Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation – The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
-
Upload
john-k-wie -
Category
Documents
-
view
217 -
download
0
Transcript of Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation – The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
1/33
Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation
The Legacy ofDr. Horrible
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
2/33
Abstract
With the advent of the Internet, media convergence has brought conglomerates and users
to a central point of conflict. Companies have spread across fragmented channels while users
create new paradigms to produce and share information. This clash has also brought
opportunities for both to work together, creating unique scenarios such as Dr. Horribles Sing-
Along Blog, a web miniseries.
The research utilizes the theoretical framework of convergence, produsage, fandom and
transmedia, and seeks to answer the following questions: How has the web series paradigm
affected produsage and convergence? How has this model worked as a model for transmedia?
And what is the legacy ofDr. Horrible in transmedia and its effect on cult fandom?
This paper explores the background ofDr. Horrible to understand these questions and
focuses on both fan and producer responses through semi-structured interviews. The findings
show that this web series paradigm has potential as an open medium, giving producers free reign
to express their creative vision and letting viewers engage with the content although not without
its own set of risks. This research concludes that the produsage-like model is viable for
financial and viewership success while empowering fans and producers to be cultural citizens
although hampered by the lack of gatekeepers and top-down clashes.
Suggested Keywords
produsage, web series, cult fandom, convergence, transmedia, conglomerates, Joss Whedon,Dr.
Horribles Sing-Along Blog
2
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
3/33
1. Introduction
[1.1] The changing flow of technology has created an unstable landscape for media
conglomerates and consumers. Both struggle to obtain control over content distribution and
consumption. These conflicts lead to the creation of media convergence: the intersection of the
conglomerates digital strategies and consumers underground media tactics.
[1.2] In this transition period, conglomerates are experimenting with new content
distribution and creation methods while the audience grapples with a constantly changing media
landscape. How will these experiments affect the audience, and will they change power
dynamics between the two sides? Have new opportunities arisen that can pave the way for future
producers and audience members? The promises and realities of new, innovative prospects have
begun to shine light onto these inquiries.
[1.3] This study undertakes an analysis of a web video miniseries called Dr. Horribles
Sing-Along Blog. Considered by critics as an Internet phenomenon,Dr. Horrible created a direct
communication channel between the producers and their viewers and is a relevant and timely
case study. This research will bring a modern insight into digital innovation and reveal a push
for media convergence cooperation.
2. A Top-Down Conglomerate System to Media Convergence
[2.1] Mass media systems used to control the information within their technological
channels until media convergence allowed individuals to disrupt this information stream.
Historically, media conglomerates created and distributed content through legacy mediums,
viewed by a mass audience (Rose 2011, 86). Scholars argued about the imbalance of
information and mediation in these channels. However, individuals eventually adopted new
3
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
4/33
technologies, which disrupted these methods (Gillan 2011, 179), creating a clash between the
two sides.
[2.2] Mass medias power in the 20 th century reveals the conglomerates transition from
dominating the communication channels to struggling with new user practices. During the mid-
20th century, only a few media channels were available (film, television, and radio). It was not
difficult for companies to reach audiences via these mediums, and studios could easily woo
advertisers to invest (Ang 1990, 68).
[2.3] Academics considered this time periods audience to be passive and controlled.
Ang describes it as an a socially-constituted and institutionally-produced category, (1990, 3).
He argued that messages that were not from media conglomerates were not sent to the audience,
giving little freedom in choice of content and voicing opinions to these companies.
[2.4] The evolution of technology transformed these theorists arguments post-1980s.
Technological advancements, such as satellite signals, gave consumers more options (Harvey
1989, 293), eroded the domination of the central studios, and caused audience fragmentation:
scattering viewers across multiple channels (Ang 1990, 69). Willis mentions, Technological
developmentsled to a breakdown in the traditional family units consumption of media
(2003, 137). New methods had to be developed by studios to continue to push their messages to
audiences.
[2.5] One contrasting perspective argues that viewer agency is still bound to the
conglomerates, which adapted to the changes. Curtain argued that these companies were always
involved with media convergence, using methods like product placement, to counteract user
empowerment (2001, 229). The studios released fewer but broader brands to capture the mass
audience and focused on niches to expand their flexible accumulation: the capability to expand
4
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
5/33
farther by being on many mediums (Curtain 2001, 231). This struggle between consumers and
conglomerates would be further complicated with the Internet.
3. The Online Struggle of Media Convergence
[3.1] The Internet was heralded as a breakthrough, full of potential and freedom. Yet,
this was met with skepticism from those who saw it as part of the conglomerates media
convergence strategy to make users into free workers. The Internets evolution as a consumer-
driven and user-friendly framework shows the fissure that permeated this debate.
[3.2] One side contests that the Internet is another medium controlled by media
conglomerates. This viewpoint argues that companies utilize vertical integration, denoting how
companies controlinterests across the entire entertainment industry (Jenkins 2006, 14), to
spread their influence online, since the Internet is fragmented and broad. Users try the
conglomerates websites because it promises to organize the sporadic digital content (2006, 3).
[3.3] Andrejevic speaks of a system in which the conglomerates attached themselves to
websites and forced users to give up information for access. (The) model of the on-line
economy isbased on the strategy for rationalizing and disciplining the labor of viewingand
of consumptionto make it more productive, (2002, 243). Users become both consumers and
workers to allow companies access to watch what they click.
