Q&A: Joss Whedon examines 'Dr. Horrible'

Jed Whedon, Maurissa Tancharoen, Joss Whedon, Neil Patrick Harris, Nathan Fillion, Felicia Day (front), Zack Whedon// Photo credit: Amy Opoka.

Writer-director Joss Whedon answered a couple of e-mail questions about the origins of "Dr. Horrible" and what he thinks of the Internet as a creative medium.

How did knowing that Dr. Horrible was going to be on the Internet change the way you approached the making of it? What kinds of stylistic or narrative elements might work on the Internet that might not on TV or film?

The first answer is obviously freedom: not just creative but structual, in terms of running time, number of episods, presentation and (fingers crossed) monetization. Nothing is set in stone. I'm a very traditional storyteller, and I'm in no way Internet savvy, but I did appreciate the elasticity of the medium. The story was also geared toward the Internet audience -- and not just by putting "blog" in the title. The fact that Dr. Horrible does blog is part of his character, which is the guy alone in his room ranting about the world not being the way it should. We're long past the age of "everybody on the Internet watches 'Star Trek' and lives in their parents 'basement', but there is a modern societal truth about the kind of guy who needs to tell the world his troubles and show off his talents. And I relate to that guy. Neil's blogs wouldn't work in the same way if they weren't coming from your computer screen. Correction: They will work brilliantly on DVD. Or at a midnight screening in your local city! Other difference in doing it withough major backing: I became a whore.

Most importantly, there is the silly. The things that have hit on the Internet have almost all had that quality, from "Star Wars" kid to "The Landlord," to 1,500 prisoners doing "Thriller." Not just the I-made-it-myself aesthetic, but the truly, transcendently goofy. The absurd (which is important to me, as an Absurdist) is part of the Internet's identity. Maybe it's just a stage, but it's an awesome one. On TV, Dr. Horrible would be greeted with a lot more skepticism than on the Internet. We knew as writers that we could bare our ridiculous souls to the point where people would suddenly, sincerley burst into song -- it took six years to achieve that kind of audience trust on "Buffy."

And finally, it does have to be said that every time a shot wasn't perfect and we had to move on, we'd just proclaim "It's an Internet musical!" and comfort ourselves with the idea that it would all be very tiny.

Do you expect Dr. Horrible to make a profit within, say, the first year?

The question of monetzations is tricky. First because I don't want to put this forward as needing profit to succeed: This really was a labor of love. And second because it's so easy to lose perspective; Jed, Zack, Maurissa and I would turn on a dime from "We'll never finish this" to "And then it shall run for yahrs and yahrs on Broadway!"

I expect that it actually will go into the black within the first year. If I'm right, the interesting question will be how much it can turn from strictly Internet revenues (downloads, ad-supported streaming) and how much from DVD. The former would make it more of a new business model (though making a blip on the DVD market without a major thetrical release or multi-platformed tween star would still be noteworthy).

Some brows have furrowed at the idea of putting it out for free for a week, but that was part of our mission statement from the first: to create an Internet event for the fans (and others) to enjoy because we enjoyed it so much. Whether that affects us negatively revenue-wise it'll be hard to determine, but it's part of the business model in that the statement is as much about the Internet as a medium as it is about our little epic. We're ringing the bell. It doesn't matter how many people gather: We just like the clangy noise.