This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"Yeah, I killed a city one time. Funny story."
11978 members | you are not logged in | 18 January 2019


July 22 2008

Blogger and CEO Jeffrey McManus guesstimates the financial arrangements for Dr. Horrible, and potential returns for its performers and producers.

Which ballpark are his numbers in? Is there an entertainment accountant in the house?

It's an interesting article. Beyond money, which of course helps pay the rent or car note, the Internet is accessible by most countries in the world. Neil just got worldwide exposure in the blink of an eye. That's what's in it for him in the long haul, and for the other actors as well. Sure, Joss is already famous, Nathan is "nearly famous" as he says at his MySpace profile, but this project catapulted all of them in the world arena of instantly-accessible art (or put them on a slide under a microscope, depending on how you want to look at it).

Yes, initially because they love Joss & Co., the actors did it. But I'm willing to bet a lot more work and opportunities come their way when the quality of the work they did in such a short period of time, becomes more and more apparent. Sometimes doing it for your art can work out well in the long run.

And ... they'll be able to say they did it first.
Dr. Horrible threads inevitably involve math. Heh.
I'm guessing the writer here made a lot of faulty assumptions, I would think that Neil, Nathan, and Felicity probably agreed to do this for free, for fun. I'm sure that Joss will be sharing all profits with them and everyone else involved, but if the thing loses money then I doubt if anyone is going to worry about it (I also hope that it doesn't lose money). I certainly hope that they make some big bucks out of the DVD sales world wide, but I don't think that that was ever the reason for making this.

Personally, I think everyone involved is proud of their efforts and will be reaping major benefits from the attention they are getting on this spectacular experiment.

Tonya is right: not only world wide attention, but Neil just managed to remind Hollywood (people who seem to be deaf to Broadway achievements) that he has a brilliant set of pipes!
i liked the fact that he thought Dr horirble took 2 weeks to shoot. Goes to show how great the acting was given it was all done in 6 days
Yeah, that was my thought. The article writer didn't do much research. It's been said over and over filming was done basically in a week.
Well I was wondering about that... We know that the FILMING took about six days, but I wonder if the actors were involved in any pre-filming activity like read-throughs, blocking, rehearsals, etc. I imagine that union rules require them to get paid for these activities too. So is it possible that his 2-week estimate is correct for the FULL period that the actors were involved?
There is no way that this will lose money. IJS. And Yay! Math! I don't think the author's assumptions are faulty and I am sure that NPH, NF, and FD's contracts (and I do think there were contracts) had points in them. Joss said this was all done aboveboard so there were contracts and details like this worked out. Yes, most folks did this for the love of their art and for their love of Joss, but the money issues were worked out and legal stuff was very much involved.

It may have taken 6-8 days to shoot but the recordings were done earlier. 2 weeks (all told) is a very reasonable assumption.

[ edited by TamaraC on 2008-07-23 03:55 ]
They deserve as much money as they can get for this. I appreciate they went into it realising that they might not make any money from it, but nevertheless I'd like to think they're all paid well for creating something like this, and that's why I'll be supporting them however I can. That said, I find articles like this in poor taste, in that I don't really think the discussing exact amounts people make is polite conversation -- I imagine this attitude might just be peculiar to me, due to the strange attitude my family had to discussing money as I was growing up.

Also, I can't stand this whole Doogie Howser thing. I've seen so many headlines referring to Doogie Howser... it'd be nice if they just started to use his actual name, which is again a politeness thing.

[ edited by MattK on 2008-07-23 04:06 ]
Financing not being my field (or generally, of interest to me), I found this article really very informative: the author made clear his model, and the assumptions he was bringing. So he may be off on days worked, or points promised, or whatever - it was still useful to get an analytical construct of the process. And, like Tamara said, the actors likely had contracts and points - and making such things explicit is a much better way of remaining friends afterwards too.
I'm guessing the writer here made a lot of faulty assumptions, I would think that Neil, Nathan, and Felicity probably agreed to do this for free, for fun. I'm sure that Joss will be sharing all profits with them and everyone else involved.

