, that cable ascender that Jamie fashioned was sexy. Almost as sexy as one with reverse gear.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2007 06:28
|
|
|
It was a mixed bag for me. I enjoyed the tire-air concept, which is one I've seen in movies a lot of times. The bullet slap was silly, took too much time, and probably one person in the world considers it possible. The speed test was the one that legitimately deserved a revisit so that was cool. And the rocket car was just something awesome so I didn't mind. The RFID one was a little silly, but demonstrating it was probably worth the small amount of screentime devoted to it. Also, I give them credit for implanting Kari with it. Above and beyond the call of duty.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 6, 2007 17:21
|
|
|
I think Mythbusters is a good show and has lots of geek appeal but Dirty Jobs has that American Chopperesque level of broad male demographic appeal and, I suspect, outperforms Mythbusters for views and advertising.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 11, 2007 18:00
|
|
|
The ending was a failure, but that was a beautiful explosion and the flaming carnage making a couple dozen yards off the ramp made for a wonderful replay. This was a pretty awesome episode in retrospect. The bus actually getting off the ground, the eerie dolphin simulator seeming to work, and Tori somehow staying upright to board behind the cruise ship. Oh, and spontaneous Scotty appearance!
|
|
#
¿
Nov 15, 2007 18:54
|
|
|
Butthole Prince posted:Is this "Everest" show worth watching, overall? I've seen it in the lineups a few times, but never really watched much of it. The whole Everest thing is pretty interesting to me, but from what I saw of the show, it seemed kind of drawn out and slow-paced. The first season snuck up on me and became incredibly interesting by the end. It was probably because it ended in such tragedy. Deaths, near universal frostbite and limb loss, failures to summit, hardship all the way. If it didn't have that kind of ending, I can't see how it would be quite as compelling. Unfortunately, it was kind of a perfect season so it's hard to get interested in a second season.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 27, 2007 02:00
|
|
|
I think you're right on target as far as the bulk of the draw for the shows. All my favorites have fantastic hosts and you'd have to wonder if simply finding talent and building shows around them might be a better choice than finding a schmoe to fit in "It's like preexisting show ___ but with ___". At the very least, Discovery should be thanking their lucky stars they landed Rowe, Adam and Jamie, Bear, Les, and (now that I think about it) Ben Bailey because I think they let their shows really get a draw and smooth out any rough patches early on as they got their footing.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 1, 2008 18:06
|
|
|
Smash Lab is what I imagine would come if Fox tried to make a show to compete with Mythbusters. It's amazing how wrongheaded it is. Their hosts are completely nondescript. Catching their first names is hard enough, but why are they hosts. If they're simply the next in line in the host pool (like Junkyard Wars), they better have charisma. If they're brought in as authorities, like Adam and Jamie, they better have some cachet for why they're there. These guys are "scientist", "engineer", and "smarty" but I've got a real feeling that they're "scientists" like Kynt and Vyxsin were "dating". At least throw up some bona fides or get some hosts that can hold my attention. I feel better listening to Tory and Kari about setups than these guys and it's about their charisma shining through the badly delivered banter. Second, the editing and camera work is pure Fox. They've got four minutes of footage and so they edit the gently caress out of it, showing it a dozen times, and try and stretch it. Rather than the Mythbuster's rather economical 1) one shot just up until the explosion before the commercial break 2) explosion 3) explosion normal slow speed 4) explosion on high speed camera, Smash Lab is loving over and over and over like a Zapruder film so I'm relieved when I finally see a result because it's been blue balled over and over that I don't appreciate what it is they're doing, I'm just happy its over and they can blue ball on the next setup. Also, Mythbusters tackled the rather sticky problem of how to dress up boring setups. The blueprint writing, silly animations, and rather exuberant hosts (I can't believe how lucky they were to land Adam right out of the gate) all make those sections of the show unmissable. Without it, you'd just tape Mythbusters and fast forward to the end. At least the journey is watchable. This show, they crowd around a laptop and watch the footage that just got played for us full screen. The camera is moving and focusing around them watching a video on a laptop, just filling time. They're "better" actors than the Mythbusters crew but not good actors, so watching they chew through their "smart banter" doesn't even have the fun-bad charm that the other show has, so it's like youtube-level of engaging science programming. And the final, and most unforgivable problem is the basic idea. Who is this show for? Mythbusters