17 ms·

> It can play with the structure to make the shows work better for its ad-free format I think people underrate how big this is from a creator perspective. As v

> It can play with the structure to make the shows work better for its ad-free format I think people underrate how big this is from a creator perspective. As viewers, we typically appreciate when work is uninterrupted by commercials (though some shows are more forgiving of them than others), but to my understanding, it's quite difficult as a creative to segment your work out into 12-14 minute segments, constantly building up enough momentum that people will be riveted through the commercial long enough to stick around, and then having to ensure enough recap is done after the break that it doesn't break the narrative flow.

S_A_P 8y ago
This times 100000000000000e100000
magicalhippo 8y ago
This is one of the reasons I prefer Netflix-only shows, where the episodes aren't filled with contrived cliffhangers just for the sake of trying to hang on to viewers during ad breaks. Instead episodes usually feel much more like short movies, with proper pacing and reveals.
- christoph 8y ago
  Something I'm glad they've taken advantage of is having episodes in a series with totally different runtimes - e.g. Master of None, episode lengths range between 22 mins & 58 mins. It really frees up the writing & directing to have more room to breathe.
- noir_lord 8y ago
  For me it's the 5 minute recap, 5 minute content, 5 minute break, 5 minute recap loop on most shit.
- c22 8y ago
  They just stick the contrived cliffhangers on the end of each "episode" instead.
  - ejstronge 8y ago
    Episode-ending cliffhangers are present in almost all television shows. Netflix hasn't led to an increase in these, in my cursory experience.
    - c22 8y ago
      No, but I have found the ones in Netflix shows to be more banal, with even cross-season cliffhangers resolving with low import to the plot.
      - sametmax 8y ago
        That's today's shows in general. Lots of build up to something the writers either haven't an idea how to resolve yet or just over hyped. As photography and CGI improved, writing went down the toilet. Mainly because it's not necessary to make money. Most viewers are happy enough for bad plots, so-so acting, dubious congruency and limited dialogs as long as it's visually entertaining. As usual, the wider your audience, the duller your product has to become to accommodate everyone. The worst is definitely dubbing. In France you can clearly see that around 2000, producers gave up any effort on looking for decent translator and voice actors. The voices are always the same from one movie to another, the lips don't match, the jokes are lost. When I watch the 5th element or the naked gun however, I'm amazed at the fantastic work they did to translate the spirit of the lines so beautifully. Still, sometimes on netflix you got some very nice surprises, provided you watch it in orginal version only. "The good place" and "Dirk gently" really made my day.
        WalterBright 8y ago
        I've been watching "Babylon Berlin" on Netflix which is pretty good. But I was annoyed at the dubbing, it just felt out of place. I finally found a switch to switch to the German soundtrack with English subtitles. I'm much happier with that. I wonder why each scene is not just shot twice, once with the German dialog and once with English. It would work much better than dubbing.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
ebbv 8y ago
The thing is it's kind of a false narrative. Because the shows aren't entirely ad free. They're mostly ad free, but Lost in Space for example featured an extremely jarring product placement for Oreos which came up repeatedly in an episode. It was just as jarring for me as ad placements, disrupting the narrative and throwing me out of the story. Especially since hte Oreo package was identical to the ones we have now even though the show is supposedly decades in the future. This happens in most Netflix shows; jarring and obvious product placement that disrupts the flow of the story. So it's not that they are ad free, they just featured reduced ads in most episodes.
- bmelton 8y ago
  I'm not talking about ads, I'm talking about interrupting the show. I don't know if the Oreos thing was a product placement (though it seems likely), but if I'm writing a script or a screenplay, I probably have fewer mental gymnastics to hurdle through to inject Oreos into a script than I do to have to accommodate a show-break. On the flip side, it's worth pointing out that it isn't either/or, as shows with commercial breaks may still include product placement, and not all of them are going to be as mightily integrated as Snyder's of Hanover was to Psych.
- Fnoord 8y ago
  Movies have that as well though. Remember the Nokia in the original Matrix movie? It was slowed down for a second while it was thrown in a bin.
  - Noos 8y ago
    The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers movie has Krispy Kreme product placement to the point of absurdity, even having the main villain chowing down on one during the action.
- ljm 8y ago
