» » Science of Stupid

Short summary

Host Richard Hammond, from the hit series Top Gear, explains the science behind videos taken from the Internet.

Show originally hosted my Richard Hammond. Show now being remade, practically word for word, with the same clips, by Seth Herzog.

User reviews

  • comment
    • Author: Goltizuru
    IT is disgusting what the formerly educational/science channels have fallen to. This is not just like the show Jacka** is far WORSE. The cast/producers of the MTV show had a hard and fast rule. NO user submissions would ever be shown on the air. None would even be watched so there was nothing to be gained by doing dangerous stunts. The Science of Stupid, or shows like Outrageous Acts of Science on The Science Channel, of course SAY "Don't try this at home." but the announcer may as well be winking while saying it, and follow it up with "But if you may just see yourself on this show some day!" So unlike MTV, these channels are encouraging stupid kids (who generally need no additional encouragement to be idiots) to endanger their lives with the hopes of getting their 15 minutes of fame. Totally irresponsible.
  • comment
    • Author: Wishamac
    I watched a few episodes and suddenly got very, very bored. All it is is a lot of readily accessible YouTube clips strung together with lame commentary. You get the same thing without the intrusion if you look for "December Failures" videos or the like.
  • comment
    • Author: Dagdage
    The title is witty and Richard Hammond, the host, is much better than his usual self. Unlike in "Total Wipeout", which he actually managed to ruin with his negative and non-sequitur remarks, and in "Top Gear" where he plays just a third fiddle to May and Hammond, in "Science of Stupid" he finds just the right measure of dark humour and restraint in delivery, thus making it barely work. The funniest thing about him still is his hair, though. Sorry, Dick, keep trying, you'll get there.

    So, the title and the host make the show watchable. Other than that, nothing sets it apart from hugely annoying American counterpart "Outrageous Acts of Science", shown on Discovery. It's still just a collection of YouTube clips showing stupid stunts by people who, for no discernible reason, abandon safety and common sense. The clips are still accompanied by scientific explanation of what went wrong. And the explanations are still mostly oversimplifying, unnecessary, sometimes completely off the ball or wrong, and only occasionally useful and insightful.

    And, like in the aforementioned rival show, the word "science" is smugly overused to the point of it losing its true meaning and becoming annoying. It's been repeatedly said in the show that the participants are "ignoring Science" (!), and that the "Science is punishing them for that" (!!!). The authors of the show need to be informed that science is a discipline of systematically collecting, classifying and analyzing observable data. It's not necessary to apply science all the time. You don't need science to realize that a jump from a high place could hurt you badly. So, no, the stupid people in the show don't ignore science, they ignore simple common sense, which apparently, as the saying goes, "isn't that common". And science isn't punishing anybody. You might say that it's the Nature that is punishing them. It might be a bit overly poetic way to put it, but it's certainly better than making the science "a bad guy".
  • comment
    • Author: Auridora
    Well, I am really tired of these "funny" videos shown everywhere BUT this makes sense because they tell why these odd things happen. So they teach people in a good manner to really understand why not to do something stupid. This also teaches you how to do it right, if you really want to learn something. Moreover I'm sure that masses of people, who are not interested in science, are watching this because of the host and even if they do not follow every scientific nuance, they unconsciously receive important information which you need to survive well. And when there is the one and only Richard Hammond, people do watch this.
  • comment
    • Author: TheMoonix
    In The Science of Stupid Richard Hammond presents the viewer with a series of clips of unfortunate accidents, explaining the physics behind such calamities and how the victims could successfully perform the stunts (had they not failed). Much of the humour in the programme comes from amateur slapstick in the unfortunate events themselves alongside Hammond's jokey commentary on the plight of the 'stupid' casualties. The show follows the well-established formula of candid slapstick television, with the amateur clips of fails and prat-falls described by Richard Hammond's familiar voice-over, where it departs from the usual formula however is that it provides the scientific and mechanical explanations as to what is happening in each clip. The editing and style of the show is consistent and refined given the shaky, amateur nature of the clips used. The illustrations given describing the physics behind the clips are simple and highly effective given the complex variables involved. The slapstick aspects and schadenfreude will appeal to fans of the genre, but for casual viewers may often be too graphic to be found amusing. Expect motorbike crashes, water sport collisions and probable broken bones in the clips presented throughout the show.

