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
"When I talk about belief, why do you always assume I'm talking about God?"
11972 members | you are not logged in | 25 November 2020


January 19 2010

Why Dr. Horrible 2 has to go now or we'll lose it for a year. I say: all good things come to those who wait. Sci-Fi Wire reports on NPH comments.

Yeah, don't wanna see it rushed. Can wait another year or so. I suppose you don't wanna wait too long due to the lingering momentum of the first one and wanting to build on that.

If Joss has nothing more than Buffy Season 8 and directing Glee though, maybe he and his brothers (and Maurissa) have time to collaborate and make it happen. What else do the latter three have happeneing ? Jed and Maurissa are writers on Spartacus, didn't I hear ? (their IMDB profiles need updating) Zack has his Terminator comic. Anything else ?
I say, yes he/they can write songs that fast (Commentary! The Musical) but I'm not sure they're the amazingly wonderful songs we got in DH1.

Is he totally done with Cabin in the Woods, then?
Zack's on a show, yes? And Jed and Maurissa are indeed on Spartacus, as they've publicly said on Twitter. Joss will have Glee and whatever other projects going on.

Ultimately, I say: don't rush it. The reason I liked Dr Horrible was because it was, you know, really awesome.

To be honest, even if Dr Horrible shot this year it might not be out til next anyway due to post production.

[ edited by gossi on 2010-01-19 20:45 ]
I thought they've been working on the sequel. Am I wrong? (About that anyway).
It is hard to say. They could have a good deal already written.
Didn't Joss write and compose OMWF in a span of less than 3 months?

From my own experience as a writer, how fast I write something is all about whether I'm "inspired" or not. When everything makes sense, everything seems to jell, then writing is fun and fast. :)

I'm also for not rushing... but I don't think 3 months is an insurmountable barrier.
Don't rush it. We'll wait. :)
They wrote the first one over the writer's strike and filmed it in like a week. I guess the second one wouldn't be as quick and dirty, but doing it on a tight schedule != a bad thing. They've been thinking about it for awhile. Like Ronald_SF said, it's all about whether they're inspired enough right now.
I'm sure it'll be awesome, whenever it drops. If we have to wait, we'll wait. In Joss we trust.
Yeah, I don't mind waiting, I mean eventually the tears of frustrated non-gratification have to stop right ?

(clearly, like baking a cake, it takes as long as it takes. As with cake sooner is better than later but later still beats eating flour ;)
1.) Didn't they already write a few songs?

2.) Didn't they shoot Dr. Horrible after the writer's strike was over, when HIMYM was already back in production?

That's not supposed to sound like I want them to rush it together now. In fact, I couldn't care less for when Dr. Horrible returns, as I liked it more for the music/the dialogue than for the stories/characters. In fact, I guess, I'd rather have an entirely new Joss project on TV than a Horrible sequel.

That said, I can understand the difficulty of bringing everyone back together, as they all are busy bees who work on different projects. Nathan might even have a busier schedule than NPH, being the male lead on a one-hour-drama.
As long as Penny makes an Obi Wan ghost like cameo, I can wait.
If it's another 40-minute webseries, I imagine it could be totally completed (written, filmed, released, etc.) this summer.
I don't think it sounds entirely impossible for things to work out this summer, but waiting a year longer wouldn't kill me either.

For me Penny doesn't necessarily have to be an Obi Wan Ghost, but I certainly hope we somehow get to see her in the sequal.
The article seems to hint the DH2 could come out as a "movie," which I presume means something about 90 minutes long that could appear in theaters. Have we heard anything like this before?
Yeah. It's been openly discussed before it could possibly be a movie (if anything happens). Nothing is set in stone.
I think it was hinted before by one of the cast or crew. But I'm not reading too much into that.
This smacks of a 'story' out of nothing. Sure the schedule's tight: but when isn't it?

If they want it to happen this year, it'll happen this year. If they don't it won't. Until we hear a more definitive thing than NPH telling the world his schedule, I don't think we should read too much into it.
I'm not saying it has to happen now, but if they want it to, 3 months strikes me as more than enough time for this talented bunch.

Sorry, but this is a pet peeve of mine: It's "Good things come to those who wait." and "All good things must come to an end."

Billy, you will go to the Dagobah system.
There's always the Pennybot....
The proverb is "EVERYTHING comes to he who waits". I know it's b*11*cks, and sexist, but you're quoting a Guinness advert and you look a little bit silly.

Sorry, drives me up the wall that one :).
I dunno, if you believe certain cosmological theories (and you're willing to wait for infinite time) then it may not be bollocks. Let's not rule it out of hand until the universe ends is what i'm saying.

(it's still sexist though)
Fair point. And kudos for not using asterisks in your bollocks. I wasn't sure that was the done thing or not.

[ edited by ZodKneelsFirst on 2010-01-20 13:05 ]
Way I see it, anyone reading it will translate in their heads anyway so you're still putting the word in there, might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. And (to me) it's a pretty mild swear word anyway - this is t'interwebs after all, if the most offensive thing you see on here is the word 'bollocks' then you're doing pretty well I reckon.

(in general the policy on here seems to be that non-directed - i.e. not at someone - swearing used very sparingly is OK)

[ edited by Saje on 2010-01-20 13:42 ]
That's a very wise and sensible approach if you don't mind my sayin.
Ebdim9th said:
There's always the Pennybot....

Or the ressurected Frankenstein/Horrible one.

