Science of Stupid

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.

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.

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.

IT is disgusting what the formerly educational/science channels have fallen to. This is not just like the show Jacka**...it 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 DO...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.

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.