• Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
    If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Mythbusters 12/15: Green Hornet Special

Christopher

Writer
Admiral
Well, as if we didn't already know it from the thinly veiled car commercials featuring Kari, Grant, and Tory, it seems the Mythbusters have sold out. Instead of busting myths from old, familiar movies, they're testing scenes from the upcoming Green Hornet film, with the movie's lead Seth Rogen making a guest appearance on the show. Basically this episode is an hourlong promo for the movie. Will it be worthwhile? We'll know soon.

I wonder how this happened. Does the movie have any production entities in common with Mythbusters or the Discovery Channel? Or did the marketing department for the movie think that its target demographic overlapped strongly with the Mythbusters demographic? Or is this Rogen guy just a really big fan of the show?

I guess it's kind of brave for a movie to be willing to have its action scenes pre-busted (assuming that they are busted, which seems likely; the clips I've seen for the GH film don't suggest a high level of realism).
 
Well, they've been "sold out" for a while now but it does seem lately they're worse about it. I do enjoy the Kari/Grant/Tori commercials but, yeah, this is a bit silly but should still be fun.

It's worth noting, though, that a couple seasons ago the Mythbusters did a couple pirate specials that conincided with the release of the POTC sequels. But this is a bit more blatant, but might be fun. The Stormchasers episode from a couple of weeks ago was a lot more shameless promotion and didn't even have much veil of a "myth" in it.
 
I really wish they had tried to build, as best as they could, a replica of the Black Beauty by hiding the missiles and rail-guns in the bumpers and fenders and such.

Other things of note:

Grant would make a good Kato.

I really think Kari's looking damn fit and damn hot.
 
Well, I'll say this: the Black Beauty is a really cool car (though I personally prefer the less weapon-laden original), so I don't mind an episode focusing on it -- although I think it's a shame that the movie apparently subjects the car to such ongoing abuse. And I guess that Rogen fellow wasn't as annoying as I feared he might be, for the most part (though I got sick of him saying "me and Kato" rather than "Kato and I"), and was even somewhat funny at some points.

As for the myths:

Buried car/bulldozer: This is one of those things where, after I see the results, I realize I should've been able to predict them just by thinking about the physics. Of course I should've known the explosion would just blow out the dirt around and beneath the bulldozer rather than blowing it up and away. After all, this isn't a cannon here. The dirt around the explosive is a lot less solid than the dozer, so it's going to be displaced more, rather than containing the explosion and directing it upward.

By the same token, I should've realized that the occupants of the car would be toast. Well, I mean, I knew there was zero chance of their survival, because of the overpressure; even if the armor had protected them from heat and shrapnel or whatever, the air around them would've still transmitted the intense pressure wave which would be fatal by itself. But I hadn't anticipated just how thoroughly the car would be shredded. But that stands to reason too now that I think about the physics. Again, as Jamie said, an explosion follows the path of least resistance. The blast was surrounded by dirt on all sides -- except for the air pocket inside the car. So it follows that most of the force of the explosion would be concentrated into that open space, so thus the car and its occupants would've suffered the worst damage.

As for sending a bulldozer flying with explosives, I can see why that's hard to calibrate. Jamie's right -- maybe you could do it with just the right parameters, but as a rule, explosives aren't the best way to move things around. It's kind of surprising that even Frank Doyle's experienced team, choosing the yield and configuration of the explosives very carefully, still got such drastically different results from what they were aiming for, but I guess it goes to show how exacting a science demolition is -- even a slight error or uncertainty can make a huge difference.

Anyway, that blasting range is starting to look pretty familiar to me after all the times it's been used on the show. There was this tree on the other side of the pond from the blast site that got hit by a piece of the dozer -- it was on the right side of the screen in a couple of shots -- and I have a suspicion I've seen that same tree get hit by debris from exploding trucks before. I feel sorry for it.

One thing I'll give Mr. Rogen -- he showed good insight when he said that the smaller amount of fire in a real explosion as compared to a Hollywood explosion meant it was actually more destructive. Although I guess he could've just been using irony.

And I guess it's cool that he actually took the time to participate in the myth rather than just doing a brief intro. I wish President Obama could've done that last week, though it's obvious why he couldn't spare the time.


