Dr. Horrible's Sing-A-Long Blog
Jul. 19th, 2008 02:34 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatI completely forgot about Dr. Horrible's Sing-a-long Blog". Luckily embers_log and my friend Alice reminded me when I forwarded the kitty video to them. Overall? It's actually sort of cute and enjoyable. Keep in mind it is an internet video not a movie, and filmed on a low budget not to mention the sly during the writer's strike. And as ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
embers_log points out in a response to my post on the kitty video - it is in some ways meant as a commentary or rather a means of venting frustration at corporate Hollywood during that strike. Can't say I blame him. There are few things more frustrating than writing for the Film and Television Industry.
This is what writers do when they get creatively frustrated at the powers that be (ie the people preventing them from doing what they want to do or in the case of the writers striking not paying them for what they want and love to do more than anything in the world - geeze some people want everything, don't they?) - they go online and whine about it. In Whedon's case he not only went online and whined (see his whedonesque posts at the time) he also wrote a musical film with his family and friends, and posted it to the internet. (Must be nice to have the bucks to do that. Apparently that comic book gig is far more lucrative than he's led us to believe. Either that or shooting a film and posting it to the net is not as expensive as I think it is.) This is actually if one thinks about it, far more productive than merely whining on one's blog for weeks on end (which I've done repeatedly much to my own shame and regret and your boredom and annoyance).
At any rate - I watched it this morning before taking off to run errands.Currently debating seeing The Dark Knight- but am not sure I want to venture out into the sauna that today has rapidly become. Like a stupid fool, I did venture out to try and see the Dark Knight, which was of course, sold out. Walked 15-20 blocks in under 15 minutes to do it too. Which is no small feat when it's a 97 degrees with 80% humidity outside. 97 degrees at the beach isn't so bad. In a city...with cars, and pavement, and 80% humidity, it feels a bit like you have entered a sauna or steam room. People are walking in slow motion and there's this weird haze. Oh well, I sweated off five pounds, that's something, right? (Especially when I came home and made myself a milkshake spiked with Vanilla Vodka.)
Anywho, back to Dr. Horrible. First off, is it just me, or do all sci-fi action/comic book superhero tv shows (with the possible exception of The Middleman) end up either killing off a thin, wispy, girl who is the protagonist's love interest or turn her into a helpless and somewhat dim damsel? Except for maybe the comic Spike and Angel: After the Fall - where the women are schizophrenic and seem to be tough as nails/scarey demi-goddesses and wispy helpless damsels depending on the mood. (And the before mentioned Middleman - where the protagonist is a woman. Not sure the Middleman entirely counts. It feels more like the Avengers meet the X-Files than the comic genre Dr. Horrible is in, but whatever.)
This actually says a lot more about men, and even more about our society than I'm at all certain most of us want to think about. But the fact that it keeps popping up over and over and over again in stories, means that we probably should think about it. What we should think about it, I'm not sure. That men are scared of women? Probably not. That we are obsessed with physical distinctions, to an unnatural and silly degree? Possibly.
Don't know. Feel free to comment if you can think of anything productive to say on this topic, since I'm currently drawing a blank - except of course for the fact that I think I should be upset about it, and feel incredibly guilty for enjoying the hot men floating across my screen with their badass attitudes. Examples - assuming you need any - include: James McAvoy's hot turn in Wanted, with Angelina Jolie playing the geek boy's wet dream, sorry, mentor and would-be assassin. Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man, with the sleek blond, Pepper Potts as his damsel and wiley assistant, and of course The Dark Knight with the barely present Rachel Dawes. Personnally? I'd rather see the guys than the girls. That's why I went to two of these flicks and not to say, Sex in the City which was playing more or less around the same time. But, that doesn't mean I don't feel guilty and disturbed about it.
What's this have to do with Dr. Horrible? Well, like most of these stories on tv, the girl is portrayed as the damsel or causality - something others on my correspondence list have already critiqued in their live journals. I had problems with it too, but for different reasons.
While it is tempting to say this is true of most of Whedon's tales, it's unfair to single him out. The plot device he is using, and as anti-feminist as it may seem to folks, it is just a plot device and Whedon, to be fair, has killed off men and women in his series. Wash for example was the nice/friendly/harmless character who bit the dust in Serenity. That said, it is a plot device that is admittedly getting a bit stale, particularly when certain writers keep using it over and over again like Whedon, but at certain point all plot devices feel a bit stale. We've told so many stories, that it's hard not to trip over a stale cliche or two in the process. In this case it's kill the girl or a beloved off in the end to give your protagonist something to angst about. I don't think I'm revealing much stating that. If you've read or seen any of Joss Whedon's shows, you can pretty much guess that's what he's going to do. He's done it in almost all of them. The presentation for some reason or other doesn't have enough gravitas if someone, specifically the weakest character or nicest one take your pick, isn't dead. In Serenity - it was Wash, in Buffy - it was Jenny, Tara, Angel (at one time although he didn't stay dead, bit unfair that) and Spike (ditto) , in Angel - it was Cordy and Fred, and in Astonishing X-Men - it was Kitty Pryde (although dead is arguable). As any good magician knows if you keep doing the same card trick, the audience will begin to get bored.