is engaging for the very reason that it was originally started to tackle myths and movie-tainted logic. It's the kind of thing anyone could possibly know and, after seeing it, anyone could put in their knowledge base and enjoy having seen an episode of. You could see a movie gunfight and  that guns don't really toss people around or regard a water heater as the sleeper cell amateur rocket that it really is.This show is about tackling things to make the world safer. Who is this show going to interest, NTSB nerds who are looking for inspiration to fill up the suggestion box? If the results of the first show weren't huge failures (and their level of conceptualizing and sanity checking their ideas was terrible) what do you walk away with? "Well, that's a neat idea. I wonder if anyone involved in highway median design is working on this?". How is a spectacular victory of an episode going to end? "We proved conclusively that this ___ stopped ___ right in its tracks. So...er...write your congressman and tell em you saw it work on the teevee". This show is for nobody and I'm wondering if the only thing of interest will be fast forwarding to whatever they're "smashing". Of course, they'd be competing with reruns of Fox's America's Smashiest Police Videos. I should also comment that this whole thing kind of made my head hurt. While the upright barrier idea was obviously going to be a failure on G forces (if you stop it in a few feet of material, the G forces will be huge obviously), at least it fit the premise of being a stopping material in a median. The second example had hundreds of feet of material, which last I checked a football field of space wasn't present in a highway median. The first round of tests couldn't have been more than 50-60° so there's no way they'd have that much runway. And their technical expert, off the cuff, told them exactly how wrongheaded they were. The whole thing is about PSI, which a huge plane supported by three small points differs greatly from a light car and four relatively huge tires. They also tested on small open aired cubes which will crush more easily because there's no pressure on the sides to keep them from flattening instead of crushing. What a horrible show and possibly Discovery's worst. Has there been a worse Discovery channel original show? Entertainment-wise or science-wise?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 17, 2008 10:38
|
|
|
Electric Hobo posted:The boat myth was kinda dumb, because they actually did that jump when filming the movie and set a world record (which someone may have already mentioned). Plus people jump boats off ramps all the time at stunt shows at such. I think they just really wanted an excuse to jump a boat. It was mainly to test the seaworthiness of a standard boat after such a jump. In the movie you can't be sure just how well the boats soldier on after they spash down, such as taking on water and whatever. The General Lee made many such jumps but it wasn't pretty driveable afterwards.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 19, 2008 20:56
|
|
|
Yeah, her haircut was strange when she had it pinned up haphazardly but she's often had wacky dye jobs and I thought it was a good length when she wore it normally. They're pretty far from myths but I must admit the craft behind their lead balloon was kind of neat. Watching it inflate was kind of suspenseful and seeing it carrying the tiny basket was a nice conclusion. The other myth was trash though despite explosives. This is probably my last episode of Smash Lab, but I'm sort of miffed that they had all the money to put together that air cannon when the other show has to cannibalize legendary devices like the Sharammer to make each new air cannon they need. I'm curious how boarding up a mobile home and wrapping in it burlap would do. Also, I'm more than a little pissed that they didn't at least provide a build material cost at the end of the show. If this is some sort of "solution", why wouldn't they at least talk about the practicality of it? Ah, who cares.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 24, 2008 09:01
|
|
|
McSpanky posted:Doesn't that blow the point of the experiment, if the plane doesn't remain stationary until liftoff thrust is achieved? It doesn't blow the point of the experiment, it blows the point of the premise. You can't test the concept at all because it has no rational basis. Tires are a convenience for planes, they can take off just as well with floating pontoons. The only way for the airplane to remain stationary on a conveyor belt is if the propeller is only producing as much thrust as there is rolling friction from the tires. And that's basically nothing, practically impossible to stay in that narrow range. The premise doesn't make any sense because what the tires do has no relation to what the plane is doing. If the idea is to test that forward motion isn't necessary for a plane to fly (which I think is the underlying idea behind the myth), then you're better off tethering the plane to something and not messing with complicated conveyor nonsense. Just run the engine balls out and see if a tethered plane will fly. The problem is that the myth approached the question of "will a plane with no forward momentum fly" by trying to