March 19 2010
Neil Patrick Harris thinks the Dr. Horrible sequel will be on the big screen.
NPH speculates on the future of Dr. Horrible: "I don't know what their plans are, but I don't think it will be on the Internet."
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
maxsummers | March 19, 10:09 CET
I also feel that it may be going against the original principals of the piece, with its attempts to monetise web-videos and show the internet as a viable place to create original content. Moving Dr. Horrible to the big screen would be proving that the Internet was an inferior place to create fictional entertainment, rather than a medium of its own.
I'm all for something bigger and better, like a complete series or a feature length film, but I think the place for it should remain on the Internet.
Vandelay | March 19, 10:16 CET
fraac | March 19, 10:22 CET
Nice one. ;)
brinderwalt | March 19, 10:25 CET
embers | March 19, 10:30 CET
Though there are lots of little things to factor in, plus the all-important marketing. I'm just curious as to how it would translate.
[ edited by UnpluggedCrazy on 2010-03-19 18:36 ]
UnpluggedCrazy | March 19, 10:34 CET
Then again, if they kept the movie as low-budget as possible similar to the way they filmed the first one, perhaps it could still be profitable as a movie without it being a big hit.
Matt_Fabb | March 19, 10:41 CET
Why do we need movie theaters, again? I mean, really? They're about as quaint and appealing as the phonograph.
If movies were released to consumers at the same time as theaters, I'd buy the media and skip the whole rubbing shoulders with the great unwashed, unpredictable masses. Except for a few choice movies, I already do. I'd rather enjoy the show in the privacy of my own home, surrounded by friends and family who respect and share my values.
Yes, the big screen may be bigger, but I'm closer to my flat screen TV, and I can run to the restroom or take a phone call if I need to.
quantumac | March 19, 10:44 CET
maxsummers | March 19, 10:45 CET
I think the format will all depend on what type of deal Joss can get with a studio and distributor. If the PTB's are willing to hand over the cash and still allowed it to be creator-owned, then it would be too big an opportunity to let go.
My personal preference would be to keep DH2 on the internet and for Joss to direct some big-budget project (like what he tried to do with Wonder Woman) or, you know, create a new T.V. show... *crosses fingers*
[ edited by Kaan on 2010-03-19 18:49 ]
Kaan | March 19, 10:46 CET
And I still stand by my plot idea/prediction:
Will he succeed? Or will his arch-nemesis Captain Hammer inexplicably appear to foil his plans? Find out next...
...or something like that.
ETA: Forgot the goons. Also the night club sequence would culminate in an MGM style dance number.
brinderwalt | March 19, 11:02 CET
UnpluggedCrazy | March 19, 11:04 CET
I'm sure that Joss and Co. will do what is right creatively for Dr. Horrible 2. I'm a bit surprised about the rumors of it being a full fledged movie, but I'm sure they would never give up the creator-owned status of the property for a cash in. I will be happy to see whatever they create with Dr. Horrible next.
AnotherFireflyfan | March 19, 11:29 CET
I also like seeing other people's reaction to things. Movie theatre audiences don't always suck. Seeing tense, suspenseful, and/or scary movies can be hightened by seeing them with a lot of people (though some are better-watched in your house or at a friend's house, alone or close to it, with lights off). Comedies can sometimes be better, the more people you have in a room (depends on the comedy. If I let myself get talked into something lame, or that turns out to be lame, sometimtes the stuff some other audience members laugh at grates a bit). And nothing beats going to a film fest and maybe discovering something cool/beautiful for the first time, for its world or at least regional premiere, before you've heard anything about it (not much more than the cast and director/writer, at least).
Cost of going to a film can be steep, given the brief nature of the entertainment medium and not getting to take anything physical home with you, but it's still a lot cheaper than other forms of entertainment (most concerts/clubs, stage theatre, most other event entertainment). $8.95 to 12.95 Canadian, depending on the theatre around here. As much as $17.95 if we're talking IMAX plus 3D (if I actually think to start bringing my own 3D glasses from now on, will they stop charging me the extra $2 to $3 for the disposable/recyclable ones?).
If theatres in your area still offer it though, there's usually half-price Tuesdays (I don't think I see afternoon matinee Saturdays at all anymore), in which case it's about the same cost as renting from Blockbuster or your local independant mom & pop's video store. A couple theatres around here still do $2.00 11am Saturday movie showings too, although the film's often been out for a long while and I sleep in huge on Saturdays, usually, given going out or a bartending shift on Friday night (or even just staying up way too late at home on a Friday night--I dunno, something about Fridays, incapable of going to bed at a reasonable hour).