Car cut in half: Okay, I guess Rogen couldn't spare enough time to participate fully in two myths, since he was just in the intro sequences here. Anyway, this stunt was obviously fake just from looking at it, the way the car in the film instantly splits in two the second it hits the roof. The shot wasn't remotely convincing. So the interest wasn't in knowing whether it was busted, but in learning the specifics of how it would fail.

Again, I should've anticipated that the car would've been crushed and tilted back like that, since there was nothing to hold the front end down. Most likely, the occupants would've been trapped inside if not crushed themselves.

And I definitely didn't know enough about cars to know why it would fail if the car were cut in half. I am aware that the gas tank is in the back, and to be honest, it never would've occurred to me that residual fuel in the lines and engine might be a factor. But there's so much else there I didn't know about. The brakes not working? Why? Cars have front brakes, don't they? But did the brake fluid leak out when the car was cut? And what's this about starter fluid? What is it, and why does spraying it into a carburetor make the car start? And if it's needed to make the car start, why isn't the supply entirely in the front half of the car?

The front half of a car being able to drive if you rig it with a fuel tank and stuff doesn't surprise me too much; somehow it seems I've seen it done before. I'm probably thinking of something from a movie, but it would be something where they rigged up a half-car to actually drive, like the gang did here.

Where Rogen became annoying to me was when he kept insisting that Kato had miraculously known this was going to happen and rigged the car accordingly. The first one or two times, as a joke, were fine, but the way he kept clinging to it got quickly tedious, especially when he forced the gang to call it "plausible" when it should have been completely busted. After all, the movie itself doesn't mention a "car zipper" or a special fuel tank, so those claims shouldn't be accepted for the purposes of evaluating the myth.

Kari's t-shirt in the racetrack segment gave me pause (and not for the usual reason that looking at Kari in a t-shirt gives me pause). How do you pronounce that? "I atom science?"


Grant would make a good Kato.

Well, he kinda looks the part, and he has the tech savvy, but the guy's not exactly a super-tough martial artist. He's pretty much the least physically robust one of the whole group. If he had to, say, kick down a door, he'd build a door-kicking robot.
 
And I definitely didn't know enough about cars to know why it would fail if the car were cut in half. I am aware that the gas tank is in the back, and to be honest, it never would've occurred to me that residual fuel in the lines and engine might be a factor. But there's so much else there I didn't know about. The brakes not working? Why? Cars have front brakes, don't they? But did the brake fluid leak out when the car was cut? And what's this about starter fluid? What is it, and why does spraying it into a carburetor make the car start? And if it's needed to make the car start, why isn't the supply entirely in the front half of the car?

Starter fluid is a butane, or other fuel, based product that you spray into a car's carburettor it sort of "gets things going" by giving the engine something to burn at which point when the engine gets going the fuel pump again does all of the work. I don't think the stuff can really be used at all in modern-day fuel-injected cars but it is widely used for things like lawn-mowers and kick-start motorcycles. It's not "needed" to get an engine to start but it can help a stubborn engine to start.

As for the brakes not working, yeah, I suspect the brake-fluid leaked out of the lines when the car was cut or even any tension in the cables was lost when the car was cut (as would be the case for the e-brake.)

I'm surprised how much the car "ran" without the gas-tank.

As for Rogen, I've always sort-of liked him and thought he did well here with the Guys. His stuff about "Well Kato did this..." didn't bother me too much as I think that's pretty much the "gag" of The Green Hornet, that Kato is the brains and has the "power" to "just happen to have" pre-planned an out for every situation. I think Rogen was playing half "himself" and half The Green Hornet here. So the Kato stuff is really, how I read it, much like how Batman just happens to have on him whatever Bat-Gadget he needs to finish a mission even though it makes no sense for him to have that gadget to begin with.

Fun episode, fun myths, but light on substance. They need to get back to some basics on the show because episodes like this one and the previously mentioned Storm Chasers one aren't really doing well for me.