I'm sure if Joss wanted to do that he could have done. But this idea was born in the writers strike and part of the drive was to create a viable business model that could work without the studios, where the creatives have control and reap the reward. "Getting your friends to work for free" is not a viable business model.

To prove the concept and blaze the trail Joss would have to show that a project like this can pay the crew and cast a fair wage AND produce a decent return on the investment to justify others to invest in similar projects. "Scale plus points", where the points are real points and not Hollywood Points that disappear in studio accounting, sounds a reasonable deal.
Cast, writers and even crew can then have a stake in the success of the project and potentially make some real money.
This is about what the cast of Friends were making per after season 2 of that show, but a fraction of what they were pulling down ($1 million per episode each) during that series’ final season.

And this figure continues to astound me. Per episode. And for a show like that... An independent filmmaker could do wonders with that amount of money, and they're spending it on a single actor for a single episode. I'm all for actors being paid a lot, because acting work isn't continuous so you do need money to fall back on, residual income and all that, but I honestly feel that amount of money is just too much. I have no idea how the entertainment industry got to the point where this was acceptable.
I agree that it's not polite conversation about particular persons ... but as a consumer I have an interest in having good productions available for purchase, too, and I hope they do well. I have vague memories of someone saying it took a total of three weeks, from "go" to "done",but I suspect that there was post-production that wasn't counted in that.

If Mutant Enemy can repeat this a couple of times, especially with different writers and groupies, whether new material or adaptations, we could really see some change in how this is done. Do it right, two or three times, and on to the next scene, rather than fifty takes.
I have no idea how the entertainment industry got to the point where this was acceptable.

Why did Ferrari pay Michael Schumacher millions of dollars to race? Because he won races. The money saved by replacing him with a cheaper driver would be more than offset by the money lost in results and publicity. Same with a top baseball star.

If the studio thought they could replace all the cast with unknowns after two seasons they would have. But all the evidence is that viewers hate cast changes. The show was making millions of dollars per episode, and still is to this day. For every dollar the studios paid the cast they made another ten. Replacing the cast would have killed the show.
Are you saying that the cast should have just meekly accepted that their bosses were making millions but just carried on working for scale?
Since leaving the show none of them have been that successful, those millions they earned during the shows run may have to last them the rest of their lives.
MattK, So if that particular show was pulling in millions upon millions per episode for the studios because of its success, the actors who helped make that success should not get a good piece of that? Without looking at figures, I don't see why you should make that judgment.

As far as the article being in bad taste, Joss has said he is trying to create a new business model and this person is trying to figure out if that business model is viable. If it was just gossip about salaries, I'd think it was in bad taste too, but it is not.
Wow, I guess I missed the memo about the "actor's strike." And I had no idea that Dr. Horrible was available on the website for "a few weeks."

I stopped reading before I got to the numbers part.
I know people and articles have said that Dr.Horrible has been the no 1. downloaded video on iTunes during the week DrH was out for free. was it also available on iTunes for free? Or were people paying for it? (I'm not in the US/Canada, so I can't tell). This guy was spouting numbers of downloads needed. If iTunes has a ranking system, surely it also says how many downloads the file has had? with 200,000 hits/hour on, surely 75,000 purchases on iTunes is a walk in the park. Anyone?

*Goes to chase down what happened to the US iTunes account being set up for me*
It was always for-pay on iTunes.
MattK, the actors on Friends were only asking for a fair portion of the the money that the show was making.

Money is not evil.

Let me state that again.

Money is NOT EVIL!

Making as much money as the market can bear is not wrong. The actors on Friends deserved every bit of that 120 million dollars a year that they received. The profit to the studio was much much higher than that.
The truly classy thing about the Friend's salaries was the way the actors refused to be pitted against each other and did a Six Musketeers thing in negotiations. And truly, if a studio is raking it in with a successful franchise like that show, the actors are fully justified in going for the maximum they can get.