make a plane taxi forever which isn't the way to counteract the reason planes move forward fast. The tires are just a convenience. A plane will move forward and fly even if it's metal to tarmac if there's enough thrust. Edit: ... and enough clearance for the wings for air to flow above and below them. Edit2: VendaGoat posted:Now my question is this, if there was a wind counteracting the thrust from the engine, the plane wouldn't move. Correct? If you mean the plane has a tailwind of say a 90mph or something? It might actually have sufficient lift from the airflow going the wrong direction over the wingshape to have lift before the engines even start. But as it starts taxiing closer to the speed of the wind blowing from the direction of its tail the airflow of its wings will start to get closer to zero and it fail to take off until it gets a groundspeed way higher than normal. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Jan 31, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2008 05:24
|
|
|
Elysium posted:The question is already dumb, we don't need people claiming that the question is defining the plane as stationary to make it even dumber. I mean really, the fact that a plane needs airspeed to take off is basically a fundamental truth. It's not something that needs to be tested, that's how flight works. But you said it yourself. How can a treadmill counteract airspeed? If a plane needs 25 mph of airspeed to takeoff, how fast does a treadmill have to go to counteract that? The answer is there is no answer unless you talk about some esoteric transferrence from the friction force of the extremely fast treadmill on the standing air. A treadmill counteracts groundspeed but doesn't do poo poo about airspeed. Airspeed is a measure of the speed of air and a treadmill can't replicate or negate any part of airspeed. It's the wrong tool for the job. The question is nonsensical because it creates an impossible situation of opposite directions of "speed": the treadmill in one and the plane in the other. You can do that with a car very easily, rev the car engine to 25mph and the conveyor to 25mph and you sit still. Like a dynamometer. But you can't do that with a plane because it's the wrong tool. You need a wind tunnel because the proper measure for a plane is airspeed. Planes can and do take off at zero groundspeed including those that are tethered down during hurricanes. They can also land safely at zero groundspeed. The entire premise is based off of those two incompatible things. Even the test pilot made the mistake that I propose the originator of the myth did, that you could somehow calibrate the throttle of a plane to the speed of a conveyor belt. But you can't do that.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2008 08:32
|
|
|
Elysium posted:You are presupposing that the answer is SUPPOSED to be yes. It's just a question. The answer to which is no. My point is the essential starting point of the myth is where is falls apart. It shows two arrows, one pointing along the treadmill and one pointing the opposite direction on the airplane. It's the essential incompatibility of the very myth. How can you setup the myth such that it starts with the arrow pointing along the plane? A plane's "arrow" is airflow and the treadmill is stationary. If a plane is stationary, such as being on a treadmill, its "arrow" is zero. You can't have a starting situation where a plane is on a treadmill with an "arrow" and have a comparable opposite arrow for the treadmill. The very definition of an airplane having an arrow means it isn't stationary (unless it's in a wind tunnel). You should read the topic on the Discovery boards. There is a substantial contingent who are somewhat angry that the pilot couldn't get his throttle right so that the myth could be properly tested. That's because the basic setup for the myth is impossible. Edit: My point being that a myth setup should allow for a yes or no answer. The basic component of the myth didn't allow for that and they had to do workarounds that twist the myth. Like starting the plane moving backwards on the truck-driven tarp and then throttling up. Or starting the plane by having Adam hold it. It's just because the base setup for the myth is kind of impossible. Edit: I'm in 100% agreement with you there. V V V V V V Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 15:44 on Jan 31, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Jan 31, 2008 15:22
|
|
|
n0n0 posted:If a planes wheels are good enough, if the bearings (or whatever) are all super slick and bitchin, and the runway "treadmill" were in perfect sync with the plane's engines, there would be no lift because the plane would still be stationary, moving forward at the same rate as the 'treadmill' moving backwards. You're wrong but I won't comment about Elysium's assholeness.  