Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Bob Saget 2.0

Zonk posted more than 7 years ago | from the robo-saget-desires-your-funny-movies dept.

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."

cancel ×

145 comments

Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (4, Funny)

iogan (943605) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990443)

At its height, viewers sent America's Funniest Home Videos 2,000 VHS tapes a day, and at least 1,800 of those, it seemed, showed some kind of trampoline mishap.
Wouldn't that seem a bit high? What are all these people doing on trampolines? What am I missing here?

Re:Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (1)

BinaryOpty (736955) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990470)

You're missing that the number was inflated to make the joke funnier. 1800 "it seemed" were trampoline mishaps probably because the largest section of video were trampoline mishaps but probably not 90% of them.

Re:Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (2, Funny)

ph43thon (619990) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990495)

You're missing that it was a joke on the joke. Quite funny too.

    "What are all these people doing on trampolines?"

That's one of the funniest questions I've seen in a while.

Re:Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (5, Interesting)

xeoron (639412) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990480)

Don't know about you, but most of the AFHV's was not that funny or often at all. Most of the videos only would be funny if it happened in person to someone. Instead of them cherry picking what the masses might like, places like youtube let people choose themselves, along with screen any videos instead of a select few.

Re:Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (4, Funny)

a16 (783096) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990491)

Wouldn't that seem a bit high? What are all these people doing on trampolines? What am I missing here?
The joke? ;)

Re:Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (2, Informative)

Moodie-1 (966737) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990884)

If true, all it means is that trampolines are dangerous.

Re:Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (2, Informative)

twistedsymphony (956982) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991218)

Well a lot of insurance companies wont insure your home (or at least give you a huge rate hike) if you have a trampoline on your property... next time you switch companies or insure a new place pay attension... I bet they ask you if you have one... Skateboard ramps too.

Re:Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15991419)

Well a lot of insurance companies wont insure your home (or at least give you a huge rate hike) if you have a trampoline on your property...

Because if you're too stupid to get around that, you should be paying for everyone else's mishaps/bad luck.

It seems like I see a lot of lower-income homes with trampolines... and skateboard ramps, as a matter of fact.

Re:Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (2, Insightful)

BarlowBrad (940854) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990992)

History will look back on YouTube and see a similar trend: 1.8 million out of the 2 million submissions were related to either Mentos exploding Diet Coke or some attempted funny music video remix.

Re:Why is 1800 of 2000 trampoline accidents? (2)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991224)

I guess none of them were girls jumping on trampolines. I definitely liked The Man Show's selection of trampoline-related clips better.

But youtube isn't usually funny! (4, Insightful)

crazyjeremy (857410) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990457)

Now if most of youtube's content could be somewhat funny, or even "slightly more funny than bland humor" I would see comparing it to funniest home videos. Like it is, youtube is painful to endure. I would venture to say countless people singing into a qvga camera isn't exactly entertaining for most of us.

Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (3, Informative)

FuturePastNow (836765) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990533)

"America's Funniest Home Videos" culled out probably 99% of the tapes they received. On Youtube, you get to see all the rejects.

Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (5, Funny)

legoburner (702695) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990605)

"America's Funniest Home Videos" culled out probably 99% of the tapes they received

The department which did that must have a higher suicide rate than the russian military!

Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (-1)

ehrichweiss (706417) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990636)

Someone mod the parent +10 Funny!! I'd do it if I had mod points right now.

Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (1)

timeOday (582209) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991186)

And that is why YouTube != "Funniest Home Videos" - because it's more directly audience driven. I don't think YouTube has a crotch-driven "formula" at all... people upload what they want, then other people watch what they want. YouTube supplies various viewship statistics to help the process along. The result may be that YouTube is lowbrow, but the blame has to be far wider than whoever is providing the bandwidth. It's just usenet for videos.

Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (1)

linguizic (806996) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991458)

Oh yeah? [youtube.com]

Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (2)

Jeff DeMaagd (2015) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990806)

Isn't there a rating system? The good ones seem to have a higher than four star rating. Anything less probably isn't worthwhile.

Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (2, Informative)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991203)

Kind of like all those +4,+5 posts on Slashdot. :P

Re:But youtube isn't usually funny! (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990965)

Funny? "America's Funniest Home Videos" rivals Japanese extreme gore for the title of most concerning social development of the past 20 years. Visual media with no other discernable purpose than enjoying the infliction of pain have been increasing in popularity for decades but those are all make-believe. Week after week of a dim, smarmy host fronting videos of real personal home injuries and harrowing narrow calls crossing over to healthy family entertainment says more about the general public than violent video games ever could.