Money isn't evil - it's just a tool we all need to survive and flourish. It isn't the only thing we need to do so, and you can do a lot of flourishing without a whole lot of it, but it is pretty damn helpful. It is why we as a group try so hard to raise for much of it for Equality Now and other causes - you can also do a lot of good with the greenbacks.

And I kinda think the world would be a lot better off if we could get a little more open about finances. In some families, including the one I grew up in, asking about or discussing money is like letting one rip in public - it just isn't done. This makes the stuff sacred and mystifying to a child growing up, and that much harder to get a handle on an area of life that one has to deal with head-on to understand and cope with.

We have contracts with both friends and family - while we occasionally do graphics favors for them for free, if the job is big or time-consuming, we discuss the costs openly and get it all on paper. Haven't lost a friend or relationship yet. It keeps it clean.

I thought Mr. McManus made some very reasonable conclusions and guesstimates, though I could have gotten along just fine without knowing that he mused about Felicia while in his shower.

This was a sensible article on a subject that will, if we beret-wearing artistes have our way, will matter very much. And the guestimates were not far off, as far as I noticed. I would, however, like to clarify two things:

The Actors agreed to do this because they wanted to do this. When I finally laid out my plan for gross profit sharing, Nathan said "I think you mentioned that somewhere at the beginning. And I think we all agreed that WHO CARES." I hope they, and the writers,and the me, make scads, but we all showed up for more or less the exact same reason you all did, and I won't have my peeps thought mercenary.

Second, let go of the "Doogie". The man has a name, for God's sake. It's "Barney."

See you at the Con! -j.
Comic-Con begins in 20 hours, 5 minutes.
I would hope that no one went away thinking "mercenary!" And HIMYM is my new friend. Cheers for stopping by, Joss (and, if I can brave the lines, I will see you at CC - yay.)
Thanks, Jossir. I hope y'all make scads, too.

I'm so glad I could refer to farting immediately before a Joss-post. It's so refined.

I'll be at my first ComicCon. Eeeeesh.
Joss was attempting to produce a prototype, a new way of making creative video material available to the public, and hopefully make it profitable. This was not a home movie with his friends as some seem to think, he's actively try to find a way to break free of a Hollywood system that respects nothing but mass popularity and the bottom line, and is willing to endlessly crank out mind-numbing boring flash and glitter spectacles for mass consumption.

Joss with his huge fan base (several hundred thousand, perhaps a million or more) is uniquely situated to attempt this. Imagine 1 million fans spending $5/episode, that's $5 million for producing an episode from the Whedonverse. Joss has complete artistic control, we get regular episodes. No studio honchos asking him to dumb it down, or lighten it up, or not have arcs, or whatever it is the big-bucks suits do to earn their gazillions, while stomping out real creativity.

This is something as Whedon fans we need to get behind. It could liberate Joss from network TV and insure there are no more 3 year hiatuses from someone who is one of the true creative geniuses of our age.
Thanks for stopping by, Joss.

[ edited by korkster on 2008-07-23 06:09 ]
korkster, we'd rather you didn't ask Joss direct questions (except, you know, obviously rhetorical ones), just 'cos it could get a bit carried away. Ta.
SNT, now I'm feeling all fan-girl squished. Sorry. Am I forgiven?
It's fascinating that someone can make a real attempt to understand something, yet miss everything distinctive about it -- everything that makes it a phenomenon in need of a real attempt at understanding.

To approach Dr. Horrible from the standpoint of "enforced scarcity" is just bizarre, since one of the distinctive things about Dr. Horrible is that there was no scarcity for a more than ample period of time during which people who wished to watch it without paying for it had an opportunity to do so. Despite this massive, glaring, truly comment-worthy and analysis-needing departure from the norm, the programs that Americans could watch for free became the most bought programs on American iTunes. That's a phenomenon that needs explaining.

