It seems that traditional television has, since recently, been seeing YouTube as a pool of footage of all kinds of variety... and ostensibly free of charge, since most footage is created by proverbial nobodies that could use any kind of exposure. So how difficult it is for a TV network such as Discovery Channel to create a show out of a couple of YouTube clips?
Not too difficult, as "Outrageous Acts of Science" clearly demonstrates. Take a couple of stunts done by ordinary people, add in a couple of "extraordinary" commentators and ta-daaa: you get a show! That's what it's all about here. This show does nothing more than what you've already done yourself numerous times, if you have a taste in searching for filmed efforts popularly known as either "epic win" or "epic fail" on YouTube. The only difference is that there are now a couple of scientists and engineers trying to give a meaningful insight in what has just transpired on screen. Unfortunately, they're only pretending as there is really nothing profound for them to say. When people fall flat on their faces after trying a stupid stunt you don't need someone with PhD to tell you that gravity had some role in it. Or angular momentum, or hydraulic pressure. Well, occasionally some interesting and useful information does pop up, but science of most of achievements and failures shown is pretty basic, so guest commentators serve mostly as the filler. And I'm not too sure about their credentials either. Quick search on the Internet does confirm that they're the real deal, formally at least. But I get the impression that they are more interested in whoring themselves out in front of the camera than actually contributing to science. Some of them seem to try to give educated opinions outside of their designated area of expertise. Does a robotic engineer really have to spread wisdom on psychological issues, for instance? How hard it is to call in an actual psychologist?
As expected, given the nature of YouTube, many clips are in pretty low quality and in the Golden Age of television such material would be shunned as garbage, but nowadays anything goes. As it appears, various Internet services drive new nails in the coffin of traditional television every day, and "Outrageous Acts of Science" marks an attempt to harness the new medium and stay in touch with the times. The result comes off quite trivial and cheap on every level. The best way to evaluate it, though, is in the context of it being shown on Discovery Channel which boasts quality and scientific approach. Is it a legitimate TV show? Yes, but it would serve better as a YouTube compilation. Is science in it relevant? No. Was it necessary to do it? No.
Trust me - it's a sham and it will make you bored in no time. You're better off just entering "epic fail" or "epic win" in YouTube search.
Not too difficult, as "Outrageous Acts of Science" clearly demonstrates. Take a couple of stunts done by ordinary people, add in a couple of "extraordinary" commentators and ta-daaa: you get a show! That's what it's all about here. This show does nothing more than what you've already done yourself numerous times, if you have a taste in searching for filmed efforts popularly known as either "epic win" or "epic fail" on YouTube. The only difference is that there are now a couple of scientists and engineers trying to give a meaningful insight in what has just transpired on screen. Unfortunately, they're only pretending as there is really nothing profound for them to say. When people fall flat on their faces after trying a stupid stunt you don't need someone with PhD to tell you that gravity had some role in it. Or angular momentum, or hydraulic pressure. Well, occasionally some interesting and useful information does pop up, but science of most of achievements and failures shown is pretty basic, so guest commentators serve mostly as the filler. And I'm not too sure about their credentials either. Quick search on the Internet does confirm that they're the real deal, formally at least. But I get the impression that they are more interested in whoring themselves out in front of the camera than actually contributing to science. Some of them seem to try to give educated opinions outside of their designated area of expertise. Does a robotic engineer really have to spread wisdom on psychological issues, for instance? How hard it is to call in an actual psychologist?
As expected, given the nature of YouTube, many clips are in pretty low quality and in the Golden Age of television such material would be shunned as garbage, but nowadays anything goes. As it appears, various Internet services drive new nails in the coffin of traditional television every day, and "Outrageous Acts of Science" marks an attempt to harness the new medium and stay in touch with the times. The result comes off quite trivial and cheap on every level. The best way to evaluate it, though, is in the context of it being shown on Discovery Channel which boasts quality and scientific approach. Is it a legitimate TV show? Yes, but it would serve better as a YouTube compilation. Is science in it relevant? No. Was it necessary to do it? No.
Trust me - it's a sham and it will make you bored in no time. You're better off just entering "epic fail" or "epic win" in YouTube search.