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
"Phil? His first name is Agent."
11970 members | you are not logged in | 26 January 2021


September 20 2011

Someone familiar on the web series Husbands. A Whedonverse guest makes an appearance on episode three.

I really enjoyed it. I just caught up and it doesn't take much. Each ep that I can see so far are only a few minutes. I think there are other clips too.

The special guest was -- ok I'll say it -- SHINY.
I think Jane Espenson says somewhere that the episodes are modeled on some casual research of the typical Youtube attention span: thus the two minute length.

I love Nathan's reading of the "popular gay" line.
Loved the ep.

"I dare you to raise an eyebrow!"
I'm struggling a bit with the web series. I have known a few gay couples and have yet to encounter anyone as effeminate as the blonde dude among them. He pretty much drives me crazy and is ruining the series for me.
I adore Cheeks. Loved his stuff online long before Jane started working with him. This is tame, Njal. Maybe it's not for you.
I'm really liking these so far. The dialogue and delivery are very snappy.
Loved "botox boy."
I've really enjoyed this - the writing is killer "If we were straight, this would be a hackneyed premise." WIN!
I really love it. What writing! What acting! I like the characters already. I find them both charming. I'm amazed at what they've all managed to do in the 2 minute bits. (Although why I'm not sure - most trailers give the whole film away in two minutes. ;-) I am thinking I don't watch enough reality tv though. I found their drunken wedding video almost too embarrassing to watch even through my fingers. ;P

My only caveat is that I wish they were just a little longer - maybe five-ish minutes like The Guild? I'm always left wanting a little more. I guess that's a good thing? It might be starting to feel to me a tiny bit like eating those sugar free/fat free/no calorie deserts - a fleeting satisfaction that ends up being ultimately frustrating. My jury is still out on that one though.
I quite like it the way it is now (though I wouldn't hate more). And it's two episodes a week, right?
My understanding is that they are broken up into two minute bits for the reasons already stated, but also because the plan is that the eleven two-minute "episodes" will actually string together to make one twenty-two minute official pilot episode for what is hoped to become a proper televised series. The idea is to prove, through these episodes, that there is an audience for this content and a desire to see more, so that they can then take that "pilot" and shop it around to different networks and, hopefully, get it on the air.

Anyway, while they could have made them closer to five minutes, that would have only given us around four episodes instead of eleven.

That's how I've understood it anyway.
Which is interesting since from what I remember Felicia Day is or was pretty opposed to that particular approach to webseries. I'll be curious to see if it works.
While I understand the reasons, both creative and business wise, behind the chosen format, that doesn't mean though that I, as a member of the audience, am necessarily enjoying the format or that I wouldn't enjoy the same story in another format more.

But I'll take the existing format (for now) over nothing. : ) It's fresh! and new! with the slightly wafting scent of spring rain.

And an actual series would be cool - assuming it didn't end up on some channel I can't watch over the internet. (Sheesh. It's always something with these kids isn't it?)
Sunfire - I believe you're right. I write a web series myself, and one of the things that caught my attention a year or so ago was a list of things that Felicia suggested to web series creators. One of them was, essentially, "Make sure you're making a web series." My takeaway from that was that if you really wanna make a TV show or a movie or a music video or a stop-animation short or whatever, you should create that, go through the process of selling that, and do that. If you're making a series for the web, though, make sure you're making a series for the web. I certainly don't judge anyone for doing it differently, and frankly I'm just pleased as punch to have Jane's and Cheeks' writing on my screen twice a week, but it is a way of thinking different from my own.
That's an ongoing creative tension in the web series world: are you making a work to be a work unto itself, or a work to either (1) become some other form or (2) get you a big break to go make something else in another form. There's nothing inherently wrong with the latter, so long as you're actually committed to making the web series good regardless of your endgame -- something too many web series in the latter camp fail to completely bother with.

(Last year, in 2010, the only SDCC panel on making web series was specifically only about "making a web series to get noticed and get a nice, big Hollywood deal". It drove me crazy that it was the only focus beyond the Guild and LoN panels.)

I'm enjoying Husbands. I have no idea if it even works as a single episode. I assume even if it were picked up to TV based upon that, they'd reshoot it anyway to more properly fit the half-hour format.

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