My favorite non-observation was that the presence of counter-melodies was evidence that "Dr. Horrible seems specifically engineered to be watched again and again." This combined obliviousness to what makes Dr. Horrible's business model distinctive with obliviousness to what makes musicals distinctive. Generally, movies and stage plays are designed so that you can fully enjoy them by watching them once. Not so with musicals -- if you don't want to hear at least some of the songs again, the musical has failed. (Try and think of a song that you love that you never want to hear again.) The presence of countermelody really is evidence that Dr. Horrible was designed to be a musical. I can't think of a musical that has no counter-melodies in it. (Can anyone?)

Of course, he's trying to make the case that people will buy because they have to, because of enforced scarcity, and the reason he comes up with is that otherwise they will not be able to hear all of the countermelodies. This only applies to people who were able to hear each Act once, but were unable for some reason to get the free streaming video to work for the second or third time needed to hear all the sung parts. Again, people whose enjoyment was hindered by being unable to hear every word the first time around had the opportunity to hear every word for free, at the same level of sound quality that they could get from purchasing the video. (The picture is bigger and better in the download; the sound is, I think, the same.)

The author doesn't understand what a "labor of love" is, equating it with working for free. A labor of love is something you would do even if you wouldn't get paid for it. People sing because they love to sing, act because they love to act, write because they love to write. They prefer to get paid for doing the things they love, but they do the things they love even when they don't get paid. Artists often sacrifice profit to sing what they want to sing, to act the parts they want to act, and to write the stories they love to write.

The author says he's done musical theatre. Did he do it for free? Does he know that every day all over the country people do musical theatre -- hard, hard work that they nonetheless find fulfilling in and of itself -- for free? He's clearly read a little of what Joss has said about the genesis of the project, but seemed to have skipped the part where he mentioned that this was produced after the strike, when people (including him) were back to work. I think Joss mentioned that Neil Patrick Harris is one of the actrons who comes over to his house to sing and read plays aloud. Does it make sense to guesstimate that Neil gets 20 percent of the party? Is it possible that what's in it for Doogie isn't money, which he could make more of elsewhere anyway?

Economic theory explains a lot of human behavior, but nowhere near all of it. The scarcity model does not explain Dr. Horrible. People made this musical because they loved to do the things involved in making a musical, and people are buying the musical because they love the musical. (Doogie downloaded it. Not because he had to.) An explanation that doesn't include non-financial factors does not explain this.

ETA: Note to self: Next time write long post, see if anyone else has posted since you started writing. LOL.

[ edited by Pointy on 2008-07-23 07:23 ]
Korkster: Am I forgiven?

That's a direct question! Didn't you listen to the monitors? Who do you think you are? Who monitors the birds? Why do fools fall in love? Oh tell me why.

Me playing in the shallow end of the discussion.
Me playing in the shallow end of the discussion.

That's good for me, because I can't swim.
Pointy, loving something and paying for something is not exclusive. Loving the act of making something and being rewarded for it in cashy money is also not exclusive. Wanting to get paid for doing something you love is also not wrong. It is actually the best of all possible worlds. Why is it bad to get paid handsomely for doing what you love?

I'll keep paying serious money for Joss and Co. to do what they love. I think it is a perfect symbiosis.
K, you're totally forgiven, even without JW's impish intercession. (But that may have helped a little too . . . ;-)) Minding the room can be a dirty job but, you know, rules promote civil discourse and all that, even among the birds. :-)
Pointy, loving something and paying for something is not exclusive. Loving the act of making something and being rewarded for it in cashy money is also not exclusive. Wanting to get paid for doing something you love is also not wrong. It is actually the best of all possible worlds. Why is it bad to get paid handsomely for doing what you love?

That is a question to ask someone who thinks it's bad to get paid for doing what you love. Not me.
Korkster, do you feel less squished now?

K., you remind of some character in something I read a long time ago who is always asking "Why" and "What" and "How" and "When" and "Who" - but I can't remember what it is, only that I loved it.

