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

[butmadnnw]

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

Comments

[greyduck]

Yes, yes, a thousand times YES. All of the above.

Honestly? If the pacing "feels wrong" because the commercial breaks are missing, is that my fault as the non-advert-watching viewer (scum of the earth that I may be) or is it the fault of the writers for, especially in this day and age, not pacing themselves for the inevitable DVD boxed set and/or DVR viewing session? Hello and welcome to the twenty-first century, people!

[butmadnnw]

*points at icon & high-fives greyduck*

I also look askance at the part of the study that said inserting commercial breaks into content originally designed to be without adverts somehow made that content better.

OMGWTF? Were the study participants human goldfish? Or maybe it was because of the content they chose: Bollywood musicals and documentaries?! Well, of course the participants were bored!

I'd like to see them put a commercial break into, oh, let's say, the ferry scene of The Dark Knight, and see how many people like that.

[butmadnnw]

As an aside, one of the reasons I blogged this was because I couldn't figure out how to add a comment to the WP site. Originally, I thought it was because I'd have to register and I couldn't be bothered to do so.

I just noticed that commenting has been closed! Hmm... could it be because all 50 comments were aimed at telling the journalist she was nuts? ;-)

[starrynights24]

*snickers* I bet that's exactly what it was!