August 02 2008
The New York Times has a look at Dr. Horrible.
Interesting if slightly surreal analysis from the Gray Lady: ""Legally Blonde the Musical: The Search for Elle Woods" is a superior piece of craftsmanship."
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
noplaceIcanbe | August 02, 01:25 CET
I haven't seen "Legally Blonde the Musical", so I cannot comment on the article. ;-)
Ariane | August 02, 01:38 CET
Yeah, Ariane, it's a rule at the NYT. I remember reading a book by one of their former reporters who was nonplussed about having to refer to Elvis as "Mr. Presley."
[ edited by dreamlogic on 2008-08-02 11:47 ]
dreamlogic | August 02, 02:01 CET
And I think "quick filming" is closer than "rushed". It didn't feel rushed to me, it was on a smaller scale but that makes sense for an indie production. And i'm also reasonably sure that when Joss et al talked about movies and broadway musicals they were largely tongue-in-cheek so, again, a bit under-informed.
Nice to get another, probably more mainstream perspective though.
Saje | August 02, 02:55 CET
True, it doesn't have one. What did you think dude?
Snugels | August 02, 03:21 CET
herb | August 02, 03:38 CET
[ edited by toast on 2008-08-02 12:45 ]
toast | August 02, 03:39 CET
Anyway, this review, to me, is all kinds of wrong. First of all, it's not a TV show. It's been referred to as a "film" and a "movie" more often than it has a "TV show." (This is also evidenced by the fact that Joss said there couldn't be an "Act Four," there would have to be a sequel.)
But if you had let The New York Times know this, they'd probably like it even less. Honestly, this is better than most TV shows, and especially The Closer, which is a painful viewing experience. I don't know what to do about their Legally Blonde comparison except to back away slowly from the computer screen, trying not to run away in fright.
I also find Dr. Horrible far superior to most movies. Yes, I'm a Joss fanboy, but I'm not a Joss apologist. If this weren't as great as it truly is, I wouldn't be saying this merely because I'm a fan. That fact that I'm a fan helps a great deal, but Dr. Horrible is satisfying and moving and hilarious and bitterly satirical in its zippy 42 minutes than most hours-long productions could ever hope to be.
This doesn't worry me overmuch, though. The Times has a history of being woefully wrong on things like this; Bosley Crowther, anyone?
UnpluggedCrazy | August 02, 03:56 CET
MattK | August 02, 04:21 CET
Look, it's something new, and an example of how good internet entertainment can be if it's taken seriously. As for that remark at the end of how DH should be beefed up for Broadway or something like that, maybe parts four, five and more will help do that. It's a cinch someone has to write songs for the Evil League of Evil, if you want to go that far.
impalergeneral | August 02, 04:21 CET
Lioness | August 02, 04:23 CET
It's good to be reminded that all viewers have exactly the same tastes, so that all entertainment can be judged on a single basis. Of course you can compare "The Closer" to "Sarah Silverman" to "24" to "The Simpsons" to "Gilligan's Island" to "The Wire" to "Friends." They're all TV shows, so therefore they all have the same tropes, the same context, and the same audience. Thank you, New York Times, for reminding us of this simple truth.
Or you could, you know, review it on its own merits or faults. Although even that may be tricky and require more than 15 minutes. "prominent gay subtext"?
[ edited by C. A. Bridges on 2008-08-02 13:58 ]
C. A. Bridges | August 02, 04:43 CET
It's no real surprise here that someone from the NYT is a little clueless. They don't call it the "Gray Lady" for nothing, folks. It is old and it moves slowly... and it doesn't appreciate new art unless it comes with a $15.00 glass of white wine, a cheese plate and an artist with a fully established pedigree and a trust fund.
For them, a trend is what the rest of us have known about for years and are starting to get bored with. But, hey, that's okay. The people, like Joss and Felicia, who pioneer in this field are going to have targets painted on their backs and it's not like Joss and Co. haven't been there before. People like us will be able to reward them for the risks they are taking now. We know our geniuses in the moment.
The people like the ones at the NYT will reward them a few years from now. I can't wait to see the headline, "Newly Rediscovered Genius - Mr. Whedon Makes The 'Net Profitable Anew" or some such.