It's not Curious George - could it be a cat? (Not the proverbial curiosity cat...) I think it's an animal...

Could it be from something Kipling? Crap, this is killing me...

ETA: Yes, it's Kipling - Just So Stories:

"One fine morning in the middle of the Precession of the Equinoxes
this 'satiable Elephant's Child asked a new fine question that he
had never asked before. He asked, 'What does the Crocodile have
for dinner?' Then everybody said, 'Hush!' in a loud and dretful
tone, and they spanked him immediately and directly, without
stopping, for a long time."

; >

[ edited by QuoterGal on 2008-07-23 07:48 ]
The Elephant's Child, QG?

ETA: Ah, ya got there first. :-)
Money (that's what I want) was playing in my mental jukebox whilst reading this thread. Perhaps MattK wasn't so much reacting to the actor's salary numbers in general but in comparison to what the other 90% of us earn. It is after all a huge disparity and I think numbers like that easily make Joe Q. Regular balk. I'm not saying they don't deserve their fair share, and I agree with all fine points on that front; I'm simply saying that to those who live in the minimum wage slave world it's easy to think 'Damn that's a ridiculous amount of money' and opinions are colored from there. (I should probably apologize for assuming I can interpret your remarks MattK. What is it they say about assuming again?) That being said I hope this project makes buckets of money for all involved, the idea behind doing business in this way makes me all hopeful inside.
This is going to be a very very interesting experiment in a new business model. Looking forward to how the numbers play out over time.
Joss, perhaps the general idea in the team is "WHO CARES," but I think everyone here would love to see you get the profit you guys deserve! Creating something just for the sake of creating it is a beautiful thing; a thing which I believe should be rewarded. I bought the show on iTunes, can't wait for the DVD (!), and Dr. Horrible will make such a nice gift for people who need to be introduced to the whedonverse :)
That's a direct question! Didn't you listen to the monitors? Who do you think you are? Who monitors the birds? Why do fools fall in love? Oh tell me why.

joss | July 23, 07:19 CET

lol. Trust me to read that right as I took a sip of water. I just learnt the hard way that inhaling liquid is not good for the lungs =P

[ edited by phlebotenum on 2008-07-23 09:54 ]

[ edited by Simon on 2008-07-23 10:32 ]
Perhaps MattK wasn't so much reacting to the actor's salary numbers in general but in comparison to what the other 90% of us earn. It is after all a huge disparity and I think numbers like that easily make Joe Q. Regular balk. I'm not saying they don't deserve their fair share, and I agree with all fine points on that front; I'm simply saying that to those who live in the minimum wage slave world it's easy to think 'Damn that's a ridiculous amount of money' and opinions are colored from there. (I should probably apologize for assuming I can interpret your remarks MattK. What is it they say about assuming again?)

Yeah, there's definitely some of that there. The other major thing I thinking of, is that assuming the production companies retained some of that money (still giving the actors a more than generous salary) they could then invest the money back into other projects.

As a few people upthread said, money isn't evil, and the actors do deserve a cut of the money being made. But they're not making that money because of the work they put in, because other people involved (i.e the crew) work just as hard but aren't entitled to anywhere near that amount. They're being paid because they're irreplaceable. I'm not saying there's necessarily anything wrong with that, just that it's an interesting distinction to make (being paid for who you are, rather than what you do -- though that's further complicated by their work affecting their reputation, but the point stands).

I've always been one of those people who sees a hollywood blockbuster raking in cash far above and beyond how much the film cost to make, and thinking "now, wouldn't it be nice if they used that money to make a film that they know wouldn't be profitable, but just make it because it's worth it artistically?" Because at the moment, it really seems like films are only made to make money, which is a bit of a shame if they could afford to do otherwise. It's easy to imagine a director who'd feel an obligation to the studio they're working for to pull in money, and when that takes priority for them over the desire to make a good film... In my rambling way, I suppose I'm trying to say, that when money becomes too much of a focus, things suffer for it. It'd be nice if studios didn't have to pander to their shareholders (are there any major privately-run studios out there anymore?).
tag-astrophe avoided Simon ;).