I'll watch Dr. Horrible no matter where they put it and it doesn't much matter to me where it debuts. I suppose it might further prove the viability of internet ventures if they keep #2 online, then go DVD/blu-ray/iTunes straight after. If Joss, his brothers, and Maurissa are maybe interested in potentially increasing the power of that entertainment model. Then again, it'd be cool to see on the big screen and potentially more folks would see it.
They could...give away simply-packaged/slim-packed versions of the first film/internet serial leading up to the release of #2 as a potentially hugely-paying-off promotion ? Who needs a trailer (I know, there'll still be trailers), just use the 40-minute original to whet people's appetite/leave 'em wanting more ?
Kris | March 19, 11:52 CET
Leaf | March 19, 12:29 CET
fivebyfivefaith | March 19, 12:36 CET
PRO: (1) Possiblity for greater public awareness of Dr. Horrible. (2) Possibility for the creative team to make more money.
CON: (1) I prefer the intimacy of watching it [repeatedly] in the privacy of my home. (2) If ticket sales are lackluster it will be perceived as a "mainstream disappointment" vs. a "new-market blockbuster."
SteveP | March 19, 12:36 CET
Oh, there certainly is still a place for the cinema experience. Watching a film at home doesn't compare to seeing it on the big screen. It doesn't matter whether you see it in a crowded theatre or it is you all alone, the experience is still fantastically engrossing and is impossible to replicate in your living room. This is more true with some genres than others (horror, for example, works by far the best in the cinema, whilst comedy less so) but I haven't seen any film that I thought would not benefit from seeing it on the big screen.
Having said that, I do agree on your point about simultaneous cinema and DVD releases or streaming it on the internet for a fee. I particular wish films that have very limited releases would do something like this, so that those unable to make it will still get an opportunity. At least DVD releases seem to be getting closer and closer to theatrical releases.
But that is going off the topic at hand. I still think Dr. Horrible 2 should work on building the internet as a viable place for creative teams, both new and established, to work.
Vandelay | March 19, 12:48 CET
It's tricky switching formats. I think there are still people who complain about The Guild not going to youtube even when it's readily and freely available in so many other ways.
hacksaway | March 19, 12:54 CET
DeezyG | March 19, 12:54 CET
!Tangent Alert!
Wait - since when are phonographs quaint and unappealing? You do know that those "quaint" little electromechanical devices, by virtue of the fact that they don't rely on an information storage method wherein amplitude and frequency are forced to coexist in a storage space of fixed size for each chosen sampling point ala the digital recording methods of today, are perfectly capable of capturing higher fidelity sound than almost anything the digital age has to offer...
brinderwalt | March 19, 13:27 CET
So I'm not sure Dr. Horrible would be so 'good' on the big screen unless there was unplanned epic-ness that I don't expect. The only reason I might want it in the theater is to go and see it with fellow fans dressed up in their lab coats and welding goggles.
VeryVeryCrowded | March 19, 13:40 CET
Butler | March 19, 13:43 CET
fraac | March 19, 13:49 CET
Now I can drag him to the cinema. Although I'm not too big on musicals, so I'm kind of hoping Dr Horrible 2 would be a little less musicaly. Just a touch.
Why do we need movie theaters, again? I mean, really?
I need movie theaters because I enjoy the experience. [Note the use of the first-person singular pronoun.]
Effulgent | March 19, 14:06 CET
Simon | March 19, 15:26 CET
Although, if there was any point in history when Dr. Horrible might get real funding, it's right now. NPH has never been famouser. There must be studios that have thought about putting him on the big screen.
dispatch | March 19, 15:31 CET
theclynn | March 19, 16:48 CET
Also i love the privacy of my home as well but it can't compare to surprising moments you get in theaters. One instance comes to mind that at the end of Iron Man when the agent said "Just call us Shield." everyone applauded, now i can't watch my dvd without thinking about that moment fondly.
Ultimately I would just be happy to see Doctor Horrible 2 no matter the format :)
silent knight | March 19, 17:44 CET
Tonya J | March 19, 18:05 CET
The original principle in essence was creator-controlled art. The web was the most obvious, most direct way to try that out. Given that, a Dr. Horrible movie doesn't inherently stray from that principle.
@theonetruebix | March 19, 19:13 CET
Break_Atmo | March 19, 20:43 CET
Pointy | March 19, 20:51 CET
"The original principle in essence was creator-controlled art. The web was the most obvious, most direct way to try that out. Given that, a Dr. Horrible movie doesn't inherently stray from that principle."
