Bob Saget 2.0

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."

Comments

But youtube isn't usually funny!

[crazyjeremy]

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.

Youtube Wins

[potpie]

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

[Massif]

Personally I think the only reason Bob Saget is funny is because of the huge contrast between his raunchy stand up comedy and his Full House/AFHV persona. If he hadn't done those awful family shows, he would be just another vulgar comedian.

speaking of...

[chasingporsches]

speaking of bob saget and youtube...

THIS is bob saget 2.0! (NSFW)

Do they know

[in2mind]

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.

So what?

[Hoppelainen]

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.

Re:Makes sense to me

[cubicledrone]

Is it American humor?

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

Re:Makes sense to me

[Bluesman]

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.