Economic theory explains a lot of human behavior, but nowhere near all of it.

I don't think it explains anything, sometimes it describes human behaviour. "Scarcity" on the other hand, explains most if not all of human behaviour IMO, whether it's scarcity of reproductive partners, of food, territory etc. And with the best will in the world, I think it (or rather it's opposite, lack of scarcity or surplus) partly explains Dr Horrible since i'd assume that most of the people that worked on it didn't need to work on it for survival i.e. they're not rich necessarily but they're also not living hand to mouth such that they must earn constantly to buy food.

The why of it is down to each individual, the how is partly because those individuals have done OK from the existing system. Not as well as they should i'd be the ... *counts* ... about 17th in line to admit but still OK.

Perhaps MattK wasn't so much reacting to the actor's salary numbers in general but in comparison to what the other 90% of us earn. It is after all a huge disparity and I think numbers like that easily make Joe Q. Regular balk.

You know one of the biggest problems with the world IMO, seriously ? Too many people too worried about what every other bugger's got.

In general I reckon the article's reasonably well considered BUT it's let down by its title (jokey though it may be) which gives the impression of ascribing venal motives to NPH when in fact, the article itself is more just about the finances of the project. And i'm also not sure about the "specifically engineered" bit, I think that's just Joss' (and Jed/Zack/Maurissa's ;) style and even if it was intended to be free for all time, they'd still have made it that way. Big Purp's a self-described obsessive fan and knows his own kind and the "holes" that we dig filling ;).

(course, if in all seriousness he's ascribing motives to NPH then he's on a hiding to nothing - claiming to know others' motivation isn't a "guesstimate" or "informed speculation", it's just making shit up)
Interesting article. I don't fully agree with the notion that Dr Horrible will be a prototype for the theoretical "four university students" as the author stated. Artistically its an extremely well crafted piece; there are no doubts about it and I agree fully with the opinions of the majority of this site, however having Joss' name by it, is what I feel will cause it to generate profit. Being in the Top regions of the ITunes chart as well will help its cause, however it only got there by Joss' name. The authors theory can only work with already well known names complete with a following.
Thanks Joss for confirming that the article is not to far off, always good to know when the speculations are close or not :)

In terms of the article itself I'm not sure I understand the reference to "enforced scarcity" as being somehow a new concept, to me the business model looks strikingly similar to network tv except the substitution of the original showing of the episodes with internet streaming. If you miss the original showing of network tv today you have to pay to view the show on DVDs, Itunes or paying with your eyeballs on Hulu or similar, of course syndication is still a network possibility but ME could probably strike a deal with Hulu or the like for syndication if they where so inclined, but given that network reruns seems to have gone the way of the dodo, this now seems to be the way traditional media works.

What would be new then, maybe accept the fact that the show as such is just the advertisement for the DVDs, action figures, musical albums,comic books sequels, theme park rides, fan conventions and the rest, I don't think tv ever can get to the point where the music industry is today, basically the music is the 'free' advertising for concert performances which is the part for which the artist gets their real pay, but maybe it will be close.
With the whole acceptance of the show as being the commercial, comes the thought that creating 'scarcity' actually might not be the best solution instead the show should be let loose on its own website, Youtube and any other channel possible, creating maximum exposure instead of limiting it.

Now if the mayor revenue source proves to be people downloading from iTunes this theory have some problems one of them being that for the commercial to be fully effective the products must be available (ie. the DVDs etc. ) but ...

Re. The four students.
When looking at the Dr. Horrible credits sequence it's very clear that ME is not doing 'new' tv they are very much into the high quality 'old' style of tv making, the four students would probably not be able to finance or call in the favours neccessary for this style of creating a show, they probably should look at The Guild for a more appropriate way of making fun and (hopefully profitable) shows for the internet.