That's what happened to me watching Dr. Horrible. I felt a bit of deja-vue. This is what critics meant when they said what Russell T. Davies is doing on Doctor Who is far more creative than anything Whedon has done in years. While I do not agree that Davies is a good a writer as Whedon, his dialogue needs work as does some of his plotting, he does come up with new plot-devices here and there. As does Abrahms. Two writers who were strongly influenced by what Whedon did. I feel when I read or watch Whedon's creations that I'm watching the same card trick. Don't get me wrong - it's a great card trick. The dialogue is snappy in places. The songs touching and wry. And he makes fun of our corporate, internet and fan obsessed culture quite brilliantly in places. But the plot, the basic story, feels stale and worn. Making me wonder what he could have done differently to spice it up. To make it less predictable.
Why did Penny have to fall for Captain Hammer? I wouldn't have. Hammer was annoying. Yes, Fillion is charismatic and great to look at, but not in this role. Wouldn't it have been more interesting if she hadn't? If Dr. Horrible only thought she had?
We are of course in Horrible's point of view...so perhaps that's the case. But it doesn't appear to be. Whedon is an expert at establishing pov in a story. He does it quickly and adeptly, making it appear easy and it's not.
I didn't mind Penny's death that much - the bit in which it's a piece from Horrible's gun which was so poorly constructed it back-fired on Hammer when he fired it on Horrible - is actually sort of cool. But, it's also been done to death by now. Most notably by Whedon himself. After all wasn't it Buffy's weapon that kills Renee? I knew he was going to do that before it happened. I was expecting it. Partly because I could not think of another way to give Horrible what he thought he wanted, yet prevent him from ever getting the thing he *really* desired. ie. The price for power and success is often a lot higher than one would suspect. In Hollywood - the writer may risk family and lover for the spotlight and the fame. Penny dies and Horrible gets to be the supervillian, with Hammar disgraced.
It's like Tara's death - almost too easy, too melodramatic, too comic book cliche - like a panel out of an old X-men comic circa 1960s or 70s where Jean Grey loses her mind when Scott Summers appears to be dead, and becomes the Dark Phoenix again. Or David Banner decides the heck with it, when he loses Betty and becomes the Incredible Hulk. Or Spiderman loses it over Gwen Stacy. Shakespear was actually a bit more innovative in his tragedies, Romeo commits suicide when he mistakenly believes Juliet is dead and she upon wakening and discovering his still form, soon follows suite. Shakespeare liked to kill off everyone...as he moved forward in his tragedies, the body count got higher, partly because his audience was a bit more bloodthirsty and partly because they were less forgiving of repeats, not that he didn't repeat himself - there's quite a bit of gender switching going on Shakespeare's comedies for example, to the point that it almost becomes redundant. Comics on the other hand, much as I love the form, tend to get more stale in their plot-lines. And I'm beginning to fear Whedon takes more from them than he does from the far superior Shakespeare.
That said? All in all, it's just a fun little internet movie. Free until Sunday. Doesn't cost you a dime. Except the time and money to watch on the internet - and you're probably on it anyhow. Can't beat free entertainment, so few things are free now a days. Movies cost close to 12 or above. Theater even more. Live music...sigh. If it is free - it requires time and effort to do it. So I appreciate the fun stuff that doesn't cost any of those thing when I find them.
I'm also admittedly a culture junkie - and an indiscriminate one at that. I particularly have a fondness for musicals, scienfiction, fantasy, and superheros. Whedon - I adore because he experiments with form, narrative structure, stories, and he loves his characters to pieces. This is no different. He loves these characters, you can sense that. And the actors do a decent enough job considering the budget of portraying them. Neil Patrick Harris is especially good - so good in fact, that I'm sort of hoping he'll do another musical soon. I'd pay to see him on Broadway. Heck, I'd pay to see him in the film version of a musical. Musicals are making a come back on the big screen (thank heavens) so it is possible. And I adore Sondheim - which this musical reminds me a great deal of. Felicia Day as Penny isn't as great, she's difficult to hear and somewhat wispy.
Which may be the intent. Apparently she is producing and starring in her own internet series. Fillion as always is a hoot. Making fun of himself and the heroic Hammer. An underrated physical comedian, Fillon rounds out the cast quit well. As do David Fury and Marti Noxon as news commentators.