Well duh... (2, Insightful)

drfishy (634081) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990461)

Anyone who hasn't already made that connection must be a bit out of touch... Heck, some of those places are even paying the submitters of the most popular videos... $10,000 grand prize anyone?

Youtube Wins (4, Insightful)

potpie (706881) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990464)

Youtube may have some low-brow physical humor, but America's "Funniest" Home Videos doesn't have TV clips and music videos. The variety alone places Youtube in an entirely different category. Plus, Youtube doesn't have those annoying voice-overs.

Re:Youtube Wins (1)

cashman73 (855518) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990506)

Plus, Youtube doesn't have those annoying voice-overs.

I don't know about that. I've seen some videos on YouTube with worse voice-overs done by someone with far less talent than Bob Saget himself,...

Re:Youtube Wins (3, Funny)

Schemat1c (464768) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991003)

far less talent than Bob Saget himself,...

Bob Saget had talent?

Or as I used to called it... (2, Funny)

artemis67 (93453) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991024)

America's Funniest Home Videos, hosted by America's stupidest comedian... :-P

Re:Youtube Wins (2, Funny)

Wandering Wombat (531833) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991062)

He used to suck dick for coke! I seen him! (Do not mod me down unless you've even SEEN the movie I'm quoting.)

Re:Youtube Wins (4, Informative)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991084)

You should see his stand-up. The guy's hilarious, and his stuff is dirty as hell. He just sold out completely for Full House.

Re:Youtube Wins (1)

StikyPad (445176) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991132)

Bob Sagat, yes.

The writers of his jokes for Whore House and America's Stupid And We Prove It With These Videos, no.

Admittedly not that funny, but it's the first clip I found: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jj26FG1hLMQ [youtube.com]

His bit in The Aristocrats was a bright spot in an otherwise tedious inside-joke as well.

Re:Youtube Wins (2, Insightful)

Hangin10 (704729) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990518)

Annoying perhaps, but some of few videos that were funny, wouldn't have without the voiceover.

Re:Youtube Wins (1)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990628)

...but America's "Funniest" Home Videos doesn't have TV clips and music videos.

No, it didn't. Instead you had to wait for the special "Funniest TV Moments" or "Bestest Music Video" shows that seemed to air every few weeks.

Re:Youtube Wins (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990720)

YouTube was bought by NBC. Shortly after, the Terms and Conditions allowed for YouTube to profit off of users' videos. I guess we'd have to call that "voluntary slavery".

speaking of... (4, Insightful)

chasingporsches (659844) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990475)

speaking of bob saget and youtube...

THIS is bob saget 2.0! [youtube.com] (NSFW)

Re:speaking of... (1)

cptgrudge (177113) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990537)

Brilliant. I'd mod you up if I hadn't lost mod privs years ago.

Re:speaking of... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990618)

Bob Saget 2.0 would definitely be the video clip of him telling his rendition of "The Aristocrats" joke [youtube.com] . This is where the family values go straight out the window. :)

Oh yeah, that link's not safe for work.

Obligatory (2, Funny)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990675)

Ah! BOB SAGET! [tourettesguy.com]

Re:speaking of... (2, Funny)

flupps (193729) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990691)

I guess this would be Bob Saget 6.9.

This is TOTALLY not safe for work, or the faint of heart or people getting upset about tasteless jokes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_cKCK6Blv0 [youtube.com]

Probably the most tasteless thing you'll see today.

Re:speaking of... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990864)

"Probably the most tasteless thing you'll see today."

Thats assuming a whole lot about my plans for tonight.

Re:speaking of... (1)

zxking (777919) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991083)

Damn right, the illest m*f*ka in a cardigan sweater

Values, indeed. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990477)

"[...] they've also got something else in common: They're oozing with family values."

Not to mention, more pointedly: overt and passive violence. Not that I would imply that violence is a closet virtue among the "family values" crowd. Never.

There go the family jewels... (4, Funny)

Chaffar (670874) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990478)

For all its black eyes and unplanned water landings, America's Funniest Home Videos always reinforced the nuclear family as this country's central institution. A child hitting his dad in the groin is a child who's spending quality time with his dad.
Remind me to kick my dad in the balls next time he wants to spend quality time playing Scrabble with me...

Re:There go the family jewels... (1)

hotdiggitydawg (881316) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990784)

Heh... a real-life KWYJIBO on the loose...