  Some product placement can be cheesy no matter what situation it's in but I'd take a few moments of cheesy product insertion over the typical pattern of a US serial: 2 seconds of blackness (or 3 minutes of commercials) every 12 minutes or so, 20 minutes of story time traded for adverts, and dialog you would never encounter in a more continuous story because it assumes the audience is intelligent enough to figure it out or start from the beginning. It's mind-numbing in the extreme. Bringing up a pack of Oreos and waving it around the screen so everybody can really see it's a pack of Oreos is one thing, but the endless trudge of scenes like this is something else: X: "So you got the brief from the NSA?" Y: "The National Security Agency, they monitor all the communications in the US to prevent terrorism... yes I got the brief. You bring in Mr Snucklebum for questioning?" X: "Snucklebum, the man under suspicion for trading classified secrets? Yeah he's in interrogation, right through here." - alarm bells, ad break - Y: "Snucklebum's escaped! Lockdown!" X: "Snucklebum, the guy under suspicion for trading classified secrets to the NSA?" Y: "The national security agency. Yeah"
kgwgk 8y ago
As HBO or Showtime have done for decades.
rainbowmverse 8y ago
I had to stop watching The Walking Dead because of the endless commercial breaks. At least it reliably comes to Netflix. The spinoff, on the other hand, is missing the last season. I suspect it's because AMC is pushing their own streaming service with "watch the full current season now! Don't wait!"
- headShrinker 8y ago
  Pretty sure almost everyone stopped watching The Walking Dead because of the continuous bad writing and lack of plot, boring interpersonal drama, constant death of interesting characters while the most boring characters get to linger like the stench of a mildew ridden towel.
  - camgunz 8y ago
    It's like they're so impressed with their messages (interesting people stand out, take risks and responsibility, and die, scarcity and fear are the reasons we made governments, humans are the real zombies, life is hard) they forgot to make a good show. In fact I actually think they can't. Anyone remember season 2 where they tried to develop characters and what-not? It was agonizing.
  - thomastjeffery 8y ago
    I keep going back to it hoping that later seasons get better. It had such a wonderful start...
  - WalterBright 8y ago
    The characters never learned, either, which is why I quit watching. There was always "let's go to the village that we've never been to before, and split up so the zombies can take us out one by one!" among many idiotic tropes.
taeric 8y ago
I think you overrate how big this is from a creator perspective. In large, because it is a return to previous standards, in many ways. Large chunks of content are not a new thing. If anything, the ads that we take for granted are somewhat the new flash in the pan. And like most flashes, pretty sure they flared out. No, Netflix has managed to keep the requirement that a studio needs a ton of cash to produce something. Youtube, on the other hand, probably has done a lot to change television. Shame it is changing back.
Reedx 8y ago
Indeed, it has a huge impact on what writers can do. Content is shaped by the container it's in, and Netflix is a different kind of container. No ads? Don't have to cater to advertisers, don't need to have advertiser friendly content. No ad breaks? Don't need to create cliffhangers on a defined schedule. Can preserve flow. On demand? Don't have to worry about people missing episodes. No syndication? Don't have to worry about episodes being watched out of order. Now the world and characters can change in meaningful ways.
AndrewUnmuted 8y ago
I think it is misleading to label Netflix as being an ad-free distributor. They in fact do generate revenue via advertising - it's just more modern and hidden: product placement. "According to Isaacs, brands pay $50,000 to $500,000 per episode for getting into a Netflix or Amazon show. The price is calculated based on the popularity of the show and how long the product will be showed in the episode. There are two options for product placement in the shows: a logo in the background or a real plot point in the story." [0] This, to me, seems just as disruptive to the creative freedom of a program's producers/writers/directors. [0] https://learnbonds.com/134772/netflix-killing-secret-ads-shows/ https://learnbonds.com/134772/netflix-killing-secret-ads-sho...
- new299 8y ago
  Wow, I didn't know that. I guess it's logical given that it's been going on in TV/films for some time. This is probably the end-game of Adblocking unfortunately. A lot more product placement that is obviously harder to filter.
  - greedo 8y ago
    I wouldn't be opposed to that; I just don't want malware/tracking running when I hit a website.
- leetcrew 8y ago
  > This, to me, seems just as disruptive to the creative freedom of a program's producers/writers/directors. only if there is a wide disparity in the price companies are willing to pay to have their product in the show. say you have a show about a lawyer and they need a car to drive around in. my guess is bmw and mercedes offer similar amounts of money, so you just pick the one that the character would prefer. on the other hand, you're probably not going to see anyone using a pixel 2 outside of mr robot.
  - mmt 8y ago
