YouTube has a lot of fun stuff, and I won't deny it of that, but I don't understand where this "revolution" in video content is. There is little on the Web that qualifies as anything more than wasting time.
There are certainly some big advertising opportunities, and it's certainly something to consider as a growing alternative to broadcast TV (which gets more lame by day). The press started to jump all over it when LonelyGirl15 was outed as an actress and not a teenage narcissist who liked to video blog. A wired article about these guys makes the sound like revolutionary pioneers in the new art of Internet storytelling. Things got interesting when suddenly "Bree" became angry with her parents about not being allowed to go out with her male friend.
What I don't get is why everyone in the press is sucking these guys off as being geniuses. I mean come on, if I made a regular video with a 19-year-old hottie actress that was even remotely interesting, I could attract a crowd too. It doesn't make me the Internet version of Spielberg. I watched a few episodes, and I'll agree that she's convincing, very cute and there's some hint of a plot.
But where's the real meat? The average 44 minutes of drama on an hour-long TV show is what I watch religiously because it's an interesting and longer lasting escape. It's something to do in my free time. I can watch half of the LonelyGirl15 episodes in no time flat, and then what?
There is no doubt in my mind that the Internet makes new forms of entertainment possible, and I dig that. But the new entertainment still has to be as interesting and something more than a time waster. Even the "Behind The Music That Sucks" episodes on Heavy.com (which have been around for at least six years) are more interesting, and that was done as early and somewhat crude Flash.