h a l f b a k e r yTastes richer, less filling.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
I prefer watching TV to watching videos because I know that thousands or millions of others are seeing the same thing at the same
time. By watching a video, I merely amuse myself; by watching television, I catch up on what is amusing everybody else.
Having a virtual living room would enhance that
experience.
But there seem to be many gotcha's
about telepresence and online commentary (ask
people involved with the "Third Voice" web
annotations, for instance.)
Scripted, strongly moderated commentary is great
(Mystery Science Theatre 3000, DVD commentaries,
Joe Bob Briggs). Small social groups work fine, too.
The IRC chat channel [dennisp] describes in the
annotation probably wouldn't work for me, either.
(Most IRC-like things don't, although I remember
an acceptable evening in #mofo watching a Penn
& Teller Sin City Spectacular.)
Audio is great for mixing together
crowd reactions, text bad. A crowd going "oooh" seems much
more fun than fifteen lines of "oooh" in a chat
channel. Maybe there are some interesting
"text mixing" algorithms that could come out of that;
maybe one simply needs to use audio.
Also, of course, I would like a choice of the people
I want to hang out with; this is harder than just
selecting individuals, because people form groups, and
if your selections don't follow these group boundaries, you
lose track of conversations.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Destination URL.
E.g., https://www.coffee.com/
Description (displayed with the short name and URL.)
|
| |
I have observed this behavior in AOL rooms, and IRC channels. People often have their computer in the living room with the television or more recently a tv tuner. However, I am skeptical about forming 'online' communities based on shared mass media interests. |
|
| |
I remember the last time fox had one of those Insane Car Crashes XXIV shows, in an IRC channel of about 140 people, about 15-20 were watching and typing 'oooh' or 'hahahah' or 'that's got to hurt'. |
|
| |
TV is dumb & dangerous. It's pre-fabricated corporate mass-control. Celebrating its dumbness in "virtual living rooms" won't make it any better. I haven't been using TV for anything but news for half a year now, and I'm very happy about that. A sitcom or a talkshow where hundreds of real or fake voices go "OOOH" at the same time actually disgusts me, such open and uninhibited display of herd behavior.. |
|
| |
Post-show discussion like in newsgroups and chats may have some merit to those addicted to that primitive, centralized medium, but the idea of the collective exhibition of animal instincts during the actual broadcast doesn't appeal to me. |
|
| |
My, aren't we the sophisticated iconoclast. |
|
| |
On the subject of laugh tracks: The "laugh tracks" in most television shows strike me as totally unnecessary, other than to let the viewer know when they missed a joke. The laugh track either degrades the viewer's intellect by pointing out all of the times where he or she missed the joke, or adds useless repetition to the show. In addition, whenever there is something truly funny in a television show, the laugh track dulls its edge. I think that the laugh track should be eradicated completely. I can list a number of examples where the omission of a laugh track has significantly increased the overall humor of the show.
For instance, the Simpsons; the omission of the laughtrack has allowed for subtle humor to be weaved throughout the show. If the laugh track were to be added here, the jokes would be forced to become much more obvious. This way, there are different levels of humor for the more observant mind: One reason why the Simpsons are so popular. |
|
| |