Off Topic: Saje, thanks for correcting me about Kirk Douglas being the Spartacus star and sorry for this late response However, the bright side was the I mistaken him with Charlton Heston, I could have done it worst mixing him with Ernest Borgnine, or saying that I was relived he didn't continued as Captain Pike of the Enterprise. ;)
I'm not even sure what bollocks is. I only like it because Spike & Giles have said it. Must be one of those UK things.

Will the universe end, Saje? I thought it was more of a wave, contracting back into a node, just to expand yet again. Of course, if we are in a wave, the incident of occurrence has already happened. Even then, you can't reach "0", can you?
We don't really know what it is right now AFAIK korkster. It may keep expanding forever, gradually growing colder until all processes cease. Or it may expand until all processes cease and then a new big-bang occurs (when the 4-brane we're in clatters - again - into another one floating around the 10-dimensional totality containing everything). Or it may stop expanding and start to contract to a big crunch (some people feel that at this point we could manufacture asymmetries in the collapse and exploit the temperature difference to compute everything computable and effectively resurrect everyone that ever lived and give them everything they ever desired by simulating a universe. Has to be said, that's not exactly the mainstream perspective though ;). Or, of course, none of the above.

And bollocks are, literally, testicles though like a lot of swear words the literal meaning isn't necessarily that enlightening (if I call someone a 'sod' or 'bugger' i'm not actually claiming they engage in sodomy, if I say "That's bollocks" then I don't usually mean "That's male gonads" ;). Think 'balls' (which we also use but seems more common in the US) and you won't go far wrong.

That's a very wise and sensible approach if you don't mind my sayin.

If you mean me, ta, if you mean the board/blog policy then I agree. Either way, nope, not at all ;).

Off Topic: Saje, thanks for correcting me about Kirk Douglas being the Spartacus star and sorry for this late response

Ah no worries Brasilian Chaos Man, they used to all run together for me too. Think i've just lived through enough bank holiday Mondays to know the difference now (those two, 'Ben Hur' and 'Spartacus', used to - and may still - appear a lot around national holidays over here, particularly religious ones for fairly obvious reasons ;).
I initially thought this:

We don't really know what it is right now AFAIK korkster. It may keep expanding forever, gradually growing colder until all processes cease.

was a response to this:

I'm not even sure what bollocks is.

Sadly I only got to the end of the first sentence before realising my mistake.

[ edited by ZodKneelsFirst on 2010-01-20 22:01 ]
Brasilian Chaos Man, yes, the lovelorn often botch resurrection spells, (or the science of the same)... Dr.Horrible has been reading Dawn's diary again...

[ edited by Ebdim9th on 2010-01-20 22:20 ]
Sadly I only got to the end of the first sentence before realising my mistake.

And if you hadn't the start of the second sentence pretty much removes all doubt. Although the few times i've been kicked there* have felt a bit like that ...

* not the universe. Although strictly I guess it was in the universe at the time.
I'd say a good equivalent to bollocks would be bullshit.
It depends on context I reckon. If you're calling someone on something then yeah (as in "What a load of bollocks") but it's a bit broader than that IMO. Something can also be bollocks in the same way it's pants (i.e. not necessarily untrue, just rubbish) whereas 'bullshit' (to me) is always untrue (and not necessarily - or maybe even often - related to quality).
Also, to confuse matters "The Dog's Bollocks" is like "The Bees Knees" (see S. L. Jackson in "The 51st State") (actually don't do that) (except for reference purposes).

The thing I love about it is its phonic excellence. It has a percussive quality that conveys its meaning in a way that you just don't get with "balls".

[ edited by ZodKneelsFirst on 2010-01-21 10:56 ]
It's the kicking 'k' at the end I think, 'k's are good in swear words.

And yeah then you have "the dog's bollocks" (or just "the dog's" or "the bollocks") and its variations like "the mutt's nuts" which are expressions of the highest regard (I don't think anyone knows where it came from though one idea is that they must be pretty great or else why would dogs spend so much time down there ? A line of argument apparently only partly countered by the fact that dogs also eat their own vomit).

(you can also "drop a bollock" - screw up - and "get a bollocking" - be reprimanded, usually for screwing up)
I heard one theory on QI that it derives from the early Airfix kits, which were available in "Box Standard" and "Box Deluxe", which were then corrupted to "Bog Standard" and "Dog's Bollocks".
I quite like that, it actually makes less sense to me (one's a simple corruption and one's a two-layered corruption of a Spoonerism) which with etymology sometimes, perversely, makes it more plausible because people tend to invent "folk etymologies" - especially for slang - to explain phrase origins with the key ingredient usually being whether it makes sense rather than, y'know, whether it's actually true ('Posh' is a well-known example with Port Out Starboard Home being interesting, making sense and generally ringing true until you discover there's no evidence for it whatsoever).

ETA: This guy seems unconvinced by that explanation BTW. Warning: Good site, will eat your life.

[ edited by Saje on 2010-01-21 12:38 ]
Yes. It's Meccano, apparently, not Airfix. I'm just getting lost in the online "furore" at the moment.

I tend to agree with your man there, which is why I qualified it similarly.

Can't understand it, people disagreeing!

On the internet?!

[ edited by ZodKneelsFirst on 2010-01-21 13:04 ]

[ edited by ZodKneelsFirst on 2010-01-21 13:05 ]
I'm amazed to find from that site that the word only goes back to the 18th Century.

It just sounds so Chaucery.
I think that's slightly misleading - that specific standardised spelling may only date to the 18th century but ballocks, ballokes and other variations have indeed been around since Chaucer's day. Either that or Wikipedia's wrong. Which is clearly impossible.

Can't understand it, people disagreeing!

On the internet?!

I bet it's just an isolated occurrence, don't really see it taking off myself.

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