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 “House” to “M*A*S*H,” “24” to “The Simpsons,” “Gilligan’s Island” to “The Wire.” 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.
Namely, in this article by Mike Hale, wherein he analyzes the aesthetic and commercial appeal of “Dr. Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog” and finds it somewhat wanting. Not compared to other Web content, of course, it’s fine there, a diamond in the muck. But when compared to television, it needs “beefing up.”
If the comparison is with television, the answer is murkier. On that scale “Dr. Horrible” falls somewhere between an amusing trifle and a dramedy that won’t make it to the 13th episode.
[…]
…you may prefer the slacker aesthetic of “Dr. Horrible” to the formulas of network television, but even in the summer doldrums, 45 minutes (after commercials) of “The Closer” or “Legally Blonde the Musical: The Search for Elle Woods” is a superior piece of craftsmanship. (And even on its own anti-mainstream terms, “Dr. Horrible” has a ways to go to catch up with “The Sarah Silverman Program.”)
Really? “The Sarah Silverman Show” is the anti-mainstream bar all shows must strive towards? Maybe if “Dr. Horrible” had more poop jokes it would have passed muster.
I have no problem with people criticizing the show on its own merits and faults – there are plenty of both. But condemning it because it’s not as good as “The Sarah Silverman Show” or “The Closer” – two more different shows you’ll be hard-pressed to find – is ridiculous. Although actual criticism may be tricky and require more than 15 minutes, I’ll have to ask.
“Prominent gay subtext”? Really?
Oh hell. The evidence for a prominent gay subtext (for a man) is a man admiring his own muscles or a woman painfully making the point that she thinks of you as a friend?
Point one turns nearly every man who as ever visited a gym into a gay man. Well, okay, but it kind of seriously waters down what being “gay” means. And point two…how does…how…is…that is one incredible demonstration of failing to understand the subtext. Or, if by some fluke I’m missing the subtext (wouldn’t be the first time) then it surely cannot be prominent (because I’m just not that daft. Mostly.).