    I've been noticing product placement for a long time[1], but the most jarring/disruptive product placement I've seen, at least in recent memory, is that of the Windows Phone, especially when every character in the show uses one. The UI is so distinctive, and they made such a point of showing it off. This was in more than one show. I have yet to see one being used by a real consumer. [1] Listening to directors' commentaries on <ahem> laserdiscs "ruined" this bit of moviemaking for me early on
new299 8y ago
Overall, I think it's a positive change. But I think there are other effects too. One is the trend toward longer, multi-season story arcs. This is also a trend in traditional television, but seems that the single episode story is dead on Netflix. That's a shame, because it often is possible to succinctly express an idea in 30mins or 1hour. But it's in Netflix's best interests to keep you hooked on a show and "watching one more episode". That's particularly valuable for content that is released week-by-week. It also has other benefits, the more you watch, the more you're dependent on their service. The one exception to this I've seen on Netflix is Black Mirror. But that was a show developed outside of the platform initially. I can't see something like Star trek the next generation, or another idea driven show which explores a single idea in a single episode being green lit on Netflix, and that's a shame.
- eslaught 8y ago
  Speak for yourself. In my opinion, this is a massive win for storytelling. And I'm saying this as a lifelong Star Trek fan who has watched every single series end-to-end except for TOS. As much as I love it, Star Trek feels old. And this is the #1 reason why. With relatively small exceptions, every episode is complete disconnected from every other. The beginning of the episode sets up some sort of problem or danger. By the end of the episode, this danger is dealt with, gone. Character development is either non-existent, or happens at such a painfully slow pace that it's difficult to feel connected to what's going on. Instead what we see (if anything) are "snapshots" into the character's mental state. This is simply not how you tell a good story! So it's not surprising to me that Star Trek went fallow for a long time. The point about character development applies to the universe too. People like to say that the Federation feels old. But what they really mean, in my opinion, is that the Federation should be viewed as a character. And if you think about it that way, it becomes obvious that as a character, the Federation is completely missing character development. So it's no wonder people get tired of it! Would you want to read a novel about a character who doesn't change at all during the course of the story? Would you come back for more after a half dozen of these? The problem with saving the world perfectly every time is that over the long term, this means there is no change. Every individual episode might be a great story, but at the end of the day, did any of it matter? If there are no permanent consequences, it's hard to see how. This becomes especially obvious if you binge-watch the shows. Everything is always the same. Nothing changes. What I want to see in a show (Star Trek or otherwise) is change. Permanent, irrevocable change. You dropped a glass, and it shattered, and no amount of wishing otherwise will put it back together again. That doesn't mean you can't do something about it! But certainly, you're not just going to put things back into exactly the same state they were before. P.S. You might be tempted to say, "oh, but what about DS9?" But even there, the format was largely unchanged. Go and count the episodes. The ones that actually dealt with any sort of ongoing story are a minority. Most of the shows follow the same framework as previous series. Except for one 10-episode sequence at the very end, you can basically forget that the war exists between the episodes that they mention it.
tootie 8y ago
That structure predates TV. Plays were divided into 3 or 5 acts.
- icebraining 8y ago
  They were divisions in the structure, but that's about the only similitude. Acts are an artistic choice, not an imposed constraint with defined timings and mandatory recaps.
wongarsu 8y ago
It's also just so much wasted time. Once I started watching old Mythbusters episodes on youtube I realized that about a third of it is just drumming up suspense before a commercial break, or recapping after a break. That's time that could be filled with actually interesting content.
- evan_ 8y ago
  Fans have edited every mythbuster episode into “streamline” edits that get rid of all the recapping and precapping. They tend to be about 30-35 minutes long.
FRex 8y ago
The segmenting backfires hilariously between countries. I've often seen shows go "It was Mr. X all along!", everyone looked at the person who said that in shock and awe and realization, there was a sound cue, screen faded to black and then the show continued with them going to kick Mr. X's teeth in, but already in a much less dramatic tone. And then the actual break happens in another spot, where it's much less appropriate and breaks the flow completely instead of making me eagerly await the end of the break to see Mr. X get his teeth kicked in. This is actually a trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommercialBreakCliffhanger http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommercialBreakCl...