The explosion blowing up the bulldozer rather than pushing it away? This just makes me think of the whole "path of least resistance" thing. Sort of how the Hollywood Explosion of tossing our hero out of the way doesn't happen in real life where it just consumes the hero. A lot of variables changes when you go from their tiny explosion and a 150# bulldozer to a 200# of explosive and a several ton bulldozer.

An explosion is far more likely to consume, trash and tear than it is to "push." Because what would there to be to "push" the bulldozer? Air, the plasma/vapor of the explosion and dirt. None of that I see as being strong enough or robust enough to push a giant block of steel.
 
Last edited:
So the Kato stuff is really, how I read it, much like how Batman just happens to have on him whatever Bat-Gadget he needs to finish a mission even though it makes no sense for him to have that gadget to begin with.

I'm getting a bit off-topic here, but that's what bothers me about this movie, the way it's taking a comedy approach to the character. Most people know the '60s Green Hornet and Kato only from their guest appearance on Batman, but the fact is, even though The Green Hornet was from the same producers as Batman, it was played straight, not for comedy. It had its fanciful aspects such as the GH's high-tech gear, and was cheesy in some ways by today's standards, but it was a relatively serious crime drama by the standards of its time. That's what made it distinct from Batman and what makes it interesting to me. So it's a shame to see that lost in a modern interpretation.

And yeah, I know what Rogen was going for, but I felt he took the joke too far and I found his delivery obnoxious. If he'd made the joke at first and then said "Yeah, just kidding, you guys are right, it's busted," that would've been fine. But he clung to it and pressured the gang into a totally bogus "Plausible" verdict, and even if that was meant as a joke, it was an obnoxiously delivered joke. I don't find it amusing to watch people stubbornly refusing to admit the truth. I get enough of that on the Internet.
 
They should have rigged up a sign that read "PLAUSIBLE" with the quotation marks that could have kept the joke but not "sold out".

Of course, the Green Hornet has special missiles of "Hornetium" so the bulldozer thing might have worked. :)


The front half of a car being able to drive if you rig it with a fuel tank and stuff doesn't surprise me too much; somehow it seems I've seen it done before. I'm probably thinking of something from a movie, but it would be something where they rigged up a half-car to actually drive, like the gang did here.

Are you remembering this perhaps?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvQK4TqkeRM[/yt]

BTW, I never noticed before the really obvious dummy in the stunt where Bond jumps through the roof. :lol:
 
It's bad enough this farce of a movie had to destroy most of the remaining '64 Imperials during its pointless production, but why did the mythbusters have to destroy MORE for this pointless episode? :mad:!

Car collectors are crying.
 
Of course, the Green Hornet has special missiles of "Hornetium" so the bulldozer thing might have worked. :)

An explosive that somehow changes the laws of physics so that it doesn't propagate most of its force through a convenient air pocket? I don't think so. Explosive formulae change, but physical law is constant.



Are you remembering this perhaps?
[yt]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvQK4TqkeRM[/yt]

At most subliminally, if at all. I think I've seen that movie once, but the sequence in that clip was neither familiar nor entertaining to me (pretty weak music for a Bond film, and amateurish pacing).

No, wait a minute, it says "New music" in the clip heading. No wonder the music's so lame. Come to think of it, I recently saw an online clip from Goldfinger that had weak, anachronistic music, and I figured it must've been overdubbed. Is this a pattern? Is there some legal reason why the original music can't be used in clips from Bond movies?


It's bad enough this farce of a movie had to destroy most of the remaining '64 Imperials during its pointless production, but why did the mythbusters have to destroy MORE for this pointless episode? :mad:!

Car collectors are crying.

I had been wondering about that -- what happens when the supply of classic cars of a certain type runs out? It's something I've often wondered about the '69 Dodge Charger vis-a-vis The Dukes of Hazzard (and I bet you never thought you'd see "vis-a-vis" and "The Dukes of Hazzard" in the same sentence). But I gather that in Dukes, after a while they stopped using actual Chargers and instead mocked up stunt cars with replica Charger bodies on more modern chassis. Maybe they did the same in the movie. After all, it seems that would be cheaper than obtaining more copies of the real thing, if the '64 Imperial is as rare as you say. And it makes sense for stunt cars that wouldn't be seen clearly in the film or that had to do things the Imperial wasn't designed for (like have front-wheel drive). The Mythbusters got a modern front-wheel-drive car rather than trying to retrofit an Imperial for front-wheel drive (which seems like it'd be a pretty difficult thing to do), so I'd be very surprised if the filmmakers didn't do the same.
 