[3.4] If companies cannot subtly persuade users, they utilize their legal power with tactics
like copyright infringement. Lessig explains that companies have continued to exploit these
powers to control the online space (2004, 148-149). Therefore, the top-down business model is
still present as companies adapt to the digital environment.
[3.5] The conflicting argument states that the Internet is an empowering and creative
5
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
6/33
landscape for users, who have bypassed the top-down structure and become participatory cultural
citizens. This can be seen through open source and digital commons. These concepts grant
freedom and collaboration to participants. Open source is a kind of political movement against
the commodification of information, (Curtain 2001, 239). An open source code is publicly
available and maintained for free. It is a non-hierarchical structure of organization and
governance, (Bruns 2008, 40).
[3.6] Digital commons is associated with open source but encompasses more breadth.
Commons are resources that all in a specified community may use but none can own,
(Coleman 2007, 935). Users work together and add to a program, which can be public or
corporate. Here, these participants are considered more than a spectator. They become
producers and creative entities, playing with ideas that can lead to other creative venues.
[3.7] Bruns creates a term to describe these activities as produsage: a new type of digital
empowerment. Users no longer produce contentthat resembles traditional, industrial modes
of production(It becomes) a creative, collaborative, and ad hoc engagement with content for
user-led spaces (2008, 1). He categorizes several points to signify produsage in effect: open
participationcommunal means of evaluatingfluid heterarchyad hoc community, self-
governance processesunfinished artefactconstant processes of evolutioncommon
property(and) individual rewards (2008, 249). Like in other arenas, however, these
grassroots processes clash with the corporate structure because of convergence (Jenkins 2004,
37). This continuous tension between consumers and creative users can best be seen in fandom.
4. The Integral Role of Fandom in Convergence Culture
[4.1] Fandom has always been a part of the overall audience yet only recently has the
6
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
7/33
term evolved into a visible mode of consumption. Sandvoss utilizes the most relevant definition
for fandom as the regularly, emotionally involved consumption of a given popular narrative
or textwhichbuild and maintain an affective relationship with mediated texts and thus share
fundamental psychological, social and cultural premises and consequences (2005, 8-9).
[4.2] These fans can be further divided through categorizations from Abercrombie and
Longhurst (2005, 31). These groupings look at how focused fans are to the content, how
interconnected they are to a community, and how much of the media is consumed. This criteria
creates three categories:
[4.3] Fansfollow a particular textexclusively through the mass media(and are) part
of an atomized audience and not linked with each other; cultistsare more specialized
and tend to develop through albeit largely unorganized ties; enthusiasts(are those
whose) own activity and textual productivity(which) constitute the core of their
fandom. (2005, 31)
[4.4] These categorizations give perspective in viewing fandoms impact on different
levels. This concept has become important due to convergence and fragmentation theories.
Academics have discussed two sides to fans actions: one perspective views them as viewers
being controlled and exploited while the other sees them as creative and productive cultural
citizens.
[4.5] The negative viewpoint stems from the exploitative mindset of corporate entities.
This concept is considered to mirrorconditions of popular culture, (Sandvoss 2005, 3). Fans
read and engage with a text because of their enjoyment and involvement, but some academics
7
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
8/33
argue that through media convergence, producers can control fans through multiple channels.
Burgess states, participation of user communities can be read in terms of affective, immaterial,
andfree labor (2009, 61). Fans are considered free marketers because of their passion to
consume and publicize content to others.
[4.6] Fandom, from an industrialist standpoint, represents a highly engaged consumer
culture that is both born of andimplicated in the cultural processes it supposedly resists,
(Gray 2003, 2). Some companies issue warnings when fans break copyright laws, but most
believe fans are controllable with more merchandise and content. Ang states that fans are
considered as a simple statistic by studios (1990, 13).
[4.7] However, the opposing argument considers fans to be creative and participatory.
Gray argues that fans are more than part of the collective audience because they tend to engage
with these texts not in a rationally detached but in an emotionally involved and invested way,
(2003, 10). Each of the fans actions contributes to a community and gives perspective on how
bonds are formed between communities globally.
[4.8] Fans are known to be textually productive, reformulat(ing) the fan text in ways that
necessarily move it out of its industrial framing and invite emancipationand resistance
(Sandvoss 2005, 29). An example of this is fan videos. These users channel their talents and
creativity through their fandom in new ways and become ad hoc performers (2005, 48).
[4.9] Fans are users who often participate in produsage, seen also through their
participatory communities. It shapes the tenor and quality of fans interactions not only with
each other but also with other non-fans, (2005, 55). This potentially could culminate into fans
being in a progressive, cosmopolitan cultural citizenshipa revived model of the public sphere
(with) sustainedparticipationdialogue(and) negotiation of complexity and difference
8
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
9/33
(Burgess 2009, 79). Fans have shown this opportunity for interaction and openness, and slowly
producers are also realizing this as well.