Who are you again? (1, Offtopic)

j_presper_eckert (617907) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990479)

Illest first post in a cardigan sweater.

Re:Who are you again? (1)

fprintf (82740) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991627)

The mods are high and remarkably uninformed. Loved it!

Makes sense to me (3, Interesting)

dividedsky319 (907852) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990482)

I'm 24 years old, and I gotta admit... AFV (America's Funniest Videos) is still one of my favorite shows to watch. Sure, it's mindless content, but no other show on tv packs more laughs per minute.

Maybe it's a bit juvenile laughing at old people falling over, people getting hit in the crotch, or just general stupidity of people with too much time on your hands, but... AFV is basically a bunch of youtube videos strung together, and is funny no matter what age you are. (Just ignore the lame jokes by the host...)

Sure, there's other content on Youtube that isn't of the "funny video" variety, but... I'd say that the majority of the "viral videos" that get spread around the internet are of the funny variety, and what drives the majority of the site.

Re:Makes sense to me (1)

the grace of R'hllor (530051) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990561)

Just out of curiosity, do you laugh at "Everybody loves Raymond"? Does anybody? I have recently watched a full episode of that show, and on only one occasion cracked the faintest smile. It is so incredibly not funny, I am honestly surprised that even the laughter-tape can keep laughing. Yet, apparently, it does reasonably well in the US.

While some clips in AFV were funny, I wouldn't say it was wet-your-pants hilarious. Is it American humor?

Re:Makes sense to me (3, Insightful)

cubicledrone (681598) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990624)

Is it American humor?

American television executive humor. About as funny as applying for a dog license.

Re:Makes sense to me (1)

PakProtector (115173) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990862)

What about applying for a license for my pet Halibut?

Re:Makes sense to me (1)

3dr (169908) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990937)

About as funny as applying for a dog license.

<lafftrack>ha ha ha ha cough ha ha ha ha</lafftrack>

Re:Makes sense to me (3, Insightful)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990797)

You're not alone. I think these shows survive by attracting a ridiculously small minority of people who think they're funny.

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:Makes sense to me (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991005)

Just out of curiosity, do you laugh at "Everybody loves Raymond"? Does anybody?

I laugh at Everybody Loves Eric Raymond [geekz.co.uk] , does that count?

Re:Makes sense to me (1)

DrKyle (818035) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991102)

Just out of curiosity, do you laugh at "Everybody loves Raymond"? Does anybody?

From what I could tell, with my wife and I being married young (19 & 20), and most of our friends up til a couple years ago being single. You have to be married for years to get the jokes, because only after being married for years do you get the reality of the jokes (because you've been there), even if the situations are a bit exaggerated.

Re:Makes sense to me (1)

dividedsky319 (907852) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991118)

You have to be married for years to get the jokes, because only after being married for years do you get the reality of the jokes (because you've been there)


I agree. I never really found it funny when the show was first on the air... but watching reruns with my fiance, we suddenly find it funny. We've been together for over 7 years, and even though we're not married (yet... a month and a half to go), becuase we've been together so long we can see the humor in certain situations becuase we've experienced the same types of things.

If you're single or never have been in a long term relationship, you wouldn't see the humor in the show.

Now, I'm not saying it's the funniest show on tv, but it does make me laugh from time to time.

Re:Makes sense to me (1)

fuzzix (700457) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991162)

Just out of curiosity, do you laugh at "Everybody loves Raymond"? Does anybody?

Apparently not [ruthlessreviews.com] ...

There are a lot of really shitty sitcoms out there. King of Queens anyone? Two and a Half Men? Oh man... Will and Grace?

It's fine that all these shows have unispired contrivances and stolen jokes - we expect nothing else from TV - but all the lines are stolen from Who's The Boss?!

I think every episode of these shows has exactly the same type of set up in it too... You know the line:

$wacky_cousin_or_neighbour enters with chimpanzee/dog/cat/other mammal and hands it to $patriarch.

$wacky_cousin_or_neighbour: I'll be back in a week. Feed him these kibbles and rye every night
$patriarch: Fine, $wacky_cousin_or_neighbour. Have fun!

$matriarch enters with $embittered_friend

$matriarch: Not another dumb, sweaty, smelly, turd encrusted, hairy, hungry, drooling, cross-eyed beast to take care of
$embittered_friend: Yeah, and a chimpanzee/dog/cat/other mammal too!

Family Values (2)

Captain Murdock (906610) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990488)

I have yet to see a video on YouTube that has any aspect of "family values".

