mike-woytek There was not a single design that qualifies for 'genius'. Contestants are smart and very good/excellent in their respective areas, but the format of the show and dull tasks successfully nipped all that in the root.Kal Penn is awful as a host, and him being a producer as well, in my mind raises a question isn't this show a little 'thank you' gift for jumping on in a presidential campaign back in a day.As some people already said, "(it is like) the academic equivalent of what a fitness nut may see in an American special on morbid obesity. That's just pure shame."

CherryBlossomBoy I know Kal Penn is just an actor and is not supposed to think, but he was the one that ad-libbed "Who's gonna be the next Steve Jobs?" in the first episode. Or at least the producers should have known better when they decided to use it as a tag in the trailer. Honestly, I thought the show was going to be about finding the best new salesman, because that's what Steve Jobs really was. A salesman. A pitcher. He was excellent at what he was doing and it was indeed important, but innovator he wasn't.But then again, when I saw the first explosion in the trailer, and remembered Jobs' penchant for bombastic presentations, I figured it made all the sense. Because the show isn't about innovators either. It's just a bombastic mixture of "Survivor" and "Mythbusters". It's about blowing stuff up (content) and bickering and kicking people out of the show (format). I guess it might be entertaining up to a point but I never liked the format of "Survivor" so I held up for the first ten minutes of the first episode.Maybe I could've watched for a bit longer but then there was that actor, Penn, irritating as hell. Trying too hard to sell serious attitude with such a dumb look on his face. Maybe it's a camp. And he really shouldn't be ad-libbing things but reading the given lines. Because immediately after calling Steve Jobs an innovator he went on to praise US President for "being all about bringing US back to the forefront of technology and innovations". Guess he didn't realize that the US President is an even bigger pitcher than Jobs was. The only thing he's really about is blowing stuff up and impressing idiots like Penn.

werkis2002 Its not bad show, well it needs some changes in next season.I don't like drama in it. Also i didn't liked judges decisions on 30 minute board design challenge cause in my opinion they didn't picket best few times although what i know anyway i m not an engineer. And when i m watching BBT PG i always am thinking on scrapheap challenge where they build crazy machines from junk just in 10 hours (including design)although usually they are provided with junk they need/could be used for they build. And speaking of using already existing designs Edison didn't invented light bulb he invented better light bulb.Thomas Edison, the renowned and prolific American inventor, sports a laundry list of accomplishments including the invention of all manner of gadgets. What's interesting about the list, however, is that a significant number of things we attribute to Edison were simply refined by him in some fashion–like the humble light bulb.Edison didn't invent electrical lighting or even the light bulb. He did, in fact, experiment widely with filaments and light bulb construction to help produce one of the first economically viable light bulbs. He also played a big role in the early development of power grids and power distribution. The actual invention of the light bulb is an accolade reserved for Sir Humprey Davy.In 1806 Humprey Davy gave a the first demonstration of a light bulb. The device, what we now refer to as an arc lamp, arcs huge amounts of electricity between two charcoal rods. The illumination was extremely bright and impractical for residential application. The original demonstration was more a proof of concept demonstration than anything else as the arc lamp quickly drained the battery it was attached to. With the advent of more advanced electrical delivery systems (such as electrical grids and on-location generators) the arc lamp became more practical, albeit with limited application. The lamps were used for light houses and for public areas in need of bright illumination.Various experimenters attempted to tame Davy's brilliant arc lamps into something more practical for small-scale use (such as in a home or business) but with limited success. Early attempts to create filaments were unsuccessful as the filament would eventually burn up thanks to the oxygen rich environment around it. Throughout the 19th century experiments were conducted with different filaments but it wasn't until inventors, starting with Frederick DeMolelyns, began pumping the air out and creating vacuum-chambered light bulbs that the filaments stood a chance.Near the end of the 19th century, Edison turned his attention to the problem of electric illumination and, after much experimentation and studying of failed prior light bulb designs, began using strands of carbonized bamboo as a filament. His early light bulbs has a light span of only 600 hours, but that was long enough to catch the attention and interest of the public. Edison light bulbs were installed at prominent locations around New York City such as the downtown Macy's store; it was the first store in the world to be illuminated by electric light.

Mike_Wiggins After watching two shows I'm ready to call it quits. While there is interesting science and unique thinking going on, I am tired of the angst, the backbiting and the deplorable "who do you think should be fired?" programming formulae. Eecch!! To me it totally ruins the show to the point I don't care about ANY of the contestants.And as for leadership, I haven't heard where leadership is one of the criteria for failure, but it's what caused the first person to be sacked. And what's with this bringing back a person who's been sacked. Where's the basis in reality for THAT?There have been similar shows in the past, like "Junkyard Wars" and "Mythbusters" that make the science fun, interesting, and even educational. "The Big Brain Theory" needs to be "re-architectured" to show true innovation and scientific analysis at work. In other words, concentrate on the science and not on the interpersonal squabbling.6 out of 10.