5. Experimentation in a Turbulent Transition
[5.1] Media convergence has brought the audience and conglomerates closer than ever
before, and recently, has also started a period of experimentation. Different types of
compromises have appeared to address this question of possible cooperation between the
grassroots and conglomerates. One type of media attempting to do this is transmedia. Jenkins
defines this as: stories that unfold across multiple media platforms, with each medium making
distinctive contributions to our understanding of the world, (2006, 334). Different experiments
have appeared such as the initial instances of webisodes, web episodes of legacy media content,
and mobisodes, mobile episodes, from the 1999 show, Smallville. These episodes let fans watch
smaller characters receive extended plotlines (Gillan 2011, 51).
[5.2] Transmedia has partially succeeded in bringing together the audience and
conglomerates. One success is in empowering viewers. Jenkins states, an engagement model
thrives when entertainment properties help active audiences connect with one another in and
around (relationship-building) properties (The Value 2011, 43). Transmedia tactics, such as
Losts website, helped involve its fans to become fanalysts, who worked to decipher the shows
codes through the producers minigames (Gillan 2011, 155). The audience gets to interact with
media producers in direct ways and feels empowered.
[5.3] The second success is from the professional emulation of fan actions to create
compelling content and trust amongst audiences. Fans have shown dedication to content through
collective action. An example is the Save Chuck Subway campaign in which rallying fans
9
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
10/33
prevented Chuckfrom being cancelled by buying Subway sandwiches, the shows sponsor (Rose
2011, 195). Media producers are inspired to create similar experiences. Alternate reality games,
such as Why So Serious?, the Dark Knights marketing campaign, created an engaging and
successful game for fans by solving physical puzzles and rewarding them with exclusive film
content. It emulated hypertextsan essential feature of the Web(and) assumed that the
participants would be interconnected, (2011, 13).
[5.4] However, some have argued that transmedia is not perfect. One perspective is that
the viewer is being exploited again as free workers. The atmosphere is more open but is an
illusion of empowerment. Adrejevic believes Web 2.0 as a new form of exploitation, as
media industries are generating new kinds of data from the actions of online audiences,
(Jenkins, The Value 2011, 28). Gillans example of this is a production blog for Greys
Anatomy,entitled Grey Matter, which had the false impression of being open. It was rarely used
and only by marketers, not the creative team initially promised (2011, 224) and represents one in
many cases of producers casting fans as statistical figures than meaningful relationships.
[5.5] Another argument states that legacy media is still the priority over transmedia
tactics. The first reason for this is the reliance on old metrics and tactics as the core driver of
revenue. Gillan notes that, broadcast networks are still committed to behaviors that are
supposed to be part of(what) they left behind in the twentieth century (2011, 241), such as
the Nielsen ratings still utilizing old media diaries.
[5.6] A television executive, Engler, states, Wed rather have a million TV viewers than
a million streaming viewers because we make more money from TVwhich means they
contribute more to the health and success of a show (Jenkins, The Value 2011, 9). This is an
example of the conglomerates apathy because of a lack of financial incentive.
10
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
11/33
[5.7] The second reason is that many legacy companies are inexperienced in
comprehending fandom and new media usage. As proudsage necessitates, the effort from
producers must be genuine and unique or face rejection by the community (Jenkins 2006, 88).
This happened with Glee,which had viewers Tweeting questions to the actors during the show
with real-time responses, yet it showed a technologically illiterate cast and crew and a
disengaged audience (Gillan 2011, 234).
[5.8] However, even with these successes and misfires with transmedia, many questions
still remain as to whether this period of experimentation will come to favor either the audience or
producers. Jenkins notes:
[5.9] There have beentoo few fully transmedia stories for media makers to act with any
certainty about what would constitute the best uses of this new modelor for critics and
consumers to know how to talk meaningfully about what works or doesnt workfew, if
any franchises achieve the full aesthetic potential of transmedia storytelling yet. (2006,
99)
6. Research Questions and Hypotheses
[6.1] Dr. Horrible, an original web miniseries, was unique for its time, created by a
Hollywood director yet produced and released without any major studios involvement. This
content is an intriguing example of a produsage-like professional digital text to analyze. Dr.
Horrible also revealed new challenges since its release concerning the future of web video
content and communities.
[6.2] My main research question is: has the web series paradigm exemplified and/or
11
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
12/33
contradicted the theories of produsage and convergence and in what ways? My two sub-research
questions are: how has the web series model worked to be a viable model for transmedia outlets?
And what is the legacy ofDr. Horribles Sing-Along-Blogin the present and future of transmedia
and the opportunities and obstacles it has created for cult fandom?
[6.3] I hypothesize that a web series can be an ideal medium that marries both produsage
and convergence strategies to its success, having to conform to characteristics of grassroots
content while utilizing professional crew and cast. For the second question, I believe that I will
discover the web series model working to carry some successful content and create an ideal
environment yet due to the legacy medias reluctance to change, the transition will not reach its
full potential in the near future. Finally, I believe that the legacy ofDr. Horrible will represent a
successful transmedia strategy that utilizes a pure production to marketing strategy that respects
and resonates with fans, inspiring them to market and push the content along with becoming
participatory and creative cultural citizens.
7. Methodology
[7.1] The main method utilized is semi-structured interviews. Secondary methods such
as video analysis and reading through web articles were also used. The video analysis consisted
of watching the Dr. Horrible series online and on DVD with the commentary tracks from the
cast and crew along with theEvil League of Evil (ELE) fan videos. This was to be familiar with
the narrative and production in understanding the context of the interviews.
