While waiting for Fox to announce the third season of King of the Hill (and waiting through the Fox network's tortuous pattern of football pre-emptions, timeslot changes and other annoyances), I thought I'd ask this question: Do people who have the first two sets like or dislike the decision to have "in-character" commentaries? I go back and forth on it... on the one hand, voice actors, important as they are, only work like two days a week on an episode, so the amount of anecdotes they might have "as themselves" tends to be limited (the voice actors on The Simpsons season 3, as themselves, don't always have a great deal to say). On the other hand, because the in-character commentaries seem to be wholly improvised, they're not all that in-character and don't necessarily have a lot of repeat value. And at least one of the voice actors (Johnny Hardwick as Dale) was also a writer for the show, so he would presumably have quite a bit to say as himself. Like I said, I go back and forth on it... I know some people who really hate this approach and others who really like it. I do think the approach overall works better on the second set because the actors break character more often to talk about themselves or their fellow actors (e.g. Pamela Segall, or "Bobby," talking about the Emmy she won for the show). And the approach got some favorable mentions in the newspapers, so I suspect they'll continue it in future seasons -- though we'll see when the third season is announced.