Re:Family Values (1)

kertong (179136) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990732)

"You think American's Funniest Videos is bad? Ever suck dick for coke?"
"I seen him!"

I'm missing something here... (4, Interesting)

Wilson_6500 (896824) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990549)

Sometimes, someone will send me a link to a video on YouTube that's pretty funny. From there, the "similar videos" function lets me find other humorous videos in the same vein (e.g. Stephen Colbert clips, MST3K clips, whatever).

However, when I approach the site's front-end, the "most X" (where X is popular, viewed, voted on, or whatever) lineups are jammed full of webcam clips, in-jokes, and episodes of anime. It's a bizarre disconnect.

Do they know (3, Insightful)

in2mind (988476) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990560)

While it may not have encouraged child abuse, America's Funniest Home Videos did encourage child exploitation.

I have wondered how many parents know that their teenage kids are dancing in front of the camera for youtube's global audience.

GCD, LCM (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990570)

> find the lowest common denominator

I suppose he meant the "greatest common denominator". The lowest common denominator is always 1. I know it is confusing that the lowest of the two numbers has "greater" in its name and that the greatest has "lowest" in it.

Tomorrow, we'll speak about the "steep learning curve".

Re:GCD, LCM (1)

Speare (84249) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990635)

The phrase "lowest common denominator" has been in use for a long time when referring to cultural (or anti-cultural) trends. It's not a mathematics term.

Re:GCD, LCM (4, Funny)

richdun (672214) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990648)

Actually, lowest common denominator is okay. For instance, when adding the fractions 1/6, 2/3, and 4/18, you could convert all the fractions to a denominator of 54, as in 9/54, 27/54, and 12/54. But the correct procedure is to convert them to a denominator of 18, as in 3/18, 9/18, and 4/18 (16/18, or 8/9). And the lowest common denominator is only 1 if the numbers are all integers. You can't express 1/6 as a fraction of integers with a denominator of 1.

For more, see Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] .

Re:GCD, LCM (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15991044)

"The lowest common denominator is always 1."

Problem 1)
Find the lowest common denominator between 1/2 and 1/3.

Answer: 1

Bzzzt. Please try again.

Find the lowest common demoninator between 1/3 and 1/5.

Answer: 1

Bzzzt. Please try again.

Find the lowest common denominator between 1/5 and 1/7.

Answer: 1

Bzzzt. Please go back to 4th Grade.

Re:GCD, LCM (2, Informative)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991070)

There is no such thing as the (finite) 'greatest common denominator.' Consider two fractions A/B and C/D. Trivially, BD is a common denominator; you can express the two fractions as AD/BD and CB/BD. If B and D have any common factors, then you can pull these out and make E, where E is the multiple of all prime factors of B and D[1]. E is then the lowest common denominator.

Since E is a common denominator, any multiple of E is also a common denominator. Let N be a natural number. NE is also a common denominator. Assume that NE is the greatest common denominator. Thus one of the following must hold (since if they don't 2NE is a common divisor that is greater than NE):

  1. 2NE < NE.
  2. (2NE / NE) is not an integer.
One trivially doesn't hold (from our axioms of multiplication on the natural numbers). The second can be reduced to 2/1 and then to 1 using our axioms regarding multiplication and 1 is (again, axiomatically) an integer. Since we have arrived at a contradiction, our initial assumption (that NE is the greatest common denominator for two arbitrary numbers) is invalidated. Since this holds for any N, no number can be a greatest common denominator.

By the way, I think you were confusing denominators (the bottom halves of fractions) with divisors (i.e. factors). The lowest common (natural number) factor of any pair of integers is always 1. Of course, 0.1 is also a common divisor of any pair of integers (as, in fact, is any rational number[2]), and so the concept of a lowest common divisor only has meaning in the domain of the integers. The greatest common divisor can be calculated recursively using Euclid's algorithm. There is a connection between the greatest common divisor and the lowest common denominator. In our earlier example, the lowest common denominator, E, is BD divided by the greatest common divisor of B and D. Since E is also the product of the prime factors of B and D, this leads to an efficient test for primality (which is far beyond the scope of this post but is not too hard to derive if you're interested).


[1] e.g. if B = 30 and D = 105, B = 3x5x7 and D = 3x5x7. E = 2x3x5x7. B/E = 7 and D/E=2. The final fractions would be 7A/2B = 7A/E and 2C/2D = 2C/E. You can then trivially add these two fractions together to get (7A+2C)/E.
[2] The proof of this is left as an exercise for the reader.