[7.2] The qualitative research method of semi-structured interviews was chosen because
of the type of analysis. The research required an in-depth look at the reasoning people had with
their fandom ofDr. Horrible and industry perspectives from various producers. (The) real
12
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
13/33
purpose of qualitative research is to explore range of opinions(to) understand the different
opinions of the social milieu, (Bauer 2000, 41). A qualitative approach can present this with
interactive exchanges and intimate conversations.
[7.3] As noted by Berger, a depth interview is a probe, (1998, 55). It allows a
researcher to explore and pursue inquiries not possible with quantitative methods, ask(ing) a lot
of detail(ed) questions(to) adapt and bring out inner thoughts from interviewees (1998, 57).
[7.4] Qualitative analysis does have weaknesses. First, semi-structured interviews are
limited in scope and size. Much time is spent on arranging, conducting, and transcribing
interviews. One other limitation is that the interviewees may leave out certain details because
he/she is shy or forgetful (2000, 44).
[7.5] One set of interviewees can be categorized asDr. Horrible fans. 15 of them were
chosen utilizing Facebook, Google, and Youtube searches. This number corresponds to Bauers
suggested number of interviews (2000, 43). Three were Europeans; 12 were Americans; and the
interviewees ages ranged from 20 to 42. Nine were male; six were female. The second set
included one of the Dr. Horrible screenwriters along with four transmedia producers to
understand their thoughts on the digital industry and Dr. Horrible. They were found using
personal contacts and media resources.
[7.6] The research study was submitted to the institution's ethical review board, which
waived the requirement for full review. An institutional academic supervisor ensured the
integrity of the institution's ethical guidelines. All interviewees provided written informed
consent to utilize their transcripts for the research. Interviewees approved the research study by
verbal consent. Interviewees who requested anonymity were given aliases. All transcripts and
recordings are kept within a password-protected computer.
13
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
14/33
[7.7] After creating pilot interviews and several topic guides, these interviews were
conducted using Skype, with the recording plug-in Pamela, and face-to-face using a recorder.
The coding frame used was thematic and discourse analysis. The theoretical concepts, such as
media convergence, transmedia, produsage, and grassroots, were utilized as well as repeating
themes, such as viewer response to the series, active fan participation, and the industry
perspective.
8. Results - Whedons Introduction to the Internet Playground
[8.1] In late 2006 to 2007, a few individuals were attempting to create professional web
videos, and studios were looking for a sustainable, financial structure for digital content. Kim
Evey, a producer of a web series called The Guild,commented, It seems like there just werent
narrative serieson Youtube, and there wasnt much that was produced (2011). Many start-
ups and legacy conglomerates at the time created aggregate web video sites with original web
content, but most of them were not viable. A few independent web series similar to The Guild,
though, started to showcase some success through sponsorships and niche audiences (2011).
[8.2] During the Writers Strike of 2007, an opportunity to create web videos appeared
for legacy media teams. The strike focused on disputes mainly over residuals for the
development of online extensions of television programs, (Jenkins, Courting Supporters 2011,
15). Traditional teams were barred from work while consumers had little content to watch. A
PhD candidate interviewee recollected, There was no Lost, there was nothing. I was essentially
bored, (A01, 2010). The strike led many film and television producers to the Internet where
they could release content on their own.
[8.3] Dr. Horribles director, Joss Whedon, who created cult television texts such as
14
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
15/33
Buffy the Vampire Slayer, also ventured into this arena (Jenkins, Courting Supporters 2011, 14).
With the Writers Strike in motion and inspired by talks with Felicia Day, the creator of The
Guild, he began to create his own web series (Whedon, 2010). His co-writer, Zack, recollects
how it began:
[8.4] My brother Josswanted to get into doing Internet content and hadnt had an
opportunity to. The Writers Guild Strike provided a really great opportunity for that
(we) spent just writingbecause we didnt have anything else to do and when the Strike
endedwe finished writing it and shot it... (2010)
[8.5] Interested in produsage-like work, Joss wanted the flexibility amateur producers had
without the bureaucratic studio system (Jenkins, Courting Supporters 2011, 16). A Swedish fan,
Niklas, recollects how Joss said he wanted to cut off the middle handits just me and my
fans, (A14, 2010).
[8.6] Twelve interviewees were familiar with the background ofDr. Horribles creation
and in turn, affected fans motivations for watching the series. Also, many interviewees did not
watch the series during its initial release. One British fan, Uriel, watchedDr. Horrible two years
after its debut and knew about the series background. He stated, a lot of people jumped on
(the series) because there was no content(because of) the Writers Strike (2010).
[8.7] Additionally, many interviewees were cord cutters: users watching content
exclusively on mediums other than a television. A British amateur filmmaker, Magnus,
commented, I dont have TV channelsBut yeaI watch a lot of Internet, a lot of TV
stuff (A08, 2010). Many users still view television and film content, just on other mediums.
15
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
16/33
This audience fragmentation was important forDr. Horribles viewership.
9. Making Content for the Medium
[9.1] Joss self-funded his project for less than $250,000 and shot for six days around L.A.
(Jenkins Production Models 2011, 16) with six weeks for post-production (Whedon, 2010).
