I've heard a lot of complaints about the ending of Dr.Horrible and I just wanted to speculate on whether it's because that particular ending didn't fit, or if anything short of a happy ending would have garnered criticism.

I personally don't think it broke with the logic of the narrative to give Dr.Horrible a tragic twist.  He's a supervillain.  Supervillains (successful ones, anyway) kill people.  The end of Act 2 is about his glee in realizing he finally has someone he hates enough to kill.  I understand that the plot plays against audience expectations, people don't expect anything serious to happen in a comedic superhero tale, and people hate to be fooled, but the inconsistancies claimed of the plot are owed entirely to its placement in a well-defined genre (the adam west/saturday morning cartoon caped crusader schtick).

Secondly, I thought the title of the series was entirely contrived (dr./mr./prof. <insert bad thing>) until I saw that he was responsible for something truly horrible.  His tragic mistake is thinking he can gain at the expense of others (a common mistake in a capitalist society) where ultimately his evil will only allow him to benefit at the expense of his humanity, which, since he is a supervillain, is embodied by the persona of billy.  All those aspirations of having the “world at his feet” are horribly realized in seeing his “world” lying dead at his feet.  Basically, for Dr.Horrible to win everything, Billy has to loose everything.

It's a really well written and well formulated tragedy, but since tragedy isn't a genre American audiences are familiar with, it comes off as a twisted perversion of a familiar tale.  I think the real problem with Dr.Horrible lies solely with the audience, not the work itself.

I agree entirely /\…

I very often say that where the hell have all tragedys gone?? I tuly think that people have become so used to the idea of a happy ending, that they just naturally expect that everything they watch, read (insert other entertainment types here…), will have a happy ending. But then when something like Dr. Horrible comes along and all of a sudden it's not what they expect to happen (Dr. Horrible kills/subdues Capt. Hammer and he and Penny ride off into the sunset), they can't deal with it.

Personally this is why I LOVE Joss soo much! He's willing to kill off the love interest and send the “hero” into a spiral of self destruction (AKA, the complete and udder destruction of whatever was left over of Billy, leaving only the evil of Dr. H).

I just think it's kinda funny that if someone attempted to make something like MacBeth today, everyone would probably hate it, loathe it, try to ban it (Okay maybe I'm exaggerating a touch but you get my drift). It's just modern audiences can't handle the idea of walking out of a theater (Away from their computer) without an overwhelming sense of joy and happiness at the ending of a movie. It frankly pisses me off sometimes.

Anyways I've gone off topic. So I'll shut up now.

I strongly disagree with the notion that American audiences can't handle a sad ending. The biggest movie of all time is “Titanic.”

The current top-grossing movie is “The Dark Knight,” which doesn't exactly end with hugs and puppies.

The reason people complained about the ending of “Dr. H” is that it started out cute and fluffy and goofy, setting up a comic tone, which leads to the expectation of a happy ending. The turn into tragedy in Act 3 was startling, a twist that most were not expecting.

Some people loved that unexpected twist; others found it jarring and unpleasant to see a beloved character die in something that initially appeared to be a lighthearted comedy. Is that really SO hard to understand?

There's no rule that anyone HAS to do anything. But movies have genres for a reason. If you're in the mood for a comedy, you go to see a comedy. If you're in the mood for a horror movie, or a romance, or an action flick, then that's what you go to see. And if you DO see a movie of a particular genre, then you're in the frame of mind for that genre: you go to a comedy ready to laugh, you go to a horror movie ready to scream, etc.

Many movies blend two genres successfully: “Shawn of the Dead” was horror/comedy, many movies are “romantic comedy”, etc.

But if a movie appears to be one genre, and the audience goes in expecting that genre, and is in the frame of mind for that genre…but then, at the end, it suddenly turns into something else, it can feel like a bait-and-switch. You signed up for one thing, but suddenly it changed to something else you were NOT in the mood for and were NOT expecting (for example, you specifically chose a comedy because you were in the mood to laugh and feel good, but instead it suddenly ends in death and leaves you depressed).

Now, obviously you, and many others here, enjoyed that unexpected switch. Great! I'm glad you enjoyed it. Others, however, found the unexpected switch to be a jarring, unpleasant surprise, like biting into a chocolate and finding a sour lemon inside.

Why is it so impossible to understand that not everyone shares your tastes and preferences? It's one thing to say “I loved the ending, and here's why,” and I completely respect that. But I just don't get why people who liked the ending are so utterly baffled as to how anyone could POSSIBLY not like it, nor why they feel the need to put down people who didn't like it (i.e. saying Americans can't “handle” an unhappy ending, saying that's it's a PROBLEM that people don't like movies that suddenly switch genres at the end, etc.)

Okay, that's all cool then. Different strokes for different folks.

Sorry to snap at you!

Spoilers. 

I feel terrible because I am a total supporter of Joss but I cannot abide the ending. I feel that this is one huge step back in his otherwise hugely feminist work. 

Women in refrigerators is a website that has been circulating for a while. It highlights the idea that women have been used as plot devices instead of people throughout comic books.

http://www.unheardtaunts.com/wir/

Now, I understand that there was only a short amount of time (about 40 minutes) to get to know her character therefore we naturally don't know everything about her, and therefore, feel that she is a person/human. And I take this into consideration. 

But as a person who reads comic books and is continuously frustrated with the outcome of women, I just feel… so disappointed that he chose to kill her. There were so many more options that could have resulted in the admittance to the evil league of evil. (He could have killed the captain hammer fan while penny watched disgusted. He could have killed the mayor, again, while penny watched. Then she could have sung a song to him, and then gone forever…) 

She was a plot device, nothing more. 

This act does mimic the death of Tara, but we got to know her better than penny. She grew as a person, and we saw that she was apart of the scooby gang even after her breakup with Willow. We loved her and when she died, we mourned the individual, not just what she meant to Willow. Back then, joss said that he could kill her because she was a person. And I agree, he could kill her because she was a person.

I don't feel the same with Penny. My frame of mind is that if a person can't do it right, then don't do it at all. If he couldn't establish her identity as an individual person within the 42 minutes, then he shouldn't kill her at all. All she became, in the ending, was a twist. Penny deserved better than that. 

sania d. 

Ps. This statement is entirely defined by the first 3 acts. If more seasons come, then my opinions might/will change.