I'm thinking that JW wasn't born with a fan following, he started out writing, along came a silly little show called BtVS, people found it and whammo here we are, those 'four students' should probably expect to start small too.

[ edited by jpr on 2008-07-23 12:16 ]
the show as such is just the advertisement for the DVDs, action figures, musical albums,comic books sequels, theme park rides, fan conventions....

Theme park rides? Now you have me imagining a Jossneyland with musical Doctor Horrible rides and Buffy-related attractions. Kind of scary.
Why not ? If he had been working with Disney (and not killed quite as many characters over the years :) you just know Buffy would have been a great theme park attraction not to mention the Firefly ride, though Dr. Horrible - The musical, on Broadway somehow seems more likely.
I would say that, if nothing else, Dr. Horrible's is a success because it seems to have forced Joss to learn (and remember) how to post here at Whedonesque.

(Also, if there's a Dr. Horrible's II, it definitely needs to include a "parade of horribles.")
Joss, do you ever answer direct questions?
It used to be (I haven't seen the figures for at least a decade) that the average income of a SAG/AFTRA dues-paying member was under the annualized minimum wage. There are those few making millions, and thousands whose acting income doesn't even cover their dues.
I know I can't be alone in hoping that a model like this might mean more Firefly. We could have those seven seasons. Do it 13 ep each, second season to take place before the movie. Shoot it the way the Brits do, in episode blocks. Seventy-eight episodes at US$5 per episode thats US$400 for me, assume 1million in sales, thats a gross of US$5mil per episode. Pre-sell to the rabid four eps at a time....sigh
In logging in to write this, I realized that I haven't posted anything here since 2005, apparently. Wow, it's good to have Joss stuff back on the air -- I'm looking forward to hopefully a long, quality run of Dollhouse.

I, too, am interested to know if anyone has the numbers for how many paid downloads of Dr. Horrible there are to date...
"I know I can't be alone in hoping that a model like this might mean more Firefly"

You're not alone. And who knows. I'm ever the optimist.
Wheeeee! I'm just so happy to be here!
(i'm just sayin')
Hey, brother_grady! It's been a long hibernation, right? ;-)
Sorry, Pointy. I must have misunderstood your point. And I don't at all think it is farfetched to see an initial TV airing of a show as simply advertisement for DVD and other revenue streams. Not at all.
Wow! Look what happens when I'm forced (literally) off the computer and told to get some shut-eye! (Eh, I share a room, and the computer is in the bedroom... long story.)

Anyways, I knew I should have fought until my last dieing breath. But I chose to live another day and fight for CC. Ah, Joss, you've made my morning, day, week, and year! Thank you so much! The fan-girl in me is revived. :D

Thanks for forgiving me, SNT. /headinshame


QuoterGal, yes, I'm feeling less squished. Thanks. And the Elephant Child story does describe a lot about my character, sad though that may seem. But I love the questions, I love the answers, and I love trying to figure out those questions. The more I love something, the more questions I ask. (Which should say a lot to Joss.) I try to be as "normal" as possible when I'm out in the world (or in the black), but something this week overloaded my circuits. Wonder what that could be. ;)

Speaking of nothing, I wanted to know if the shirts available at the J!nx site go to Dr. Horrible's efforts. If so, good, because I mis-ordered and now have to purchase more at Comic-Con. Which is never a bad thing. If someone knows more information regarding this, I would appreciate a response.

Whew! No questions! That was tough. ;)
Is his name Barney or Swarley? I forgot.
Oh, garsh, thanks, SNT, I've been a little offline today. *coughComicCon prepcough*

I didn't know about that lit site, so many thanks for that.

("ComicCon's estimated 125,000 people...")