Zack commented, (Joss) called in with a lot of favors with people he worked with over the
years to help out with it. A lot of people offered their work for free. These production choices
exemplify the do-it-yourself (DIY) produsage culture. Zack continued, the lower budget it
was, the betterWe wanted to make it look good with what we hadbut its importantthat (it
looked like) a bunch of friends were working on the project, which it was, (2011).
[9.2] Many of the interviewees were aware of this aesthetic and found it added to the
appeal. One graduate student and filmmaker mentioned that he enjoyed how reminiscent it was
to video blogging. He states, Dr. Horrible was playing off the aesthetics of a web cam,
someone just doing a talking blog its lowering itself toan indie production level, (A12,
2010).
[9.3] The contents length also was also important to viewers. The difficulty forDr.
Horrible was balancing the nominal short web video length, approximately three minutes, to a
longer time. Evey gave her perception on content length, stating, Im investing in an entire
(television) series because Ive been told that its goodthe webif it doesnt engage me really
quickly, Ill turn it off, (2011).
[9.4]Dr. Horrible pushed each episodes length to nearly 14 minutes. Many fans noticed
the episodes were longer but accepted it because of the engaging content. A blogger,
EvilWorldofHiglet, commented, Theyre probably the longest episodes that Ive seen for a
16
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
17/33
web series. But because there is so much going on, it works, (2010).
[9.5] Some interviewees even stated that the show was too short. A graduate student
commented, The length did surprise meI actually thought it cut short, and I havent caught
the whole first part, (A02, 2010). Expectations are created from both the average thirty-minute
legacy media experience and the shorter web videos. Dr. Horrible provides an example of
balancing these two ends using engaging content.
[9.6] The fans connection to the content also comes from the visceral nature of web
video. One mathematics college student stated, Maybe because its placed on the web, its
more accessibleit feels more user-directed (A04, 2010). Users feel that content is much
more intimate and focused on the web.
10. Making Quality Content
[10.1] Dr. Horrible is a sci-fi musical. The miniseries consisted of three episodes and
centered on a villain, Dr. Horrible (Neil Patrick Harris). While trying to become a member of
the ELE, Dr. Horrible falls in love with Penny (Felicia Day). However, he must also deal with
his nemesis, Captain Hammer (Nathan Fillion). Through dramatic monologues and musical
numbers, the series weaves a comedic and dramatic plot of love and loss.
[10.2] Many interviewees considered Dr. Horrible as quality content. However, the
definition of good content is difficult. The classification of good is not only creating quality
aesthetics; it must be good to the targeted niche. Evey discussed digital content being able to
speak to these audiences, stating, the more specialized you arethe more interested and
invested your core audience can be and that core audience is what helps yougrow, (2011).
Dr. Horrible catered to fans of Joss previous work while also catering to passive viewers as
17
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
18/33
well. The interviewees were asked questions to understand the core attributes that attracted
fans.
[10.3] One appealing element was the quality of the overall production. This attribute
analyzed the look and feel of the content such as the acting. Joss was a long-time writer among a
professional crew that worked on many legacy works. A graduate student and fan spoke of her
fandom of the acting and how the celebrity presence of Harris attracted her. I followed his
resurrected career(and) I read about Dr. Horrible...I think his performance was outstanding,
(A02, 2010).
[10.4] Two other important elements to the interviewees were the plot and characters.
Joss legacy works are characterized as having complex plots and multi-dimensional characters.
Many interviewees found Dr. Horrible to be equally as engaging. DocOct, a chiptune artist,
stated, Id say (Joss is) a genius with the content he puts out consistentlyHe releases
something that is just as good and better than the first thing andthat it continues to be good
inspires people to believe that the artistis legit, (2010).
[10.5] The characters exuded a fondness as well. An amateur comic book writer spoke of
her adoration of the main character. She stated, What really got me hookedwas Dr. Horrible
himself. It was just really easy for me to relate to him, (A15, 2010). Many viewers spoke of
their empathy with these characters. With little time to expand on character development, strong
characters became important to engage viewers.
[10.6] Music was the final element that the fans were attuned to. Internet musicals were
rare when Dr. Horrible released, and the quality of web music was not thought of highly. A
radio station production director, Frank, spoke about how he was hooked to the music, stating,
the first song, it wasunexpected and cool. It started out being (about)the script and the
18
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
19/33
performances(and) ended up being more about the music, (2010). All the aforementioned
points distinguish howDr. Horrible created connections to the fans through the content.
11. For the Fans
[11.1] The production was wrapped up in early 2008 with the next steps including
marketing and releasing the project. The creative team, though, did not set aside a marketing
budget and was screened for a few journalists. Dr. Horrible relied on a grassroots-focused plan.
Zack recalled, It was entirely dependent on the fansWe didnt do any marketingwe spent
no money on publicity, (2010). They did not know what reception to expect as Zack stated, It
was always going to be just ahomegrown thing. If many people watched it, greatbut if only
a handful of people watched it that would have been fine, (2010).
[11.2] The moment the first news broke out, passionate Whedon fans worked on creating
blogs and fan websites about the project. EvilWorldofHiglet was one of the original fans that
created the main Dr. Horrible fansite. She discussed the fervor for the series among fans,
stating, There was a massive amount of interest. If you go ontotheDr. Horrible official fan
websitethere was massive speculation, (A03, 2010). Similar to other cult communities
around some content, Dr. Horrible became a highly anticipated event where fans worked
together to piece together clues about the show.
