Gee, I wonder who funded the study...?

Mar 19, 2009 15:51

This Washington Post "article" claims that TV just isn't as funny if you take the ads out. Hahah-wha??

It's an older episode of The Office.... You watched it when it first aired, and it was so good you're now watching it again online.... But . . . wait . . . is this the right episode? Something seems off. "In the gang world, we use something called Fluffy Fingers," Darryl is saying. Heh heh heh. Cute. But last viewing, it was more HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! Funnier, somehow. Better rhythm. More substantive.

Hmmm... A joke in an Americanized bastardization of a British sitcom isn't as funny the second time around... I know! It must be because the commercials are missing! *eyeroll*

The article goes on to propose that commercials are necessary to the timing of the show and that if you must watch the show online or on DVD, you should insert pauses to "reset viewer boredom." No, thanks. My family got our first DVR in 2001, and we've never looked back. I enjoy television much more when I can skip the adverts and only spend 40-45  minutes watching what was billed as an hour-long show. (And I'm not going to go into how wrong it is that there's only 40-45 minutes of actual content per hour-long episode!)

Rather than sitting through adverts or - horrid thought! - adding them to DVDs/online streams, I've got a better idea. Why don't we follow the UK/BBC model of ad-free shows and hire more talented writers to produce better quality content?! Revolutionary!

(I'm also much in favor of additionally modeling the Brits by having shorter seasons and ending the show when its story is done, instead of waiting until two years after it catapulted over Jaws.)

wtf, uk, tv

Previous post Next post
Up