I still haven't noticed any ads/monetization on his videos. Seems to get brought up quite a few times here, but even with all my blockers disabled, nothing. Different for you guys?
I see it as closer to a chronological archival project (ie the comprehensive history) - a string of videos that sums up but mostly preserves all information on the cwcki in a linear fashion and in this, I dare say it succeeds. This, in and of itself, makes it far less interesting to those who have followed Chris over the years, but in my view, far better for those entirely new to him.
There are different approaches to documentaries and there is a marked difference in whether you are used to american or central european styles (or even different directors, like Werner Herzog, who has a very distinct documentary style), which tend to emphasize chronology and narration (or lack thereof) differently.
Geno is to me very similar to old German television documentaries, which only basically string together archival material tied together by bridging narration - sometimes with interviews, but rarely with any jumps in the timeline. If at all, the references are usually made to events previously talked about, but it never skips ahead or adds any significant commentary. I find that when I watch american or even asian documentaries however, that they have a very different (not better or worse) angle.
The subject matter is treated more as one big picture looked at as a whole, where one can jump back and forth between happenings to go into connections, rather than leaving that up to the viewer to do after presenting all the material. Chronology is present, but it tends to ultimately focus on a conclusion, something it all leads up to, rather than chronology for the sake of it.