[11.3] The fanbase marketed the show, utilizing social networking and grassroots
methods to casual viewers. One college graduate stated, if I meet someone who hasnt seen
it, Im likeyou have to watch thisItslike youre kind of invested in it... (A13, 2010).
Ten interviewees found the show through a grassroots method. All 15 of the interviewees
participated in grassroots activity, and five interviewees experienced narrative web video for the
19
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
20/33
first time throughDr. Horrible.
[11.4] Joss had a passionate and vocal fanbase that he accumulated through his legacy
work. In produsage, reputation and trust are garnered after a user has proven herself to the
community. Joss did not have to go through this trial to create this bond with the audience. His
fans were loyal because they saw his prior work as genuine and transparent and were the early
adopters that pervaded online communities. Lauren, a Youtube artist, discusses her trust in Joss
content. She states, He has yet to make something I dont likeso until he does something
wrong, I have yet to be disappointedIm going to trust whatever he comes out with, (A11,
2010). This reputation created a core audience that would be with Joss from the beginning.
[11.5] Additionally, Joss communicated and bonded with his community. He spoke in
interviews to conventions while actively rewarding and acknowledging his fans. One example is
the contest made for theDr. Horrible DVD, where Zack commented, We thought it would be a
really smart idea to involve the fansand reward them for all of the hard work that they did so
thats how the ELE competition came aboutsomething like 600 submitted, (2010). Fans
submitted videos on why they should be included in the ELE with the top five winners being
included in a special with the other videos included in a montage sequence on the DVD.
[11.6] Dr. Horribles produsage-like model also inspired passion to amateur and
professional fans to create their own content. Ranging from a stage production from the
Hockinson High School Drama Club (Dr. Horrible, 2011) to the 8-bitDr. Horrible video game
(DocOct, 2010), fans showcased creative and diverse produsage content. Eight interviewees
were active participants in fandom; five of them created content for the first time in a new
medium. One example is the web movie,Horrible Turn. Chance began this prequel when he
became a cult fan and a grassroots advocate. He comments, I loved itI was an ambassador
20
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
21/33
for it and sharing it with everybodyusing the songs on the radio andas bumpers, and people
calling in and asking what that was and telling them. The reaction (was) so positive and so
cool, (2010).
[11.7] Inspired by Dr. Horrible, Chance and Frank, began to work on their passion for
wanting to creating a movie for the first time. Using the negative space from the plot, they both
wrote a screenplay. Frank commented that they used a produsage-like model as well, utilizing
their own funds and getting volunteers to help. We just wanted to do it all ourselves. We
couldve borrowed moneybutmy vision (was) that we should try to do it on our own,
(2010). After its debut, their fan movie was publicized in the press and nominated for awards
(Chance, 2010), inspiring them to continue to pursue more filmmaking opportunities. These
enthusiasts were not only pamphleteers for the show but creatively engaged and fulfilled their
passions.
12. The Democratization of Content
[12.1] On July 15th, 2008, the series released the first episode for free on the Dr. Horrible
website via a Hulu player. The website crashed the first day due to the overwhelming
viewership. After getting more server space, the two other episodes were released within a two-
day interval between each other (Dr. Horrible, 2011) and garnered more than 200,000 views
per hour. After the first week, it had been watched more than 2 million times (Jenkins,
Production Models 2011, 16). The series was then taken off the website and released on iTunes.
After its first week, according to industry gossip, Whedon had recouped his production costs,
(2011, 16).
[12.2] With just the DVD and iTunes sales, Zack comments that, its been
21
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
22/33
remarkably profitable. Its made back the money we spent on itI thinkfive or six times over
now, (2011). The series re-released for free on its website on July 28th and then taken off the
website permanently November 29th, 2009. Dr. Horrible then released on DVD, Blu-Ray, and
Netflix. The team also released five comic books and a soundtrack on iTunes. On March 29th,
2011, the production book was released. Critically, Dr. Horrible went on to win numerous
endorsements and awards, such as an Emmy (Dr. Horrible, 2011). This data signifies the
success ofDr. Horrible as a transmedia text. The series created an ongoing, open product that is
still running and successful.
[12.3] However, in spite of this success, a few challenges regarding the web video format
were discussed during the interviews. One of the main concerns included the vastness of the
web, where many foundDr. Horrible through their own sources but afterwards, had not watched
other professional web videos. The mathematics college student stated, I dont really know
of any other miniseriesI havent heard from anyone else. I havent found any, (A04, 2010).
[12.4] Although social media and online communities have become sources, the problem
starts at the initial discovery process and the exponential competition. Parikh mentions his
experiences, stating, the sheer volume of contentbeing created for the web is huge. So
nowadays to really set yourself apartis difficult because there are so many web series out
there, (2011).
[12.5] Another challenge is concerned with the viability ofDr. Horriblesmodel. One
argument was that this model is difficult to reproduce because of the unique situation of the
Writers Strike to the temporality of web content. The lack of a longer, continuous series left a
financial model to be desired. An anonymous filmmaker comments, What Joss did was
amazing, but it requires capital and his number of fans, (TransmediaConference, 2011). Joss
22
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
23/33
also had a unique position to leverage his fans, money, and contacts, which many producers do
not have.
