Ah, I see. And did they participate in that, because I know Grant did?
Tory: Yes, Jamie had a robot called Blendo. I was at one of the fights and it tore another robot apart. After its first battle they had to pull it out of the competition because it was too dangerous.
That was sort of an apt precursor for the show, this combination of technical elegance and naked aggression.
Grant: Yes, you might say that! His robot was one of the most fearsome competitors there. The idea of making something that dangerous is something that continues on with the show today. It’s not what the show is all about: the basis of the show is science and using your skills to solve problems and figure things out, but the explosive force with which his robot executed things is also reflected today.
Boy, it sure is, and you guys seem gleeful about blowing things up – the more extreme the better. I assume that enthusiasm is real because it sure comes off that way.
Kari: Oh yeah, it’s a good job. Who wouldn’t be excited to do this every day?
Tory: People ask, “Do you ever get tired of the explosions?” I don’t care how many explosions I see, even if it’s a small one, when there is something blowing up I’m as happy as can be.
Kari: Would you ask an astronaut, “Is it getting boring going to the moon?” I don’t think so!
No way – you’re right! You guys are at the very top of the pyramid of all the people in the world who love to blow things up because you get to do it for a living and people watch you!
What is the single most surprising/shocking result you’ve found?
Kari: The bull in the china shop episode was pretty counter-intuitive. This started as a gag for us at the end of red-flag-to-a-bull myth. We were going to create a little china shop and let a bull loose and watch him knock everything down and break everything. But the bull danced around with such grace and agility that it didn’t knock over one thing.
So we proceeded to use two bulls. They chased each other around all of the shelves with elegance and they didn’t knock anything over. We got up to five bulls running around in this tiny little pen and they weren’t breaking anything – so we "busted" bull in a china shop.
Article comments
1 - Dawn
Awesome interview with a group of really cool cats! It's great to have a show which uses real science, stunts and creativity to entertain. Our kids have learned more about the nature of the world around them on this show, than a year's worth of science class.
2 - Mark Saleski
did you guys know what kari byron was their second choice? they wanted lindsey lohan but she was too broken up to work after reading some nasty article written about her on the internet. ;-)
p.s. great interview. love this show. they make me jealous, havin' way too much fun at work dammit!
3 - Eric Olsen
thanks Dawn and Mark - it was a blast talking with them, super nice and interesting!
4 - John Bantayan
As what I have read on other comments it is clearly stated that a lot of people like this show and I believe I am one of them.
5 - littlejohn
I wish the subject of religion had come up. Jamie and Adam are prominent outspoken atheists. I wonder if the other three share that view. I also wish they the guts to test religious myths, such as the efficacy of prayer. It would be an easy experiment.
6 - slydog66
UGH! I'm so JEALOUS! Seriously, I'm a huge fan of the show... I wish them all continued success.
To "littlejohn"... I agree, but being that it's a family show, they'll never be allowed to tackle religion. Too controversial.
7 - Eric Olsen
thanks guys, I hadn't thought about the religious angle - not sure how you would "scientifically test" elements of religion, as I would think it lies outside the realm of empirical cause and effect. It would be fun to see some smiting, though!
8 - Eric Olsen
they were all really funny and friendly - one of my favorite interviews ever!
9 - ballson
Rigorous experimentation? Scientific analysis? Come on Eric.. MythBusters is great, but let's be honest: it certainly doesn't fall under either of those two categories.
10 - Dr Dreadful
Why not? Building (for example) various designs for a leather cannon and loading them with explosive charges and cannonballs to see if they work qualifies as rigorous. And devising (for example) multiple experiments to test whether an empty beer bottle is more lethal than a full one is analytical, and certainly in the spirit of scientific inquiry.
Mythbusters is tongue in cheek, yes, and you can't really present the scientific method in full in a one-hour show. But it has more scientific integrity than 99% of everything else on TV.
11 - Eric Olsen
I agree DD, they clearly take the scientific aspects very seriously and it's important to them that this be recognized
12 - Erhan Ozkan
I like the show very much. I think it is a great show but I wonder how they will or will they get into the religious matters.
13 - Eric Olsen
hey, don't forget MythBusters marathon this Sunday from 9am to 3am, with the "MacGyver Myths" ep airing at 10pm - I love that one!
14 - Phillip Winn
THough the three mythketeers may be able to keep their anger and frustration off the show via editing, Adam and Jamie sure got into it on the episode in which they attempt to salvage a boat using ping-pong balls. Lots of bleeping!
15 - Eric Olsen
they show a wider range of emotion, shall we say
16 - Jamie Teachey
In the first few seasons, the producers encouraged more antagonistic behaviour, and we saw more anger and frustration on the show. This kind of contrived drama and tension is very popular in reality TV. But clearly the cast wasn't comfortable with it, and thankfully that aspect of the show went away.