|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 9, 2014 10:10:39 GMT
What about the myth that kids have trouble telling 'reality' and 'fantasy' apart? Maybe show kids two similar scenes from a TV series one of which is a real stunt and the other a stunt done using CGI or other effects. See if they can tell which is real and which isn't?
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 9, 2014 10:27:19 GMT
It would take getting some specialized equipment, but how about the movie myth of kids driving a car with one on the floor with the pedals and the other steering. - obviously, by specialized equipment, I mean a simulator. I love it! That's been seen in so many movies and cartoons that there may actually be kids out there who believe it's possible. Definitely worth a test!
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2014 10:27:51 GMT
What about the myth that kids have trouble telling 'reality' and 'fantasy' apart? Maybe show kids two similar scenes from a TV series one of which is a real stunt and the other a stunt done using CGI or other effects. See if they can tell which is real and which isn't? might run into copyright issues with that.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 9, 2014 10:29:40 GMT
What about the myth that kids have trouble telling 'reality' and 'fantasy' apart? Maybe show kids two similar scenes from a TV series one of which is a real stunt and the other a stunt done using CGI or other effects. See if they can tell which is real and which isn't? *Muses...* How about taking that a step further and devising a way to test the myth that violent video games make children more violent in real life? That's certainly a big enough point of debate in the general public to get ratings soaring and spark debate! It's probably not something we're going to see them do in the next season though, because it's no laughing matter at all and the testing method and possible ramifications if the myth proves true have to be taken very seriously. But if they could come up with a viable and safe way of testing it, this could be the biggest myth they've ever tested, in terms of effects on the general public afterwards.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 9, 2014 10:40:01 GMT
The problem is classification - violent games are age restricted (something that the 'games cause violence' camp ignores). So they couldn't legally test this with kids, and more than they could legally show them (say) Pulp Fiction.
*Edit*
Because we are now on the second page I'll reiterate the idea, as the more this is discussed the more I think this might be a very valid show idea and something that MB might find interested enough to look into developing.
The idea is for a show where they can bring in a small group of kids, work on the assumption there would be around five (because this would allow them to dress up as the Mythbusters which would be fun and funny). The kids will be playing an active part in the testing and where possible the build and design of any rigs. It is probable that time constraints and legal issues might make getting them too involved in builds and design might not be practical, so concentrate more on the kids being involved in testing than anything else.
The myths themselves do not have to be specific to kids, but should be suitable in other respects and safe enough to allow the kids to be more than bystanders.
Assume that the kids would be no younger than 10-11 years old. The specific ages would depend on how MB pick the kids, but 10 to 11 is probably a good figure. Younger than this and (as I seem to recall was the case with the Young Scientist Special) they can't really get them to do much. Much older and they stop really being kids and could be treated more as adults. So 10 or so is probably the ideal age range.
So far we have;
Throwing a newspaper Crash/cycle helmets Tapping a can of soda (See below) Two kids driving a car (I suspect that they would reject this idea, in case some kids decided to try this at home)
Tapping a can; What about trying to make a cart that is powered by Menthos and Coke? I've seen adults make carts this way (there is a video somewhere on this, but I'm guessing most kids would not have seen it). Why not see if the kids (with help) could not make their own versions...in fact they could do this as a build off between the two teams (or the kids that are working with the two teams) and end the episode with a race between the two designs.
***
That *might* be enough for an episode as is. But as always more ideas would be a good thing, as it gives more options and if they make such an episode and it goes down well might give them enough to consider a sequel at a later date.
(Trivia; Apparently the Young Scientist Special was actually aired on the science channel rather than Discovery. This might explain why this particular episode is not that well known)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2014 14:38:46 GMT
on the topic of reality vs fantasy: perhaps they could select some of the traps from the Home Alone movies to test. or (separate reality vs. fantasy idea) test some classic cartoon physics gags. - since another favorite target of the "(X) causes kids to do bad things" camp is cartoons.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2014 14:50:42 GMT
to answer one of the PTD myths on the old boards, I found this on the internet this morning: that is something the kids might be able to do. The usual argument: "a slinky can't do forever on an escalator, that would be perpetual motion." "no it wouldn't - the escalator is adding energy to the system"
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 9, 2014 15:16:51 GMT
on the topic of reality vs fantasy: perhaps they could select some of the traps from the Home Alone movies to test. or (separate reality vs. fantasy idea) test some classic cartoon physics gags. - since another favorite target of the "(X) causes kids to do bad things" camp is cartoons. We'd need specific examples.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2014 15:32:19 GMT
on the topic of reality vs fantasy: perhaps they could select some of the traps from the Home Alone movies to test. or (separate reality vs. fantasy idea) test some classic cartoon physics gags. - since another favorite target of the "(X) causes kids to do bad things" camp is cartoons. We'd need specific examples. yes, we would; and since I refuse to watch the Home Alone movies, the only one I know that would be safe and telegenic to do is the paint cans down the stairwell (I.E. you could set it up in a stairwell and use busters for the bumbling crooks and actually swing a paint can on a string; and get filmable results.)