S_A_P 8y ago

This times 100000000000000e100000

magicalhippo 8y ago

This is one of the reasons I prefer Netflix-only shows, where the episodes aren't filled with contrived cliffhangers just for the sake of trying to hang on to viewers during ad breaks. Instead episodes usually feel much more like short movies, with proper pacing and reveals.

christoph 8y ago
Something I'm glad they've taken advantage of is having episodes in a series with totally different runtimes - e.g. Master of None, episode lengths range between 22 mins & 58 mins. It really frees up the writing & directing to have more room to breathe.
noir_lord 8y ago
For me it's the 5 minute recap, 5 minute content, 5 minute break, 5 minute recap loop on most shit.
c22 8y ago
They just stick the contrived cliffhangers on the end of each "episode" instead.
- ejstronge 8y ago
  Episode-ending cliffhangers are present in almost all television shows. Netflix hasn't led to an increase in these, in my cursory experience.
  - c22 8y ago
    No, but I have found the ones in Netflix shows to be more banal, with even cross-season cliffhangers resolving with low import to the plot.
    - sametmax 8y ago
      That's today's shows in general. Lots of build up to something the writers either haven't an idea how to resolve yet or just over hyped. As photography and CGI improved, writing went down the toilet. Mainly because it's not necessary to make money. Most viewers are happy enough for bad plots, so-so acting, dubious congruency and limited dialogs as long as it's visually entertaining. As usual, the wider your audience, the duller your product has to become to accommodate everyone. The worst is definitely dubbing. In France you can clearly see that around 2000, producers gave up any effort on looking for decent translator and voice actors. The voices are always the same from one movie to another, the lips don't match, the jokes are lost. When I watch the 5th element or the naked gun however, I'm amazed at the fantastic work they did to translate the spirit of the lines so beautifully. Still, sometimes on netflix you got some very nice surprises, provided you watch it in orginal version only. "The good place" and "Dirk gently" really made my day.
      - WalterBright 8y ago
        I've been watching "Babylon Berlin" on Netflix which is pretty good. But I was annoyed at the dubbing, it just felt out of place. I finally found a switch to switch to the German soundtrack with English subtitles. I'm much happier with that. I wonder why each scene is not just shot twice, once with the German dialog and once with English. It would work much better than dubbing.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]

ebbv 8y ago

The thing is it's kind of a false narrative. Because the shows aren't entirely ad free. They're mostly ad free, but Lost in Space for example featured an extremely jarring product placement for Oreos which came up repeatedly in an episode. It was just as jarring for me as ad placements, disrupting the narrative and throwing me out of the story. Especially since hte Oreo package was identical to the ones we have now even though the show is supposedly decades in the future. This happens in most Netflix shows; jarring and obvious product placement that disrupts the flow of the story. So it's not that they are ad free, they just featured reduced ads in most episodes.

bmelton 8y ago
I'm not talking about ads, I'm talking about interrupting the show. I don't know if the Oreos thing was a product placement (though it seems likely), but if I'm writing a script or a screenplay, I probably have fewer mental gymnastics to hurdle through to inject Oreos into a script than I do to have to accommodate a show-break. On the flip side, it's worth pointing out that it isn't either/or, as shows with commercial breaks may still include product placement, and not all of them are going to be as mightily integrated as Snyder's of Hanover was to Psych.
Fnoord 8y ago
Movies have that as well though. Remember the Nokia in the original Matrix movie? It was slowed down for a second while it was thrown in a bin.
- Noos 8y ago
  The Mighty Morphin Power Rangers movie has Krispy Kreme product placement to the point of absurdity, even having the main villain chowing down on one during the action.
ljm 8y ago
Some product placement can be cheesy no matter what situation it's in but I'd take a few moments of cheesy product insertion over the typical pattern of a US serial: 2 seconds of blackness (or 3 minutes of commercials) every 12 minutes or so, 20 minutes of story time traded for adverts, and dialog you would never encounter in a more continuous story because it assumes the audience is intelligent enough to figure it out or start from the beginning. It's mind-numbing in the extreme. Bringing up a pack of Oreos and waving it around the screen so everybody can really see it's a pack of Oreos is one thing, but the endless trudge of scenes like this is something else: X: "So you got the brief from the NSA?" Y: "The National Security Agency, they monitor all the communications in the US to prevent terrorism... yes I got the brief. You bring in Mr Snucklebum for questioning?" X: "Snucklebum, the man under suspicion for trading classified secrets? Yeah he's in interrogation, right through here." - alarm bells, ad break - Y: "Snucklebum's escaped! Lockdown!" X: "Snucklebum, the guy under suspicion for trading classified secrets to the NSA?" Y: "The national security agency. Yeah"