The number of Chargers used in the Dukes of Hazzard varies but 240 seems to be the typical number. Each car was good for one or two jumps and there were also one or two "Hero Cars" used mostly for scenes with them getting in and out of it and just simply driving (i.e. they never made a jump) as well as the passenger-compartment on the gimble for the cockpit insert shots.

They also used Chargers from the neighboring model years to the '69 The General was supposed to be the cars were simply modified to look like the the '69.

Each car was good for, maybe, two jumps and this was after the cars being a bit modified to survive to jump as much as possible. By the end of production the popularity of the series had made the cars harder to find, harder to find at a cheap price and the cost of retrofitting the cars, repairing them and such became too much and they resorted to re-using footage and even using models to do the stunts.

Each episode went through one or two cars.

Keep in mind when the series was being made in 70s and 80s the '69 Charger was still a, fairly, "new" car and probably pretty easy to get a hold of at a cheap price for a TV series' budget so it's not like they are today and were a rare, hard-to-find item. For the movie (the theatrical one) I think a further three Chargers were used up for the stunts (again there was still a "hero car".)

As much as love the Charger and hate to hear so many were destroyed because of the series I only love them because of the series. In the end these are just cars and those Chargers that were destroyed may have been destined for a scarp-heap anyway if they hadn't been made so popular by the series. Same could be said for the Imperials used in the movie and this episode we've no idea where they came from but it's possible they were destined for the metal dogpile one way or another. All of this talk reminds me of the fan griping over the mid-80s Corvette that was "destroyed" in the first season's smelly car episode.

It's a hunk of metal and plastic, not something to be mourn over when it gets destroyed. It was going to get there one way or another. Yes, it's sad for the more classic and rarer cars but, still, it's a car.
 
Anyway, now I'm wondering just how difficult it would be to convert a rear-wheel-drive car to front-wheel (or four-wheel) drive. What specifically would it entail? How drastic a modification would it require?
 
Anyway, now I'm wondering just how difficult it would be to convert a rear-wheel-drive car to front-wheel (or four-wheel) drive. What specifically would it entail? How drastic a modification would it require?

It'd need to be a small engine (or wide car) to allow you to turn the engine sideways to connect the transmission to the front wheel (and this would probably take a different transmission to pull off) and then some rigging of the front drive system to connect the transmission to both the front wheels to it otherwise it'd just be one wheel which I suspect would cause some interesting driving characteristics.

Really, it's probably be easier to remove the engine and transmission from the car and put in a front-wheel-drive engine/transmission from a donor car.
 
Really, it's probably be easier to remove the engine and transmission from the car and put in a front-wheel-drive engine/transmission from a donor car.

I figured it was something like that. At least it's not as drastic as putting a '64 Imperial body on an entirely different chassis.

I suppose that Kato in the movie probably did just what you say in order to soup up the car. But that raises the question of why, in-universe, he'd choose to base his supercar on a '64 Imperial rather than a more modern automobile.

Actually, according to Wikipedia, the '66 TV show used two 1966 Imperial Crown sedans (they didn't actually bear the Chrysler name in that decade) as the Black Beauty, while the movie used a mix of '64, '65, and '66 sedans which were all customized to resemble (though not exactly duplicate) the Dean Jeffries original. I would assume that the BB used by Adam and Jamie in the car burial segment was one of the leftover cars from the film, since it looked better than the "Black Hoopty" (huh?) that Kari, Grant, and Tory mocked up.


Okay, now I want to see an episode of myths built around the George Barris Batmobile, so they can build a replica of it. Like, can you really make an emergency Bat-turn at high speed with the assistance of drag chutes?
 
Okay, now I want to see an episode of myths built around the George Barris Batmobile, so they can build a replica of it. Like, can you really make an emergency Bat-turn at high speed with the assistance of drag chutes?

Do NOT give them any ideas!!! :lol:
 
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!

Sign up / Register


Back
Top