[12.6] Third, there are major battles happening regarding web video support. The
finances are still with legacy media, and both studios and producers are figuring out how to
transition. David Baron, Hulus VP of Content, explains the current marketplace:
[12.7] the reality is thathigh quality talent is used to a certain level of compensation
that the web cant really cover yet. The second thing is that traditional television model
is still based on heavy licensing fees which cover the costs of production(the web) is
still building up the audience and the revenue model for these kind of things. (2011)
[12.8] Overall, though, the interviewees wanted to see more content like Dr. Horrible
with many experiments concurrently occurring in the digital space. Minisodes and webisodes
have been thriving, and up-and-coming producers have been able to create several small
successes. Legacy producers are also making strides on the web with their personalized content.
Zack stated, working your way from the bottom like the Guilddid, that model will start to
catch onBut I think that people in Joss position will start to explore morethe creative
freedom youre afforded on the Internet is very attractive, (2011). Experimentation and creative
freedom seem to be the key themes for the future as seen in recent news of Google, Netflix, and
Hulu investing in original content (Evey, 2011).
[12.9] Dr. Horrible resonated with the grassroots and top-down conglomerates. The
common response included the idea that quality content had made differences within the
perception of web videos. One graduate student mentioned, the fact that this came out as a sole
23
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
24/33
piece of online content separate from the studio and everythingset a lot of ground rules for
future Internet content and what can be done with it, (A09, 2010).
[12.10] Parikh adds, it sort of inspired everybodydo we necessarily need Foxs
approval for what we want to createdo we necessarily need their distribution model? Is there
another way to do this? (2011).
13. Discussion
[13.1] These interviews are not representative of all fans and producers and cannot
pinpoint exact consumption practices. However, these interviewees reveal themes of effective
produsage and transmedia withinDr. Horrible. One area of opportunity seen is categorizing the
web video paradigms. Although not comprehensive, these four classes represent how web
videos can be defined. The first is the amateur model, classifying producers who create web
videos but do not make a sustainable living from them. These videos come from YouTube-like
sources. The second is a crowdfunded/sourced model, which has users contributing to funding
for amateur and professional producers. The third is a corporate model, where producers create
content under contract for a media conglomerate. The final one is the self-funded professional
model, where producers create videos utilizing their own funds and make a sustainable living
through their content, whichDr. Horrible fits into.
[13.2] RQ1 Has the web series paradigm exemplified and/or contradicted the theories of
produsage and convergence and in what ways?: The self-funded web video paradigm
exemplified produsage and convergence, and Dr. Horrible is a utopic example. Based on a
produsage amateur model, an ideal web series can bridge the producer and viewer. The model
lets the creative team create their unfiltered vision with no bureaucratic system and lets them be
24
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
25/33
in direct contact with their viewers. This direct communication can be risky if the content does
not live up to its promise, but the produsage community can support respected content through
their strong grassroots channels.
[13.3] However, several processes of produsage were not applicable here. One was
through reputation. Unlike amateur producers who build reputation, Joss Whedons legacy
media lent him trust throughout the community, and let him build a substantial, online fanbase.
Second, Joss was able to create his own reward system. He acted as a leader for his community
who were inspired to create their own systems. Rewards usually begin within a community of
equals while Joss demonstrated a position as an immediate organizer. Joss type of leadership
may be an interesting development to produsage and create better lines of support and inspiration
for users from professionals.
[13.4] RQ2 How has the web series model worked to be a viable model for transmedia
outlets?: The interviewees were also supportive ofDr. Horribles model. The miniseries has
been successful using its distribution models and continued transmedia expansion from both
grassroots fans and the producers. This model gives an opportunity for a series to create
transmedia presence by acknowledging its audience and giving them roles to play. Joss
understood who the fans were, what they wanted, and how they impacted the content and
communicated well with them. Also, the series transmedia trappings utilized the plots negative
space, giving ideal opportunities for more content and also given to fans to reinterpret and remix
on their own.
[13.5] RQ3 What is the legacy ofDr. Horribles Sing-Along-Blog in the present and
future of transmedia and the opportunities and obstacles it has created for cult fandom?: Finally,
Dr. Horrible created a long-lasting legacy and future for web videos, even though a tumultuous
25
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
26/33
time of experimentation is predicted for the future. For cult fans, the miniseries created a direct
communication channel that made them feel involved and respected with some who were
inspired to pursue their artistic passions. This user stimulation creates scenarios for future
research as possible ways to create digital engagement and literacy. For the passive viewer,Dr.
Horrible was quality content. Most viewers took time to learn about the production backdrop
and made their first entrance into narrative web videos. The challenge will be to keep these
types of content discoverable.
[13.6] For up-and-coming producers, they saw the miniseries as a legitimizing force for
the web video industry. The series methods of engagement and focuses can be of benefit to
future producers. However, this industry continues to grow quickly with many competitors as
well as financial hurdles still in place. For conglomerates, the miniseries was both a success
story and challenge to their dominance and therefore creates a continued expectation of a slow
transition from legacy media. Still, new players in original web video content will challenge this
from digitally focused companies like Google.