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 9, 2014 15:54:03 GMT
You'd get kids trying it at home, or at least that would be the risk as the setup does not require anything kids couldn't get their hands on or any particular skill to set up.
That, btw, is not entirely my option. My Bothan has discussed limitations and concerns regarding what they show and why some ideas have been turned down.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2014 16:35:24 GMT
You'd get kids trying it at home, or at least that would be the risk as the setup does not require anything kids couldn't get their hands on or any particular skill to set up. That, btw, is not entirely my option. My Bothan has discussed limitations and concerns regarding what they show and why some ideas have been turned down. true - and I'd eliminated the few other ones I know of for similar reasons. and I guess that shows where society doesn't trust kids to know the difference between TV and reality - and quite possibly rightly so - they say a person's judgement is not fully mature until they are in their 20s. That is more relevant to kids trying ideas they see on TV and video games than the fantasy vs. reality myth.
|
|
|
Post by OziRiS on Aug 9, 2014 21:54:55 GMT
You'd get kids trying it at home, or at least that would be the risk as the setup does not require anything kids couldn't get their hands on or any particular skill to set up. That, btw, is not entirely my option. My Bothan has discussed limitations and concerns regarding what they show and why some ideas have been turned down. Match heads in a bucket was also something that kids could do without any particular skills and with stuff they could get their hands on and so was a lot of other stuff they've shown over the years. If that's reason enough not to do something, then they might as well shut the show down completely. Besides, isn't a big part of the entire point of the show to tell and show people what NOT to do at home? You know, the whole "We do these things, so you don't have to" thing?
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 9, 2014 22:14:10 GMT
on the topic of reality vs fantasy: perhaps they could select some of the traps from the Home Alone movies to test. or (separate reality vs. fantasy idea) test some classic cartoon physics gags. - since another favorite target of the "(X) causes kids to do bad things" camp is cartoons. Hasbro hasn't produced actual Micro Machines in 8 years, and so the only micro-scale toy cars on the market are off-brands. If they were to attempt that particular scene from the movie they would either have to pay large sums of money for vintage product online or risk toy collectors hounding them about various issues. For example, well-maintained Micro Machines roll freely (barring the ones where one or more wheels are simply molded plastic), but the die-cast off-brands seen at Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and Toys-R-Us don't.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 9, 2014 22:20:59 GMT
What about the myth that kids have trouble telling 'reality' and 'fantasy' apart? Maybe show kids two similar scenes from a TV series one of which is a real stunt and the other a stunt done using CGI or other effects. See if they can tell which is real and which isn't? If you'll recall, we discussed a real-life, badly-flawed study about "fantasy vs. reality" elsewhere.Depending upon how long it took the episode to be set up, it might look like the Mythbusters were doing their own take on the matter. That being said, one member of the Discovery Networks family is The Hub, a joint venture with Hasbro and American Greetings that replaced Discovery Kids in the lineup. Perhaps Beyond could convince Discovery to allow them some footage from assorted Hub shows for such a project.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2014 23:56:36 GMT
on the topic of reality vs fantasy: perhaps they could select some of the traps from the Home Alone movies to test. or (separate reality vs. fantasy idea) test some classic cartoon physics gags. - since another favorite target of the "(X) causes kids to do bad things" camp is cartoons. Hasbro hasn't produced actual Micro Machines in 8 years, and so the only micro-scale toy cars on the market are off-brands. If they were to attempt that particular scene from the movie they would either have to pay large sums of money for vintage product online or risk toy collectors hounding them about various issues. For example, well-maintained Micro Machines roll freely (barring the ones where one or more wheels are simply molded plastic), but the die-cast off-brands seen at Wal-Mart, Walgreens, and Toys-R-Us don't. I remember when micro machines were the off brand...
