Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Fnord666 on Wednesday October 24 2018, @04:53PM   Printer-friendly
from the testing-if-a-movie-stinks dept.

Max-Planck-Gesellschaft:

Researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry in Mainz have now developed a method that can objectively evaluate the age at which children and adolescents can safely watch a movie. They measured the composition of air in cinemas as well as levels of volatile organic compounds (VOCs) during 135 screenings of eleven different movies. Over 13,000 audience members were involved. For a variety of film genres and age groups, the researchers found that isoprene levels reliably correlate with the age rating of a film. "Isoprene appears to be a good indicator of emotional tension within a group," says Jonathan Williams, group leader at the Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. "Our approach could therefore provide an objective criterion for deciding how movies should be classified."

They couldn't already objectively measure fear by the amount of urine-soaked seat cushions?

C. Stönner, A. Edtbauer, B. Derstroff, E. Bourtsoukidis, T. Klüpfel, J. Wicker, J. Williams. Proof of concept study: Testing human volatile organic compounds as tools for age classification of films. PLOS ONE, 2018; 13 (10): e0203044 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0203044


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:33PM (3 children)

    by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:33PM (#753222) Journal

    What exactly is stupid about the research?

    Basing ratings on fear.

    Or basing ratings on the intensity of any chemically measured response.

    There are movies for kids that produce strong responses due to tense-and-appropriate drama and plot, and there are relatively reaction-free snoozers for adults-only that have perfunctory profanity, violence, and nudity.

    What they are measuring has precisely squat to do with rating films. Saying that it would lead to automated film ratings is stupid.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:51PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @07:51PM (#753228)

    Maybe what you call "appropriate" for kids is not in fact appropriate; perhaps the tension and drama (which leads to a measurable chemical response) is in fact harmful to children.

    Maybe what you imply is "inappropriate" for kids is in fact harmless; perhaps the snooze-inducing profanity, violence, or nudity is equally snooze-worthy for kids, who will not remember any of it.

    Let's do more objective testing, shall we? You know, so that we can reason about it.

    • (Score: 2) by requerdanos on Wednesday October 24 2018, @09:04PM (1 child)

      by requerdanos (5997) Subscriber Badge on Wednesday October 24 2018, @09:04PM (#753275) Journal

      Maybe what you call "appropriate" for kids is not in fact appropriate

      Actually, "tense and appropriate drama and plot" situations are appropriate by definition. The word "appropriate" describing them limits them to things which are appropriate. Tension and drama appropriate to the audience. Maybe that tension is that Hero(ine) can't find favorite hairbrush, maybe it's because a drunk driver slid into a school bus and killed twenty children. Wherever you draw that line, it should be a reasoning, thinking process and not "The machine detected emotional response; the content should be banned."

      Maybe what you imply is "inappropriate" for kids is in fact harmless

      I am not prescribing content as inappropriate for children. I am pointing out features that are considered when age-rating a film. The list should not be blindly extended to include "content that registered on the totally valid restrict-o-meter."

      Let's do more objective testing, shall we? You know, so that we can reason about it.

      The way to do this is not to set up chemical equipment and say "AHA! There is a molecular detection! This content should be age-restricted!"

      Judging from your stated goals, you should probably be barking at the various rating agencies and boards, not trying to support the chemical equivalent of dowsing for prohibited content.

      You won't get any more results there, I suspect, but you won't look (as much) like an idiot doing it.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @09:31PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 24 2018, @09:31PM (#753291)

        Amazing. Just amazing.

        The word "appropriate" describing them limits them to things which are appropriate.

        Can you really not perceive it?