kgwgk 8y ago

As HBO or Showtime have done for decades.

rainbowmverse 8y ago

I had to stop watching The Walking Dead because of the endless commercial breaks. At least it reliably comes to Netflix. The spinoff, on the other hand, is missing the last season. I suspect it's because AMC is pushing their own streaming service with "watch the full current season now! Don't wait!"

headShrinker 8y ago
Pretty sure almost everyone stopped watching The Walking Dead because of the continuous bad writing and lack of plot, boring interpersonal drama, constant death of interesting characters while the most boring characters get to linger like the stench of a mildew ridden towel.
- camgunz 8y ago
  It's like they're so impressed with their messages (interesting people stand out, take risks and responsibility, and die, scarcity and fear are the reasons we made governments, humans are the real zombies, life is hard) they forgot to make a good show. In fact I actually think they can't. Anyone remember season 2 where they tried to develop characters and what-not? It was agonizing.
- thomastjeffery 8y ago
  I keep going back to it hoping that later seasons get better. It had such a wonderful start...
- WalterBright 8y ago
  The characters never learned, either, which is why I quit watching. There was always "let's go to the village that we've never been to before, and split up so the zombies can take us out one by one!" among many idiotic tropes.

taeric 8y ago

I think you overrate how big this is from a creator perspective. In large, because it is a return to previous standards, in many ways. Large chunks of content are not a new thing. If anything, the ads that we take for granted are somewhat the new flash in the pan. And like most flashes, pretty sure they flared out. No, Netflix has managed to keep the requirement that a studio needs a ton of cash to produce something. Youtube, on the other hand, probably has done a lot to change television. Shame it is changing back.

Reedx 8y ago

Indeed, it has a huge impact on what writers can do. Content is shaped by the container it's in, and Netflix is a different kind of container. No ads? Don't have to cater to advertisers, don't need to have advertiser friendly content. No ad breaks? Don't need to create cliffhangers on a defined schedule. Can preserve flow. On demand? Don't have to worry about people missing episodes. No syndication? Don't have to worry about episodes being watched out of order. Now the world and characters can change in meaningful ways.

AndrewUnmuted 8y ago

I think it is misleading to label Netflix as being an ad-free distributor. They in fact do generate revenue via advertising - it's just more modern and hidden: product placement. "According to Isaacs, brands pay $50,000 to $500,000 per episode for getting into a Netflix or Amazon show. The price is calculated based on the popularity of the show and how long the product will be showed in the episode. There are two options for product placement in the shows: a logo in the background or a real plot point in the story." [0] This, to me, seems just as disruptive to the creative freedom of a program's producers/writers/directors. [0] https://learnbonds.com/134772/netflix-killing-secret-ads-shows/ https://learnbonds.com/134772/netflix-killing-secret-ads-sho...

new299 8y ago
Wow, I didn't know that. I guess it's logical given that it's been going on in TV/films for some time. This is probably the end-game of Adblocking unfortunately. A lot more product placement that is obviously harder to filter.
- greedo 8y ago
  I wouldn't be opposed to that; I just don't want malware/tracking running when I hit a website.
leetcrew 8y ago
> This, to me, seems just as disruptive to the creative freedom of a program's producers/writers/directors. only if there is a wide disparity in the price companies are willing to pay to have their product in the show. say you have a show about a lawyer and they need a car to drive around in. my guess is bmw and mercedes offer similar amounts of money, so you just pick the one that the character would prefer. on the other hand, you're probably not going to see anyone using a pixel 2 outside of mr robot.
- mmt 8y ago
  I've been noticing product placement for a long time[1], but the most jarring/disruptive product placement I've seen, at least in recent memory, is that of the Windows Phone, especially when every character in the show uses one. The UI is so distinctive, and they made such a point of showing it off. This was in more than one show. I have yet to see one being used by a real consumer. [1] Listening to directors' commentaries on <ahem> laserdiscs "ruined" this bit of moviemaking for me early on