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 9, 2014 23:58:50 GMT
What about the myth that kids have trouble telling 'reality' and 'fantasy' apart? Maybe show kids two similar scenes from a TV series one of which is a real stunt and the other a stunt done using CGI or other effects. See if they can tell which is real and which isn't? If you'll recall, we discussed a real-life, badly-flawed study about "fantasy vs. reality" elsewhere.Depending upon how long it took the episode to be set up, it might look like the Mythbusters were doing their own take on the matter. That being said, one member of the Discovery Networks family is The Hub, a joint venture with Hasbro and American Greetings that replaced Discovery Kids in the lineup. Perhaps Beyond could convince Discovery to allow them some footage from assorted Hub shows for such a project. I think the focus is enough different from that topic.
|
|
|
Post by Cybermortis on Aug 10, 2014 11:57:42 GMT
You'd get kids trying it at home, or at least that would be the risk as the setup does not require anything kids couldn't get their hands on or any particular skill to set up. That, btw, is not entirely my option. My Bothan has discussed limitations and concerns regarding what they show and why some ideas have been turned down. Match heads in a bucket was also something that kids could do without any particular skills and with stuff they could get their hands on and so was a lot of other stuff they've shown over the years. If that's reason enough not to do something, then they might as well shut the show down completely. Besides, isn't a big part of the entire point of the show to tell and show people what NOT to do at home? You know, the whole "We do these things, so you don't have to" thing? As I said, not entirely my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 10, 2014 23:53:49 GMT
So for Roll vs. Throw:
#1 - speed test. Each kid will have ten papers. They must roll five and fold five. They will be timed on how long it takes for each paper, and will also be asked how hard or easy each attempt was. This will give us both subjective (opinions of difficulty) and objective (time required) information as to which method is "easier".
#2 - seated throw, both directions, experiment A. Each kid will sit in a mock-up of a driver's seat and throw each of the papers. For the sake of argument, we will presume no "target" and will instead be measuring distance, if the paper bounces on a flat surface, and if it rolls down an incline (I'd say a 30 degree incline and a 45 degree incline). If the paper gets too close to the "car" or an "obstacle" (like a sheet of blue paper labeled "drainage ditch"), the kids will need to "get out" and try again, with the time required and throws required both being logged.
#3 - seated throw, both directions, experiment B. Now that each kid has had practice working with the papers, a new variable will be measured: accuracy. A "target" will be set up, and the kids will be asked to try and hit it. This will represent a real-life situation in which we couriers must sometimes throw around obstacles and/or land a paper in a small area (like a driveway with multiple parked cars). Each test will also measure bouncing and rolling, with kids having to "get out of the car" in order to retrieve any papers which roll or bounce within a certain distance of the car (as these papers are now in the "street"); if the kids must do so, then the time required to get the paper and re-throw and the number of throws needed will be logged.
#4 - arced throw. A new complication will be added in the form of the children not having their passenger-side window to throw trough. In order to throw to their right, the kids must attempt to arc each paper over the "roof" of the car. Accuracy, distance thrown, bouncing, and rolling will all be monitored.
#5 - standing throw A. Kids now face the prospect of having to get out of the car and toss a paper over a fence; both rolled and folded papers will be used during each attempt. Fence A will be made using normal chain-link fencing, while fence B will be made using material that is 10 feet tall (don't ask). Kids will start right at each fence and see if they can either get the paper over it or through the chain link (without damaging either the fence or the paper). From there, each kid will move back a foot at a time until they can no longer get the paper over. Each kid will have the choice of overhand or underhand as their throw.
#6 - standing throw B. Each kid has a given target. Each kid will use one of each type of paper and aim for the target, once again moving back a foot at a time in order to see if they can make the target without an obstruction. This one is mostly just for fun (even if there are instances where it may be necessary, like when you're dealing with a paper that rolled), and is based on the aforementioned prospect of throwing a rolled paper like a football.
Final Assessment:
Each of the tests, when taken together, should give a reasonable answer. Not only will we have a count concerning how much time and effort goes into readying each type of paper, we'll also have a count concerning how difficult or easy each type of newspaper is to work with under specific real-world circumstances.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on Aug 11, 2014 1:47:41 GMT
I say do it while riding a stationary bike rather than a car. (I'd say a bicycle, but that may or may not meet safety requirements)
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on Aug 11, 2014 2:43:38 GMT
I say do it while riding a stationary bike rather than a car. (I'd say a bicycle, but that may or may not meet safety requirements) It's no longer plausible for delivery people in most towns to run a route on a bike. We're talking motorcycles with sidecars at the least. I myself travel 30+ miles each night, not counting the distance from my house to the office or from the last house home. Plus, cars introduce the variable of having to work with a narrow opening instead of a wide space.
|
|