Is it a great musical? Hardly, it is after all just a twenty minute film on the internet, what can you expect? An actual horse as BAD Horse - the head of the organization is actually funny and a comment on Whedon's own adoration of the Western genre, an adoration that I share, not everyone does.
Overall? worth a viewing. I wouldn't buy it. But I wouldn't buy a lot of things, still haven't bought the Harry Potter DVD's for example, even though I think about it. Nor have I bought the BSG DVDs or for that matter all of the Angel and Buffy series. Have too many DVDs as it is that I'm not watching, don't need to add more.
embers_log points out in a response to my post on the kitty video - it is in some ways meant as a commentary or rather a means of venting frustration at corporate Hollywood during that strike. Can't say I blame him. There are few things more frustrating than writing for the Film and Television Industry.This is what writers do when they get creatively frustrated at the powers that be (ie the people preventing them from doing what they want to do or in the case of the writers striking not paying them for what they want and love to do more than anything in the world - geeze some people want everything, don't they?) - they go online and whine about it. In Whedon's case he not only went online and whined (see his whedonesque posts at the time) he also wrote a musical film with his family and friends, and posted it to the internet. (Must be nice to have the bucks to do that. Apparently that comic book gig is far more lucrative than he's led us to believe. Either that or shooting a film and posting it to the net is not as expensive as I think it is.) This is actually if one thinks about it, far more productive than merely whining on one's blog for weeks on end (which I've done repeatedly much to my own shame and regret and your boredom and annoyance).
At any rate - I watched it this morning before taking off to run errands.
Anywho, back to Dr. Horrible. First off, is it just me, or do all sci-fi action/comic book superhero tv shows (with the possible exception of The Middleman) end up either killing off a thin, wispy, girl who is the protagonist's love interest or turn her into a helpless and somewhat dim damsel? Except for maybe the comic Spike and Angel: After the Fall - where the women are schizophrenic and seem to be tough as nails/scarey demi-goddesses and wispy helpless damsels depending on the mood. (And the before mentioned Middleman - where the protagonist is a woman. Not sure the Middleman entirely counts. It feels more like the Avengers meet the X-Files than the comic genre Dr. Horrible is in, but whatever.)
This actually says a lot more about men, and even more about our society than I'm at all certain most of us want to think about. But the fact that it keeps popping up over and over and over again in stories, means that we probably should think about it. What we should think about it, I'm not sure. That men are scared of women? Probably not. That we are obsessed with physical distinctions, to an unnatural and silly degree? Possibly.
Don't know. Feel free to comment if you can think of anything productive to say on this topic, since I'm currently drawing a blank - except of course for the fact that I think I should be upset about it, and feel incredibly guilty for enjoying the hot men floating across my screen with their badass attitudes. Examples - assuming you need any - include: James McAvoy's hot turn in Wanted, with Angelina Jolie playing the geek boy's wet dream, sorry, mentor and would-be assassin. Robert Downey Jr. in Iron Man, with the sleek blond, Pepper Potts as his damsel and wiley assistant, and of course The Dark Knight with the barely present Rachel Dawes. Personnally? I'd rather see the guys than the girls. That's why I went to two of these flicks and not to say, Sex in the City which was playing more or less around the same time. But, that doesn't mean I don't feel guilty and disturbed about it.
What's this have to do with Dr. Horrible? Well, like most of these stories on tv, the girl is portrayed as the damsel or causality - something others on my correspondence list have already critiqued in their live journals. I had problems with it too, but for different reasons.
While it is tempting to say this is true of most of Whedon's tales, it's unfair to single him out. The plot device he is using, and as anti-feminist as it may seem to folks, it is just a plot device and Whedon, to be fair, has killed off men and women in his series. Wash for example was the nice/friendly/harmless character who bit the dust in Serenity. That said, it is a plot device that is admittedly getting a bit stale, particularly when certain writers keep using it over and over again like Whedon, but at certain point all plot devices feel a bit stale. We've told so many stories, that it's hard not to trip over a stale cliche or two in the process. In this case it's kill the girl or a beloved off in the end to give your protagonist something to angst about. I don't think I'm revealing much stating that. If you've read or seen any of Joss Whedon's shows, you can pretty much guess that's what he's going to do. He's done it in almost all of them. The presentation for some reason or other doesn't have enough gravitas if someone, specifically the weakest character or nicest one take your pick, isn't dead. In Serenity - it was Wash, in Buffy - it was Jenny, Tara, Angel (at one time although he didn't stay dead, bit unfair that) and Spike (ditto) , in Angel - it was Cordy and Fred, and in Astonishing X-Men - it was Kitty Pryde (although dead is arguable). As any good magician knows if you keep doing the same card trick, the audience will begin to get bored.