It's the middle of the night, so this post probably contains some typos. I think this proof works using Peano arithmetic, but I am too tired to check. It is only valid on the natural numbers; extending it to the integers it easy, but I am tired and lazy. And yes, I know I skipped a load of steps; this is meant as an illustration rather than a strict mathematical proof.

Re:GCD, LCM (1)

tbjw (760188) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991215)

You have confused "denominator" with "divisor" which is the D in GCD

Ben

Re:GCD, LCM (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15991220)

I sure did! Should have been more careful...

Family values (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990581)

sure, yea. Like "ask a ninja"?

Old media tries to understand, fails. (1, Insightful)

superdude72 (322167) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990585)

YouTube is nothing like America's Home Videos. What a stupid analogy.

Re:Old media tries to understand, fails. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990680)

YouTube is nothing like America's Home Videos. What a stupid analogy.

Well I'm convinced, professor. That's a real good argument ya got there.

Re:Old media tries to understand, fails. (2, Insightful)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990697)

"YouTube is nothing like America's Home Videos. What a stupid analogy."

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.

The connection is price (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990761)

The reason AFV & Youtube can thrive is because although they deliver low quality material, they have even lower costs. They survive because they have a viable business model, not because of any deep inner meaning of their content, or because of any particular aspect of modern culture. TFA just doesn't get it.

Slate wrong.....it IS AFV (2, Interesting)

Chanc_Gorkon (94133) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990604)

YouTube has vast amouns of AFV material. REAL AFV material. I just saw today footage of a mother surrounded by her quadruplets and the babies wer eall laughing thier fool heads off. That was from AFV. In fact, some people don't even bother to remove the ABC, Superstation or other bugs on the bottom of the video. Sure, there is some great original stuf out there, but there's a tone of copyrighted material out there. Bab Saget 2.0 is more like Bob Saget 1.0.

Re:Slate wrong.....it IS AFV (2, Informative)

cubicledrone (681598) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990640)

but there's a tone of copyrighted material out there

All of the videos on America's Funniest Home Videos were copyrighted too. Like before they were submitted even. Amazing, huh?

Yes copyright is one of the few things left that regular people can have without a board of directors approval.

For now.

Re:Slate wrong.....it IS AFV (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990865)

All of the videos on America's Funniest Home Videos were copyrighted too. Like before they were submitted even. Amazing, huh?

I can guarantee you they gave up every single right in their video when they submitted it to AFV.

Re:Slate wrong.....it IS AFV (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15991161)

The laughing babies [youtube.com] .

So what? (3, Insightful)

Hoppelainen (969375) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990623)

You can do the same comparison for just about everything, how the car has it's roots in the horsewagon, how the internet has it's root in just about any other media distribution etc...

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.

BOB SAGET IS SATAN INCARNATE! (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990630)

David Hasselhoff is a General Officer in his Army... Read more here [thebestpag...iverse.net]

Re:BOB SAGET IS SATAN INCARNATE! (1)

edflyerssn007 (897318) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990740)

this is actually funny, so don't mod it down.........

-ed

Bob Saget 2.0? (2, Funny)

gEvil (beta) (945888) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990642)

Did they get around to implementing the "funny" feature in this version? Or was it pulled at the last minute again cos it still didn't work right?

Re:Bob Saget 2.0? (2, Informative)

EReidJ (551124) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990803)

I've got to tell you, Bob Saget is one of the most respected comedians working today. He's adored by many of the greats, passed on (Rodney Dangerfield was famously one of Bob Saget's best friends) and Penn Gillette (who featured him in "The Aristocrats"). Yes, "America's Funniest Home Videos" and "Full House" were terrible examples of what he would do. But go see him in stand-up sometime; he is one of the vilest, funniest, grossest, hysterical comedians you will ever see on stage.

Re:Bob Saget 2.0? (1)

tedrlord (95173) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991112)

If you don't think Saget is funny, watch him on the Aristocrats. I've seen him live, and his bit in the movie is tame compared to that. Seriously, you'd think he has Tourette's.

Actually, he has a bit about the various snuff movies he enjoyed that were sent in to America's Funniest. There's some seriously messed up stuff in there.

Re:Bob Saget 2.0? (1)

MattHawk (215818) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991216)

They had to disable it for TV due to large quantities of NSFW content. See his standup comedy routine sometime - given the roles he played on TV, it is somewhat shocking how crude his material is.

Power of the ooze. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990659)

"...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."

That's not "family values" oozing. That's "future family" oozing.

