Bob Saget 2.0 145
theodp writes "Slate makes a pretty convincing argument that YouTube and its knock-offs can trace their roots back to America's Funniest Home Videos." From the article: "The show's stock in trade was to find the lowest common denominator and then hit it in the crotch. Consider this list of select highlights from the show's 'Best of Kids & Animals' DVD: a kid doing a cannonball onto his dad's groin, a baby running into a church pew, a dog peeing on a wedding dress, and a kid clocking his dad in the nuts with a helmet. While these clips are all certainly lowbrow, they've also got something else in common: They're oozing with family values."
But youtube isn't usually funny! (Score:5, Insightful)
Well duh... (Score:2, Insightful)
Youtube Wins (Score:5, Insightful)
speaking of... (Score:5, Insightful)
THIS is bob saget 2.0! [youtube.com] (NSFW)
Re:Youtube Wins (Score:2, Insightful)
Do they know (Score:3, Insightful)
I have wondered how many parents know that their teenage kids are dancing in front of the camera for youtube's global audience.
Old media tries to understand, fails. (Score:1, Insightful)
So what? (Score:3, Insightful)
And while I'm at it, why say "YouTube and its knock-offs", YouTube wasn't exactly the first site where one can post homevideos. YouTube is a knock-off which just happens to be the biggest.
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:3, Insightful)
American television executive humor. About as funny as applying for a dog license.
Re:Old media tries to understand, fails. (Score:3, Insightful)
Nothing's a strong word. People have a clip they think is funny. They submit it. An audience watches it. The same part of us that finds AFV interesting is the same part that wants us to sift through the YouTube vids and find something funny.
You can find plenty of differences between AFV and YouTube, but to say they have nothing in common is absurd.
Re:Makes sense to me (Score:4, Insightful)
A *really* popular sitcom might get a few million people to watch it every night. Out of a population of 400 million, the actual ratio of people who enjoy that humor regularly is tiny.
My guess is that's it's much easier and cheaper to produce crap and get 30% of an already small audience simply by being slightly less crappy than the competition, than it would be to produce something great and attract more people who would usually do something else.
To get a really huge audience, you would need not only to win over the people who think TV sucks, but also the kind of people who watch "Everybody Loves Raymond" religiously. What kind of show would appeal to both sets of people? I certainly don't know.
And as far as AFV goes, the first show ever was hysterical, and it was all downhill from there. Now you're really lucky if it's as funny as a "Cathy" cartoon.
Re:Slate wrong.....it IS AFV (Score:1, Insightful)
I can guarantee you they gave up every single right in their video when they submitted it to AFV.
Re:Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (Score:3, Insightful)
Pretty much quantifies Stossel-20/20s piece on American education.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfRUMmTs0ZA [youtube.com]
SB
Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Youtube Wins (Score:3, Insightful)