I wouldn't expect to see actual figures, but I would like to know the point at which "Dr. Horrible" comes out of the red. Or came out, if it's already profitable. Joss? Maybe a hint?
Man, thats a lot of money for a three week project whether 100,000 is downloaded or 1,000,000.
I think when Joss said that the estimates were close, he was talking about the points and cuts, not necessarily the dollar amounts or download numbers. And the article did bring up a very good point- the whole premise required an established fan base to be as popular as it has been, and in this case, I can count at least THREE established fan bases involved here: Whedon fans, Fillion fans, and Neal Patrick Harris fans. Sure there's lots of crossover but there we are. A new name or someone not as firmly established on the 'net wouldn't have as much success first time 'round. I cite two examples- 'The Guild', which few had seen much of until Nathan pushed it on MySpace and YouTube finally featured it, and 'Sanctuary', the web-based series with Amanda Tapping that took years to finally get picked up by the Sci-Fi channel- and which disappeared off the web shortly thereafter.

And - you guys stay out of the kiddie pool! That's MY territory! Besides, I peed in it.

Oh, P.S. - He's not Doogie OR Barney OR Billy OR Dr. Horrible. He's 'The Shoe Fairy'.

[ edited by Ed R on 2008-07-24 02:23 ]
Wow! I miss so much when I get sidelined by a migraine!

So jealous of those going to ComicCon, but at least I won't be (literally) squished by the pimply comically-enhanced hoards.

Will we ever find out the true results of the whole Dr. Horrible experiment?
I'd say The Guild was pretty successful before Nathan came into the picture. It gets hundreds of thousands of views. Nathan asked people to vote in the awards that The Guild was already up for and likely would have won anyway (though it was still very nice of him). They did it all on their own. Whedon fans helped with our eyeballs, but they have a solid fanbase even without us. It's not on the same scale as Dr. Horrible, but to say few had seen it before is selling it short. Felicia and Co. are doing a great job with it.
Heh, the only thread I didn't read at the black this week so far, and it contains posts by the big purple dude. Figures ;).

korkster, just because you didn't use question marks, doesn't mean you didn't ask any questions, y'know? I spot one in there :p.

See you at the Con! -j.

joss, when you're at the con, I'm pretty sure you won't see me, because I'll be all the way over here in The Netherlands. So don't bother looking for me, or wait up, because before you'll know it, you'll miss those panels and then people will be annoyed. And annoyed fans at Comic-Con may start a riot. I mean, I'm sure all those lovely people here won't, but you know how it gets. So, yeah I get that you want to see me there, but alas, not this time. Sorry, man! What, you're all saying he wasn't adressing me personally?

Also very glad to see the numbers are looking up. It'd be fun if everyone involved ended up making bunches and supply us totally-not-selfish-fans-honest with a lot of beatifull sequels

And finally: everyone have a fun Comic-Con! I'll be waiting for the threads with blatant lies to start up soonish :)
The sound quality of the download isn't much better than the stream? That's a little disappointing, because the stream is pretty shocking in that respect. Also is there any word on non-US zeebs getting a slice of the ipod-compatible pie?

As for those getting all excited about what this could mean for Firefly ... that required a much bigger budget than this. Production costs for this are guestimated in the low six figures. Add a zero on the end of that and you're more in to Firefly territory. I'm not saying that it's insurmountable, but there'd need to be a LOT more eyeballs on screens to make it viable.
Eh, I thought I could fool you, GVH. Obviously not. :) It's funny. I did see him at the con, shook his hand, made my meaning life more meaning. And now no one will ever know. Unless they Twitter. Or read past comments made by me. Like here.

I did miss the black, though. Was going through troubled times until today. 5! days without the W'esque. It was torture. Only softened by shaking the elegant smooth hands of Joss. Man, what a week. Joss @ CC, new job (double the salary) & acceptance into graduate school. I wondered if it would be my *last* week on earth, based on all of my good luck. So far, still here. Wow.
Congratulations, Korkster! Here is hoping you have many more great weeks to add to this one. Well done.

This thread has been closed for new comments.

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.

joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home