I'll give you two ways to understand why you're wrong. Imagine you're looking at a car on a treadmill. The guy in control of the treadmill isn't that hot so he takes a half second to adjust to the car's position. So the guy in the car guns his engine and moves a ways on the treadmill before the guy can catch up. But he does and by adjusting the speed of the treadmill he can move the car backwards, forwards, or stationary on a painted line as long as the car engine is providing rotation to its wheels. With a plane and the same low reaction time operator, he can never keep it under control. The airplane starts to get some thrust and moves on the treadmill. The operator then starts gunning the treadmill but it seems to have no appreciable effect on the forward motion of the plane. No matter how fast he goes, 1000mph or otherwise, the plane keeps on moving forward. The operator can never make the plane move backwards, forwards, or keep it stationary as long as the propellers are providing thrust. As a second reason to understand why this doesn't work, imagine a car jumps off a small ramp at 25 mph. Imagine a plane flies in with enough thrust to go at 25 mph. Beneath both is a long treadmill running the opposite direction at 50 mph. When you drop either vehicle on the long treadmill, the results are wildly different. The car is going to lose all kinds of traction on impact and then go flying backwards at 25 mph even while the engine continues providing gas. The plane will get a little tire screeching and then will continue to move forward at 25 mph while its little wheels spin like 75 mph madmen. And it'll keep on going forward. The treadmill can't be "in sync" with the plane's motion because you can't exert direct control over a plane in motion by adjusting the ground (removing rolling friction from the question). You can with a car but you can't with a plane. In practical application, the only way to keep a plane stationary while it has thrust is if the thrust is so small that it matches rolling friction. So, if a plane is stationary at 1% thrust on a rolling treadmill, will it take off? No. Will a plane on regular tarmac at 1% thrust take off? No. At the levels of thrust that a "stationary on a treadmill" plane would be at, flight isn't even a possibility.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2008 03:45
|
|
|
n0n0 posted:It is no different than a car. If a car were propelled by a rocket engine instead of four wheels, the same idea would apply. Man, you just don't see the distinction at all. I can't believe you think a rocket propelled car can be kept from motion by a treadmill. Do you think that rockets and airplanes have a different method of propulsion when they leave the ground? Do you think that when planes land that they are instantly stopped by the equivalent of a relative treadmill running opposite their flying speed? Okay, take airplane out of it entirely. You've got a jeep. Drive the jeep regularly. How fast does the treadmill have to go to counteract movement? Okay, now put the jeep in neutral and tie the winch on the bumper to a tree. How fast does the treadmill have to go to counteract the movement the winch would cause? Turn the winch on. How fast does the treadmill have to go to counteract this new forward movement? Edit: This is better, from the producer of the show. Dan Tapster posted:Dear all, Edit: n0n0 posted:I still maintain that I am correct. That with perfect synchronicity between the airplane's motor and the treadmill's motor, the airplane would neither move forward nor backward. It would also never fly. How fast does a treadmill have to go to counteract the speed of a guy riding a skateboard on it? Does it matter if it is going 1, 5, or 10 mph? Does it matter if it's going backwards? Think about that question and you should understand why it's different. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XQTTI0dr5So Oh great, you're going to wallow in your ignorance as soon as anyone challenges you to back up your assertions. Wonderful. Ape Agitator fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Feb 3, 2008 |
|
#
¿
Feb 3, 2008 06:30
|
|
|
Darth Freddy posted:To be fair at first I was one of those people who thought it would stand still. It took me a bit to figure out it was all about the propulsion from the props. Though I do agree a lot of bans were handed out the last time the topic got started I think at first blush it catches a lot of people, including me. That's presumably why the question was created in the first place, as some have suggested it's a trick question intended for teaching. The car scenario is a relationship between two things: the car and the treadmill. The grounded plane scenario is a relationship between three things: the plane, the treadmill, and the standing air. The treadmill cannot affect the interaction between the plane and the standing air which is precisely where the trick of the question comes in. It's why a car without wheels can't do anything but a plane without wheels can. It presupposes an impossible situation that only attentive students will catch. Most will accept the premise unquestioningly and dive into the meat of "will it fly" without figuring out that the entire premise is broken. I know I had to go so far as to think about how you'd practically setup an experiment before my lightbulb went on.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 4, 2008 02:38
|
|
|
Aparantly not so much. I missed the clip from the movie but did they blow a mannaquin up or a styofoam body? I seem to recall lots of styrofoam debris but I can't be sure.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2008 03:12
|
|
|
Hot drat, he's recreated Death Machine!