That's what happened to me watching Dr. Horrible. I felt a bit of deja-vue. This is what critics meant when they said what Russell T. Davies is doing on Doctor Who is far more creative than anything Whedon has done in years. While I do not agree that Davies is a good a writer as Whedon, his dialogue needs work as does some of his plotting, he does come up with new plot-devices here and there. As does Abrahms. Two writers who were strongly influenced by what Whedon did. I feel when I read or watch Whedon's creations that I'm watching the same card trick. Don't get me wrong - it's a great card trick. The dialogue is snappy in places. The songs touching and wry. And he makes fun of our corporate, internet and fan obsessed culture quite brilliantly in places. But the plot, the basic story, feels stale and worn. Making me wonder what he could have done differently to spice it up. To make it less predictable.
Why did Penny have to fall for Captain Hammer? I wouldn't have. Hammer was annoying. Yes, Fillion is charismatic and great to look at, but not in this role. Wouldn't it have been more interesting if she hadn't? If Dr. Horrible only thought she had?
We are of course in Horrible's point of view...so perhaps that's the case. But it doesn't appear to be. Whedon is an expert at establishing pov in a story. He does it quickly and adeptly, making it appear easy and it's not.
I didn't mind Penny's death that much - the bit in which it's a piece from Horrible's gun which was so poorly constructed it back-fired on Hammer when he fired it on Horrible - is actually sort of cool. But, it's also been done to death by now. Most notably by Whedon himself. After all wasn't it Buffy's weapon that kills Renee? I knew he was going to do that before it happened. I was expecting it. Partly because I could not think of another way to give Horrible what he thought he wanted, yet prevent him from ever getting the thing he *really* desired. ie. The price for power and success is often a lot higher than one would suspect. In Hollywood - the writer may risk family and lover for the spotlight and the fame. Penny dies and Horrible gets to be the supervillian, with Hammar disgraced.
It's like Tara's death - almost too easy, too melodramatic, too comic book cliche - like a panel out of an old X-men comic circa 1960s or 70s where Jean Grey loses her mind when Scott Summers appears to be dead, and becomes the Dark Phoenix again. Or David Banner decides the heck with it, when he loses Betty and becomes the Incredible Hulk. Or Spiderman loses it over Gwen Stacy. Shakespear was actually a bit more innovative in his tragedies, Romeo commits suicide when he mistakenly believes Juliet is dead and she upon wakening and discovering his still form, soon follows suite. Shakespeare liked to kill off everyone...as he moved forward in his tragedies, the body count got higher, partly because his audience was a bit more bloodthirsty and partly because they were less forgiving of repeats, not that he didn't repeat himself - there's quite a bit of gender switching going on Shakespeare's comedies for example, to the point that it almost becomes redundant. Comics on the other hand, much as I love the form, tend to get more stale in their plot-lines. And I'm beginning to fear Whedon takes more from them than he does from the far superior Shakespeare.
That said? All in all, it's just a fun little internet movie. Free until Sunday. Doesn't cost you a dime. Except the time and money to watch on the internet - and you're probably on it anyhow. Can't beat free entertainment, so few things are free now a days. Movies cost close to 12 or above. Theater even more. Live music...sigh. If it is free - it requires time and effort to do it. So I appreciate the fun stuff that doesn't cost any of those thing when I find them.
I'm also admittedly a culture junkie - and an indiscriminate one at that. I particularly have a fondness for musicals, scienfiction, fantasy, and superheros. Whedon - I adore because he experiments with form, narrative structure, stories, and he loves his characters to pieces. This is no different. He loves these characters, you can sense that. And the actors do a decent enough job considering the budget of portraying them. Neil Patrick Harris is especially good - so good in fact, that I'm sort of hoping he'll do another musical soon. I'd pay to see him on Broadway. Heck, I'd pay to see him in the film version of a musical. Musicals are making a come back on the big screen (thank heavens) so it is possible. And I adore Sondheim - which this musical reminds me a great deal of. Felicia Day as Penny isn't as great, she's difficult to hear and somewhat wispy.
Which may be the intent. Apparently she is producing and starring in her own internet series. Fillion as always is a hoot. Making fun of himself and the heroic Hammer. An underrated physical comedian, Fillon rounds out the cast quit well. As do David Fury and Marti Noxon as news commentators.
Is it a great musical? Hardly, it is after all just a twenty minute film on the internet, what can you expect? An actual horse as BAD Horse - the head of the organization is actually funny and a comment on Whedon's own adoration of the Western genre, an adoration that I share, not everyone does.
Overall? worth a viewing. I wouldn't buy it. But I wouldn't buy a lot of things, still haven't bought the Harry Potter DVD's for example, even though I think about it. Nor have I bought the BSG DVDs or for that matter all of the Angel and Buffy series. Have too many DVDs as it is that I'm not watching, don't need to add more.