Meaning of 'Saget' in Farsi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990662)

Apparently 'saget' means 'shit' in farsi. In my high school we had a large Iranian immigrant community and they would always laugh when they heard that name.

Re:Meaning of 'Saget' in Farsi (-1, Flamebait)

east coast (590680) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990808)

they would always laugh when they heard that name

Don't we all? And Saget means shit in a more universal language.

mod DoBwn (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990679)

Re:mod DoBwn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15991574)

Um, telling people to mod your comments down is a pointless way to troll.

German TV shows clips from youtube and co (2, Informative)

denominateur (194939) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990754)

As the german private TV sector struggles to save money wherever it can (having recently survived an almost complete crash) shows such as "clip charts" have sprung up, sampling the silliness that people put up on the likes of youtube.

RTubgirl (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990759)

EWould take about 2 bring your own reasons why anyone

blasphemy! because: www.bobsagetisgod.com (2, Funny)

pimpimpim (811140) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990903)

he is, just look at the proof [bobsagetisgod.com]

There's something potentially better about youtube (3, Interesting)

symbolic (11752) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990908)

I'm not sure I agree that it can be traced "back to" a TV show like AFV. That's like saying that because Christianity decries murder and adultery, that any system of morals that incorporate these same values, has its Christian roots. What we're talking about here is universal appeal: they are elements within our social makeup that inspire a natural interest.

However, the interesting thing about youtube is that with few exceptions, it is a relatively unfiltered medium. There is no marketing department behind the scenes deciding what it thinks you'll like. You pick the stuff you do find interesting, and ignore the stuff you don't. I would agree that it's a somewhat tedious process sometimes, but what's nice about the way that youtube is structured is that what started out as a dead end (something uninteresting), can sometimes lead you to something very worthwhile via the associated links that show up, or responses that people other members have posted.

My only gripe really is that I wish people would observe a bare minimum of what makes a watchable video - shooting in near-complete darkness isn't one of them, nor is movement that makes it look like the one holding the camera is having a grand mal seizure.

New slogan for YouTube (5, Funny)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990919)

"YouTube: Everything Slashdotters hate about MySpace rendered as a low quality video"

Re:New slogan for YouTube (1)

wolrahnaes (632574) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991004)

Most people who avoid myspace are either old farts who criticize anyone under 30, or nerds living with their parents


Or people who recognize it as Geocities/Angelfire 2.0

The concept is good. The execution is horrible. Myspace gives users far too much freedom to destroy their pages with animated backgrounds, unreadable color schemes, and 50 different videos all set to automatically start playing when the page is opened.

Re:New slogan for YouTube (1)

jb.hl.com (782137) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991071)

The freedom is one of the reasons MySpace is popular. It allows people, as Geocities and Angelfire did (and still do) a great amount of freedom to express themselves. If they express themselves through clashing colours and shitty HTML, that's their business and nobody elses.

I find it quite funny that people (not specifically talking about you) who talk about freedom in software consider freedom a bad thing when applied to normal people making web pages.

everything I learned about america (3, Funny)

smoondog (85133) | more than 7 years ago | (#15990943)

Everything I learned about America I learned from watching "America's Funniest Home Videos" and "Antiques Roadshow"

Think about it.

Re:everything I learned about america (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15990995)

> Everything I learned about America I learned from watching "America's Funniest Home Videos" and "Antiques Roadshow"
> Think about it.

I always wondered what motivated the terrorists to hate America so much... :-)

Re:everything I learned about america (1)

Frightening (976489) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991437)

Now that I think about it, that sucks. We don't all own trampolines or cannon fodder our dads in the balls. For a better understanding of American culture, please watch Americas Funniest Criminals.

Funny Summary (1)

Lazbien (788979) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991205)

Am I the only one who was laughing at the summary, visualizing these things actually happen?

I'm a sick, sick, boy.

Ah--ha! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#15991208)

Bob Saget 2.0, eh? Makes sense. I always thought he was a robot!

Somethings missing here... (1)

smcdow (114828) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991259)

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.

Links?

VideoSift, VideoBomb, etc. (1)

antdude (79039) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991286)

You can rate videos (not just funny ones) on Web sites like VideoSift [videosift.com] , VideoBomb [videobomb.com] , etc.

Bob Saget 2.0 (1)

IHC Navistar (967161) | more than 7 years ago | (#15991685)

At least the bad (as in low quality) jokes that Saget told didn't carry over from America's Funniest Home Videos.

-----

Sig Sauer
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...