It's coming... we just have to wait for them to catch up. :)
Tarae | August 02, 05:40 CET
zeitgeist | August 02, 05:57 CET
And Jonathan Swift almost-as-famously said, "When a true genius appears in this world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
One thing the article doesn't mention or take into account is the low budget for the work. I mean, to produce a 42-minute movie on a tiny fraction of a tv show's budget is one thing, but to produce a musical for that much money is a real accomplishment.
When I see how much drivel and dreck and utter crap is out there, drivel, dreck, and utter crap that cost hundreds of times as much to produce, I can't imagine how someone could look at Dr. Horrible and think, Oh, well, they're going to have to make it better than that if it's going to make it in another medium. Oh, really? We all thought Dr. Horrible could translate to a Broadway musical as-is, you know, 42 minutes long, and with no-one getting paid. Gimme a break.
Okay, I'm better now.
Jim in Buffalo | August 02, 06:38 CET
Though how ANYONE could describe songs like 'Slipping' and 'Everything you Ever Wanted' as "tuneful, witty soft pop" is just so very beyond me.
missb | August 02, 06:41 CET
Irrel | August 02, 07:30 CET
Green Queen | August 02, 07:39 CET
wrecks | August 02, 07:39 CET
QingTing | August 02, 07:45 CET
Tonya J | August 02, 07:50 CET
pancakegirl | August 02, 07:58 CET
Simon | August 02, 08:03 CET
Perhaps he thought that if he avoided enthusiasm, and compared it to tv and broadway musicals, which he believes he can talk knowledgeably about, then he wouldn't seem lost. But he does seem lost, as well as barely interested in finding out where he is.
I think it is important to have reviewers who love the medium, and know something about it.The Times wouldn't (hopefully) employ a movie reviewer who hated movies, and was always mentioning he'd rather have gone to the opera. Or vice versa.
[ edited by toast on 2008-08-02 17:13 ]
toast | August 02, 08:11 CET
The gay subtext thing is cute. I think it was literary critic Leslie Fiedler who famously found a gay subtext in Melville's "Billy Budd." In an ep of The Sopranoes, the lack of sophistication of Tony and/or Carm was illustrated by their refusal to accept the presence of a gay subtext in that (truly great) story. I'm still waiting for the world to catch onto the fact that Fiedler, in addition to finding gay subtexts between all sorts of literary characters, was equally certain that they wanted to have sex with their sisters. Brilliant critic, I've got several of his books, and he was an influence on one of Joss's professors, Richard Slotkin, but his brilliant interpretations are, as they say, open to interpretation. IOW, if you don't "get" that Penny is making a reference to a possible gay subtext in Melville's Billy Budd when she sings "Billy buddy," you're supposed to feel like an unsophisticated Bridge and Tunnel suburbanite. This is another way the knowingness game is played.
[ edited by Pointy on 2008-08-02 18:49 ]
Pointy | August 02, 08:14 CET
coming after everything else the article has said, seem to be implying that while it's okay for DVD to be all-important for TV show and movie profitability, it's somehow wrong or disingenuous for Dr. Horrible to possibly stake it's profitability on DVD as well?
@theonetruebix | August 02, 08:31 CET
SoddingNancyTribe | August 02, 08:48 CET
/moral indignation on
I predict that there are line from Dr. Horrible that we'll be repeating/chuckling over 10 or (gasp) 20 years from now - as with Holy Grail, Princess Bride. Lots of them.
Here's 12 to start with: Hammer is my penis ... smells like cumin ... did you notice that he threw you in the garbage ... good day to be homeless ... buy rocketships and go to the moon and become florists ... world is a mess and I just need to rule it ... look at my wrist I gotta go ... wonderflonium - do not bounce ... the thoroughbred of sin ... I hear it's better the second time/I hear you get to do the weird stuff ... if you're not a friggin' tard you will prevail ... shiny new australia.
I can't think of even a single Buffy/Angel or Firefly show that had this many great lines in 45 minutes or so. Maybe some great movies, but that's it. I'd love to see the list of the best 12 lines from a Closer ep.
/moral indignation off
daroj | August 02, 08:58 CET
Or, alternately, said way better by Herb,
barest_smidgen | August 02, 09:00 CET
At least they mentioned it.
BrownCoat_Tabz | August 02, 09:07 CET
Shmuel | August 02, 09:27 CET
TDBrown | August 02, 09:37 CET
I can't believe I got this useless degree in literature and am still not educated enough to pick up on gay subtext.