I'm going to enjoy this whether it is successful or not, and in whatever form it is released. It is true that it is hard to get small independent films into theaters, but they can get into film festivals, and played at college campuses, and sold on DVD. I'll be right there... where ever.
Because I AM Whedon's Bitch.
embers | March 19, 21:02 CET
fivebyfivefaith: this won't work on the big screen- fact
cuz then Joss invariably proves them wrong. Looking forward to another Joss movie on the big screen in a theatre near me.
cabri | March 19, 23:03 CET
Android Penny... That's all I have to say...
Djungelurban | March 20, 00:04 CET
Simon | March 20, 00:04 CET
I can't go to the cinema though due to the fact that there is *always* someone with a garbage bag full of noisy junk-food wrappers. I hate that.
Carmie | March 20, 01:45 CET
Jayne's Hat | March 20, 09:02 CET
Del | March 20, 10:09 CET
JAYROCK | March 20, 11:41 CET
redders | March 20, 11:56 CET
It's JOSS WHEDON for cripes sake. It'll be EPIC whatever the medium. jmo
whedon is GOD | March 20, 12:36 CET
Eh, whatever Joss decides I'll be happy with. I'm probably cooler than the ticket taker anyway.
corinna | March 20, 13:19 CET
Simon | March 20, 13:51 CET
There was just something special about the Dr. Horrible phenomenon, like a mini-revolution, that would be lost in the transition.
Vandelay | March 20, 15:32 CET
fuffybaby18 | March 20, 15:52 CET
@theonetruebix | March 21, 12:46 CET
I know with the theatrical possibility, your idea would make more sense from maybe a marketing standpoint (or they could just go batshit insane, pull a Lost, and do a big screen Horrible as an alternate timeline/reality branching off from the original--maybe Billy's freeze ray did some damage somewhere along the line. This wouldn't be completely crazy, given the superpeople-featuring, sci-fi nature of the Horribleverse). After all, too many people haven't seen the original. But that's why I kinda liked my idea to give the original away as promotion, if the big screen happens. Give away the DVD/blu, put it on TV, continue to promote it online...The product speaks for itself (though yes, I know they'd need to make trailers to grab the folks that either don't have the time, attention span, or simply aren't interested in risking a portion of their life on a 40-minute unknown film), the original would sell the sequel, in theory.
So many ways they could go with this.
I guess the more conservative side of me (not politically, just feelings-wise) says to keep the format of the original and guarantee a moderate-to-again-amazing online/DVD/blu-ray success. The other side, the "go big or go home" side, says they should just shoot for the moon and put it in theatres.
b!x, read the article. He presents some worthwhile questions/worries, but most of them are easily answered/refuted, IMO. Thinking that the studios might get too involved in the process...if Joss has pitched it the right way, with stringent requirements on what it would take to get him on board with bringing Dr.H to the big screen, then they'll be more or less covered by agreements within the contract. That is, assuming whatever studio finances/distributes this is chomping at the bit to work with Joss/capitalize on the success they witnessed of the online original. But even if Joss was the one that had to go to them to sell the idea, he can simply turn down their offers and be happy with a web release again, if they're too stubborn about wanting to get their fingers into the creative pot.
Worrying that the movie will be too long for something that focuses on slight/shallow characters ? (and he only gave Hammer as an example--Penny and Billy seemed pretty three dimensional, to me...especially Billy, though with Penny I have the benefit of the webcomic and multiple views of the film, which this Wired writer may not have experienced) Even if the sequel remains the same style of satirical/biting social commentary as the original, I don't see these characters as static. If Hammer's in it, he'll receive more depth. I don't worry that Joss and his bros will ruin the parody-potential of the character, the Whedon name has succeeded at making slight or one-timer characters more intriguing and deep countless times when re-introducing or integrating into a recurring or full time basis on TV. No reason doing that in a film would be any different. Overexposure can be a problem for Whedon material once in a blue moon, so if a third Horrible were to happen and Hammer were to take it over or be in it too much the way Spike got overused in the last 2 to 3 seasons of the Buffyverse, that's a mistake I wouldn't be surprised to see from a Mutant Enemy production--or almost any TV creators, to be honest, since most rarely seem to be able to show restraint in that area when it comes to fan-favorites.
[ edited by Kris on 2010-03-21 23:30 ]
Kris | March 21, 15:17 CET
DeezyG | March 27, 13:26 CET