Last night, we caught a preview airing of Smash Lab sandwiched in between episodes of Mythbusters. I thought the idea might have potential — and it probably does, but the execution is just awful. One taste of Smash Labs was interesting, however, just for the contrast that shows how much Mythbusters gets right.

The concept for Smash Labs sounds like something to come from a network suit hoping to duplicate the success of Mythbusters. After all, since a good part of fun on Mythbusters comes when the crew blows stuff up why not make a show dedicated to explosions? So the concept of Smash Labs is that these guys test out products that are supposed to be durable by putting them to explosives in different ways.

The thing is, even if the most fun part of Mythbusters is the explosions, there’s a lot more to the show. There’s a sense of curiosity and camaraderie that lies at the core of Mythbusters. Sure, when the cameras aren’t rolling they probably are looking for an excuse to have an explosion in the episode, but in each episode, the explosion is presented as the way to answer a question. The narrative of Mythbusters starts with the question, then there’s a discussion of how to answer it and then it turns out that the best way to get than answer will involve something going boom.

The producers and writers of Smash Labs don’t get that first element of the Mythbusters formula. The concept of Smash Labs could follow the storyline of every Mythbusters segment… and actually, they do copy the story outline. However, the parts that emphasize curiosity and camaraderie are either missing or minimalized, as if Mythbusters viewers were fast-fowarding to the explosions. The narrative of Smash Labs speeds through methodology and rushes to get to the blast site — at which point it takes its time the way a bad reality competition show will milk its elimination round.

Part of the fun of Mythbusters is that the crew — yes, even Adam and Jaime — come off as people who enjoy working with each other (that might not be the case, but the show makes it seem that way). They crack jokes with each other and, more importantly, they discuss their plans with each other. On Smash Labs when we do see someone demonstrating any expertise, they’re telling someone else how things should be done. Not only is that boring, it also kills any reason the audience might connect with these people and look forward to seeing them on their TV set.

In last night’s preview, the Smash Labs teams set about to test a plastic lining used in truck beds, deciding to see if it can handle a bomb blast and if it could protect a building. There’s a little bit of the crew playing with the material and marveling at its toughness, then a little bit of discussion about how they were going to test it — but no discussion about if the test were a good idea or not and what learnings they could take from it. That’s the part where Smash Labs proves how uninspired it is — there’s no journey from discovering the material to the tests, the various explosions seem like a foregone conclusion on Smash Labs.

(One distracting element of the show was that they were quick to name the brand of the liner — leading me to wonder if this were a paid bit of product placement or not. After all, if the manufacturer paid for it, we know the end result will be positive.)

Where Smash Labs‘ failing is clearest comes whenever we hear the narrator speak. The narration adds nothing to the action, just telling us what we can already see happening. On Mythbusters, the narrator adds explanations for the scientific idea behind the current test with a few snarky remarks added for good measure.

While Mythbusters viewers can feel like they’re learning something while being entertained, Smash Labs leaves the audience feeling pandered.