And I thought that Joss was using his Dollhouse press to bring more attention to Dr. Horrible more than the other way around.
theclynn | August 02, 09:40 CET
sportforredneck | August 02, 09:44 CET
Pointy | August 02, 09:51 CET
Saje | August 02, 09:56 CET
TawnyJayne | August 02, 10:17 CET
Same here. I was teaching the very notion of subtext and recognition of it to my English students just the other day.
Gay subtext?
Joss has been down with the gay subtext...just not in Dr. Horrible.
ETA: I've been rewatching with subtitles. Found the gay subtext between 27:00 and 29:00. I meant above that I hadn't seen any gay subtext as it relates to Dr. Horrible and Captain Hammer.
Dr. Horrible gets better with each viewing.
[ edited by April on 2008-08-02 20:37 ]
WhoIsOmega? | August 02, 10:19 CET
That whole review was just bizarre.
karosurly | August 02, 10:34 CET
And Uncle Fury probably reported on it afterward.
(No wonder he was smiling at the ELE meeting!) ;-)
missb | August 02, 10:40 CET
Kirochka | August 02, 10:41 CET
A day late and a dollar short, writing about the world o' entertainment as one big grey blur, a little offended by all the fuss, and apparently just itching to take Joss & Co. and those quivering geek culture fans down just a peg or two.
The NYT has fostered some great writing, but it is also entrenched in a lot of its positions, including a generally anti-Interwebs attitude - or at least a lot of confusion about it - which reared its head once again in this article, along with a fairly typical NYT kindof cynicism and condescension.
And let's not forget that it was the NYT - though via different writers - that derided the striking WGA writers some months earlier as scarf-and-arty-glasses-wearing whiny effete un-workers, and remember also that Joss was pretty vocal about some of that coverage.
Joss & Co., you Internet Upstarts, you.
QuoterGal | August 02, 11:35 CET
Shmuel | August 02, 12:06 CET
There is a bit of triangulation via Penny. Billy does choose his rivalry with Capt. Hammer over a relationship with Penny, repeatedly.
Septimus | August 02, 12:27 CET
And, I know as a whole we're taking the high-road on this... this... THING, but let me tell you- I'm holding my core intact, taking one for the team, so I don't leap on over to NYT and give this guy some "Faith".
korkster | August 02, 12:43 CET
"Dr. Horrible" seems to me to be a rather remarkable piece of craftsmanship. I can't address the "Legally Blonde" issue fairly, but ... really? Really? I don't see the lack to craftsmanship anywhere in "Dr. Horrible." It's rather lovely, how well-put-together it is. There's mundanity, if that's a word, which is probably a result of low budget, but I like mundanity in fantasy. So dismissing it as lacking craft seems, to me, like unvarnished kray-zee and googly eyes. You don't see the low budget unless you're looking for it, the story gets told ... what am I missing?
aimstomisbehave | August 02, 13:02 CET
That said, Dr. Horrible is not all about homosexuality. Those gay instances were like icing. No, sprinkles on icing.
WhoIsOmega? | August 02, 13:32 CET
Unless it was all in Penny's mind and she was a slash fan.
Simon | August 02, 13:35 CET
zeitgeist | August 02, 13:51 CET
Tonya J | August 02, 13:54 CET
NPH-1, PFWH-0.
BrewBunny | August 02, 14:56 CET
I need a drink.
montresor | August 02, 15:05 CET
(I'm just curious. Totally agreed that "A minor gay character does not a subtext make.")
Shmuel | August 02, 15:29 CET
The Guardian managed to get it a lot better, I thought.
QuoterGal | August 02, 15:32 CET
ActualSize | August 02, 15:56 CET
sorchasilver | August 02, 16:29 CET
gianetta | August 02, 18:40 CET
Septimus | August 02, 18:55 CET
Saje, that's a really funny line.
doghouse | August 03, 05:05 CET
Sweetney | August 03, 06:46 CET
Dumb Joss dumb!
{eyerolls)
He made an internet show that would work on the internet... not TV. Someone get a 5 year old child to explain it to the bigwigs at the NY Times.
[ edited by BrownCoat_Tabz on 2008-08-03 17:04 ]
BrownCoat_Tabz | August 03, 08:04 CET