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2008 03:29
|
|
|
Hah, is that a pen in your pocket or do you carry your enormous penis on your chest? Also, I was dying during Grant's Tim Gunn impersonation.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 7, 2008 03:49
|
|
|
Yeah, but the mythbusters don't even try and hide their acting ability or the obviously scripted nature of their intros and science discussions. But I find their field reactions to be genuine and kind of fun most of the time. I think almost all of that is owing to their handcrafted and almost rube goldberg nature of some of their contraptions so that when it operates it has that feeling of accomplishment and joy. Not only does Smash Lab have that scripted feeling throughout, but their builds are all professional and polished so it feels like they're cheering inevitable results instead of "hot drat, our repurposed Sha-rammer into a giant air cannon actually worked and launched Buster like a cannon! Also, myth confirmed!". I think if the MB had the budget that SL seems to have, I don't think it would have anywhere near the charm. Have you seen that ridiculous air cannon SL has? Think of how often mythbusters have had to cannibalize previous rigs for some new need.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 21, 2008 18:05
|
|
|
If someone only has one show on the Discovery Channel to watch and only one episode, that episode of Smash Lab has to be it. It was hilarious from start to finish. Just when I thought they'd never top themselves they take it even further in the episode. First it's this whole idea that there's "huge risk, huge reward" like there are some huge venture capitalists or public safety officials who are in the dark about ways to help humanity until Smash Lab came on the air. Now they're all on the verge of their seat asking "oh, I hope their rocket braking system works. I can't wait to justify putting tons of explosive material on the roadways!" Then, they come up with three "designs". One is a gigantic braking pad intended to be rubbed against the ground using the force of rockets. Not only does such an idea murder ground clearance for any vehicle that has it but almost by design it removes front wheel steering from the equation which is a fine idea for a vehicle out of control. The second is to toss rockets on the wheels like a pinwheel which seems ridiculous and immediately made me conjure up ideas that the wheels would spin impotently under a massive inertial load. And then the more conventional forward facing rockets. In the biggest knock against any integrity the program might have had, the second option beats the pants off of the logical solution somehow and they discount it for being retarded anyway. Why run the test if you know it's dumb? Oh right, filling time. Finally, they get to a big test and run into the hilariously obvious conclusions of the problem. Wait... we need huge rear end rockets? Wait... those rockets are hilariously unstable and dangerous in all but the most controlled and professional situations? Wait... putting them in operation successfully is a ridiculous danger to the occupants as well as the other motorists? After the great spectacle of the failure, they don't even bother to test the merits of their rig to provide a counter force to a moving object. Just write it off with things that are plainly obvious to anyone who saw the intro for the show. And then they close the show saying "even though we don't have knowledge and understanding of these mysterious 'rockets' and they still are magical creatures to us, they're like totally cool and should still be considered for roadway safety in a future time where we can control these mythic beasts of burden. Totally." That was an amazing show.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 28, 2008 17:29
|
|
|
Noghri_ViR posted:I think you guys are being a little too hard on smashlab. I think it's supposed to be one of those shows where you just think up some crazy idea (ie rockets to stop a truck) and try it out. It doesn't matter if there's any practical every day application to the idea, the point is just to try it out and see if you can do it. I don't subscribe to that at all. The voice over for every episode is laden with suggestions that they're trying to improve humanity and if they get a working solution that someone will pick it up and develop it further. If they were really making something like a gorified explosion stunt show, they'd drop the artifice and open things up. As it is, it's bloated with self importance and retarded scenarios. Better to have a hillbilly jackass-esque crew who can blow poo poo up with a passion and have the balls to put rockets on a wheelchair just cause.