new299 8y ago

Overall, I think it's a positive change. But I think there are other effects too. One is the trend toward longer, multi-season story arcs. This is also a trend in traditional television, but seems that the single episode story is dead on Netflix. That's a shame, because it often is possible to succinctly express an idea in 30mins or 1hour. But it's in Netflix's best interests to keep you hooked on a show and "watching one more episode". That's particularly valuable for content that is released week-by-week. It also has other benefits, the more you watch, the more you're dependent on their service. The one exception to this I've seen on Netflix is Black Mirror. But that was a show developed outside of the platform initially. I can't see something like Star trek the next generation, or another idea driven show which explores a single idea in a single episode being green lit on Netflix, and that's a shame.

eslaught 8y ago
Speak for yourself. In my opinion, this is a massive win for storytelling. And I'm saying this as a lifelong Star Trek fan who has watched every single series end-to-end except for TOS. As much as I love it, Star Trek feels old. And this is the #1 reason why. With relatively small exceptions, every episode is complete disconnected from every other. The beginning of the episode sets up some sort of problem or danger. By the end of the episode, this danger is dealt with, gone. Character development is either non-existent, or happens at such a painfully slow pace that it's difficult to feel connected to what's going on. Instead what we see (if anything) are "snapshots" into the character's mental state. This is simply not how you tell a good story! So it's not surprising to me that Star Trek went fallow for a long time. The point about character development applies to the universe too. People like to say that the Federation feels old. But what they really mean, in my opinion, is that the Federation should be viewed as a character. And if you think about it that way, it becomes obvious that as a character, the Federation is completely missing character development. So it's no wonder people get tired of it! Would you want to read a novel about a character who doesn't change at all during the course of the story? Would you come back for more after a half dozen of these? The problem with saving the world perfectly every time is that over the long term, this means there is no change. Every individual episode might be a great story, but at the end of the day, did any of it matter? If there are no permanent consequences, it's hard to see how. This becomes especially obvious if you binge-watch the shows. Everything is always the same. Nothing changes. What I want to see in a show (Star Trek or otherwise) is change. Permanent, irrevocable change. You dropped a glass, and it shattered, and no amount of wishing otherwise will put it back together again. That doesn't mean you can't do something about it! But certainly, you're not just going to put things back into exactly the same state they were before. P.S. You might be tempted to say, "oh, but what about DS9?" But even there, the format was largely unchanged. Go and count the episodes. The ones that actually dealt with any sort of ongoing story are a minority. Most of the shows follow the same framework as previous series. Except for one 10-episode sequence at the very end, you can basically forget that the war exists between the episodes that they mention it.

tootie 8y ago

That structure predates TV. Plays were divided into 3 or 5 acts.

icebraining 8y ago
They were divisions in the structure, but that's about the only similitude. Acts are an artistic choice, not an imposed constraint with defined timings and mandatory recaps.

wongarsu 8y ago

It's also just so much wasted time. Once I started watching old Mythbusters episodes on youtube I realized that about a third of it is just drumming up suspense before a commercial break, or recapping after a break. That's time that could be filled with actually interesting content.

evan_ 8y ago
Fans have edited every mythbuster episode into “streamline” edits that get rid of all the recapping and precapping. They tend to be about 30-35 minutes long.

FRex 8y ago

The segmenting backfires hilariously between countries. I've often seen shows go "It was Mr. X all along!", everyone looked at the person who said that in shock and awe and realization, there was a sound cue, screen faded to black and then the show continued with them going to kick Mr. X's teeth in, but already in a much less dramatic tone. And then the actual break happens in another spot, where it's much less appropriate and breaks the flow completely instead of making me eagerly await the end of the break to see Mr. X get his teeth kicked in. This is actually a trope: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommercialBreakCliffhanger http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CommercialBreakCl...