    The scientific aspect of the show is both its strength and its weakness, remaining interesting and consistently informative throughout each episode's run, though confusing and at times inappropriate with the context of the sometimes serious accidents being shown. In terms of the science itself, I enjoyed the explanation of the physics behind 'cat-jumping' in episode nine, one of many informative and interesting segments in that episode. At times, the science offered, and light commentary do not seem to marry well with the clips illustrating the 'stupid' aspects of the accidents. I found the sometimes graphic accidents to be gratuitously violent and most of the time not funny enough to justify the jovial commentary that the presenter gave. The scenes which were less dangerous for the people involved, seemed the most funny and at points worked well with the light-hearted facts offered up by the presenter. For the majority of the run time however, the commentary seemed unsuitable and too jovial for the graphic clips being shown. Accidents involving high speed vehicles and high falls in particular were too shocking to fit the light nature of Hammond's jokes and observations. The physics and mechanical illustrations offered make for a more informative and less 'stupid' amateur slapstick programme than the genre's usual offerings, though shocking footage and an uneven tone let the programme down, due to the harsh nature of the clips shown. Fans of the genre will enjoy this, and the science given makes a welcome addition, though for casual viewers, the 'science' and the 'stupid' will not always go hand in hand.
  • comment
    • Author: Grokinos
    17:56 minutes of facts you would of never considered before: for instance, what is the perfect jump?

    In first view, one would think it is a bit pointless watching this, it is not something important or a programme from which I can gain something out of. However, one has to consider how unique and truly pioneering it is, how much general knowledge you obtain. Might be called stupid - but the name does not repel me at all. I find it all the most interesting, entertaining, and approaches all types of audiences.

    Very good indeed.
  • comment
    • Author: Venemarr
    'Science of Stupid' is a show you haven't seen before and more than that, one that you cannot forget. Funny, well structured, clever (despite of its title) are the perfect words - or keywords, if you wish - to describe this show.

    Richard Hammond's previous experience speaks for itself not only because he does a great job as a host, but also because of his way of interacting with the viewer. However, it is not only him who makes 'Science of Stupid' entertaining but also the concept behind it, along with the screenplay, which all of them combined give the show a touch of fun.

    Since the very first episode you are familiarized with what the concept tries and succeeds to show: the science behind wrong moves. Some might find the failures quite brutal while others just as fun as watching fail videos on Youtube. Nonetheless, we've all done stupid things without knowing what made them stupid and for this reason only, 'Science of Stupid' is the answer to everything. The visual effects and cinematography whenever a stunt is shown help you better understand the physics behind every move, warning at the same time future contenders for the Darwin Awards reconsider their decisions.
  • comment
    • Author: Dreladred
    It was indeed stupid.

    Check! There certainly was science. Check! Seemed lacking in fiction Check! So Stupid Science. Check! I found the stupidity in no way diminished the science.

    Richards hair seemed nice.

    Seemed a likable chap.

    Well enough dressed.

    Reasonable persona.

    Just tall enough.

    Well, I think thats it then.
  • comment
    • Author: Samugor
    Science of Stupid presents an interesting way in which viewers, especially young adults and teenagers can learn some science while marvelling at videos showing the lack of foresight of some people, who put themselves in dangerous situations. It is obviously a great manner to both educate viewers in science and entertain them at the same time. However, it may not be your kind of show if you cannot find it humorous when people sustain injuries, even if due to their own actions.

    The show is well produced and features thorough research. Richard Hammond is indeed a great host for a show that attempts to combine science and entertainment in an accessible, modern fashion. However, it may be possible that making light of such accidents may lead to a commoditization of pain, a desensitization of individuals in the face of other people's physical suffering. This is not to say that the show is bad, on the contrary. The animation and graphics featured are fun and engaging, the explanations are clear and concise, the puns and references are oftentimes hilarious and one can honestly learn more about physics from one episode than in one year of high school. The concept is interesting and new, most shows which feature accident videos having the tendency of taking it to the extreme of overdramatizing for the sakes of shock value and employing slow motion and the repetition of certain snippets of video just to make you cringe. This is not the case here, where there is no gratuitous focus on shocking moments, and all videos are accompanied by educational comments. However, if you're not a fan of seeing people agonizing in pain after falling, crashing into things, getting hit in their private parts or doing reckless things in general, you may be better off getting your science from somewhere else.

    While I wouldn't say that Science of Stupid is my kind of show, I wouldn't condemn it either. It is great for educating people that enjoy accident videos and hopefully it makes those that are prone to engaging in risqué behavior think twice before doing something dangerous both for themselves and others. On the other hand, I worry about it potentially having a negative impact at a social level. Nevertheless, if you want to learn why jumping off the roof of your house directly into your pool is a bad idea, Science of Stupid is your show.
  • Series cast summary:
    Richard Hammond Richard Hammond - Himself - Presenter 24 episodes, 2014-2015
    All rights reserved © 2017-2019