|
|
#
¿
Feb 29, 2008 01:41
|
|
|
ToastyPotato posted:I just had another weird idea It's not a bad idea. Discovery has been airing a show that's just two yahoos who they gave a high speed camera to. Instead of making it something big and meaningful, they do fun stupid poo poo like tossing water balloons at one another's faces or having a guy punch someone in the face. It's pure and far better a show in concept than Smash Lab. And it's pretty engaging when they point out stuff like how eyes go a little googly when you get hit. If Smash Lab dropped the pretentiousness and self-importance it'd be the first of many steps in the right direction. Dropping the idiotic self labeling and the conversationalized scripted discussions (which they don't have a fraction of the MB team's charisma to pull off entertainingly) would be the next step. I feel like hitting myself for watching them do something for 15 minutes just to go "well, we learned that free falling for 3/4rs of a building's height before slowing was scary" or "well, our boat delivery idea was impractical and unsafe as is our standard so all of that time was a waste".
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2008 07:16
|
|
|
IRQ posted:What show is this? Ah, found it. It's called Time Warp and I guess tonight was their permiere on Discovery. I think you can find video clips of it on Discovery's video site.
|
|
#
¿
Mar 21, 2008 08:57
|
|
|
This episode has already been pretty entertaining. A great visual explosion and Jamie saying "and there's a yeti" matter of factly.
|
|
#
¿
Apr 24, 2008 02:49
|
|
|
IRQ posted:Ok, Man v. Wild is about 1000% more disgusting in HD. But hey new episodes! Seriously, that one gigantic grub is probably the closest I've been to losing my lunch watching this show.
|
|
#
¿
May 3, 2008 08:05
|
|
|
For those curious about The Alaska Experiment, it seems Discovery is running a marathon of it tonight starting at 8/7c. Perfect time to get it all at once.
|
|
#
¿
May 22, 2008 13:20
|
|
|
Martytoof posted:Am I the only person alive who has absolutely zero interest in sharks? You also hate christmas and kittens too, right? It was entertaining to see a TDK audience cheer when the shark week promo came on in the theater.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 24, 2008 01:30
|
|
|
AFewBricksShy posted:Mythbusters is doing the Moon Landing hoaxes tonight. This episode was enormously entertaining. I still get a bit of a chubby from space stuff so I felt my geekiness rising throughout. You're all, however, perfectly correct that the  s will simply cite this episode as the proof that it was faked. But in doing so they'll at least have to abandon their "Hollywood Set" nonsense and wrap their brains around a flying 1000SqFt warehouse doing parabolas in the air.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 28, 2008 07:02
|
|
|
I think that shot of a Tesla Coil directly arcing from a glowing red water stream into a (ballistic gel) human body is one of my life's dreams fulfilled. I need an HD screencap of that.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 18, 2008 07:02
|
|
|
Bear is not Wolverine.  http://tv.yahoo.com/contributor/2278195/news/urn:newsml:tv.ap.org:20081207:tv_bear_grylls_injured__ER:55056 quote:Discovery Channel says Bear Grylls, rugged adventurer and star of its popular "Man vs. Wild" series, has been injured during an expedition in Antarctica.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2008 15:19
|
|
|
As silly as the general idea of the most recent Mythbusters was I have to admit they made for some out of control visuals. As mentioned, a rocket powered sword is amazing and while I thought the car initially vaporized the carcasses at either side were nearly perfect. Also, halfway through the repeated slow motion replays I realized that the concrete barrier behind it evaporated and that the sled itself exploded. That blew my mind.
|
|
#
¿
Nov 25, 2009 16:36
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 21, 2024 09:25 |
|
|
Overbite posted:That prison break was disappointing Seriously, I wanted them to build a second cell without a door at all, just six solid cinder block sides and a tube to toss water into a plastic enclosure of antacid and then have one of the walls bust out like when they recreated the safe explosion from The Score.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 3, 2009 04:20
|
|