[13.7] Further research on future web series and their reception by various sub-groups
could chart the successes and failures of these advancements. By seeing the number of web texts
that are produced and a greater sample of success and failures, a clearer picture can be created of
how both companies and audience resonate to this type of content. Additionally, this future
research can then view the lasting effectDr. Horrible on future web content as well as the rise or
fall of the grassroots communities and conglomerates.
14. Conclusion
[14.1] The research analyzes an example of a modern web series and transmedia effort by
26
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
27/33
viewing the structure, distribution, and impact ofDr. Horrible. The argument was framed in
viewing the miniseries from a top-down conglomerate to bottom-up grassroots perspectives and
utilized convergence studies, the produsage framework, and transmedia theories. The findings
utilized interviews with fans and industry professionals to gain knowledge from all vantage
points.
[14.2] The findings are consistent with much of the research; the self-funding
professional web video model utilizes produsage and transmedia properties that link the viewer
and professional producer, creating trust and open discussion. Dr. Horrible was an ideal text
created for the potential of creative freedom to the direct interaction with users. Furthermore, the
miniseries legacy was inspiring for up-and-coming professionals to enthusiasts who felt
validated in their work and creatively simulated. Dr. Horrible has created a viable model not
only for web videos but for an equal produsage space, where all voices can contribute and
discuss freely. Whether the near future will bring this change to complete fruition has yet to be
seen, but as this research shows, all users can be included to share and create new ideas.
Shirkys definition of the consumer ties together the current evolution of the Internet community
today: In the age of the Internet, no one is a passive consumer anymore because everyone is a
media outlet, (2003, 358).
27
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
28/33
Acknowledgments
Thank you to my parents for continually believing in my potential,
Thank you to all the interviewees for their kind and candid dialogues; none of this could be
accomplished without their help,
Thank you to all of my friends and colleagues for their encouragement and advice,
And thank you to my dissertation supervisors, Sonia Livingstone and Tom Hollihan, and thefaculty at the London School of Economics and University of Southern California for pushingme to reach new heights.
28
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
29/33
15. Works Cited
A01 (PhD Candidate) in discussion with the author, March 12, 2010.
A02 (Graduate Student) in discussion with the author, April 5, 2010.
A04 (Mathematics College Student) in discussion with the author, April 12, 2010.
A09 (Graduate Student 2) in discussion with the author, April, 2010.
A12 (Graduate Student and Filmmaker) in discussion with the author, June 10, 2010.
A13 (College Graduate) in discussion with the author, June 25, 2010.
A15 (Comic Book Writer) in discussion with the author, July 2, 2010.
Andrejevic, M. 2002. The Work of Being Watched: Interactive Media and the Exploitation ofSelf-Disclosure. Critical Studies in Media Communication, 19(2): 230248.
Ang, I. 1990. Desperately Seeking the Audience. London: Routledge. 46.
Baron, David (Hulu VP of Content), in discussion with author, March 2011.
Bauer, M. W. & Gaskell, G. (eds.). 2000. "Chapter 3: Individual and group interviewing."In Qualitative researching: with text, image and sound. A practical Handbook, 43-49.London: Sage Publications.
Benkler, Yochai. 2006. The Wealth of Networks: How Social Production Transforms Marketsand Freedom. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Berger, A. 1998. "Chapter 6, Depth Interviews: favorite singers and recordings." In MediaResearch Techniques, 55-62. London: Sage.
Bruns, Axel. 2008.Blogs, Wikipedia, Second life, and Beyond: From Production to Produsage .New York: Peter Lang. 1-249.
Burgess, Jean. 2009. YouTube: Online Video and Participatory Culture. Cambridge: Polity.61-79.
Catone, Josh. Dr. Horrible: The Future of Television. Sitepoint. last modified,14 Jan. 2009, http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/01/14/dr-horrible-the-future-of-television/.
Chance, in discussion with the author, May 2010.
Click, Melissa. 2007. Untidy - Fan Response to the Soiling of Martha Stewarts Spotless
29
http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/01/14/dr-horrible-the-future-of-television/http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/01/14/dr-horrible-the-future-of-television/http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/01/14/dr-horrible-the-future-of-television/http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2009/01/14/dr-horrible-the-future-of-television/ -
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
30/33
Image. In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Gray,Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee, 301-315. New York: New YorkUniversity Press.
Coleman, Sarah and Dyer-Witheford, Nick. 2007. Playing on the digital commons:
collectivities, capital and contestation in videogame culture. In Media Culture Society.29: 934-953.
Curtin, M. and Streeter, T. Media. In R. Maxwell (Ed.). 2001. Culture Works: Essays on thePolitical Economy of Culture. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 225-49.
Dillman, D. A. 1991. The design and administration of mail surveys. InAnnual Review ofSociology. 17: 225-249.
DocOct, in discussion with the author, May 2010.
Dr. Horrible. Wikipedia. Last modified 2011, April 13.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Horrible.
Evey, Kim, in discussion with author, April 5, 2011.
EvilWorldofHiglet, in discussion with the author May 3, 2010.
Frank, in discussion with the author May, 2010.
Gillan, Jennifer. 2011. Television and New Media: Must-Click TV. New York: Routledge. 36-235.
Gordon, Ian. 2003. Superman on the Set: The Market, Nostalgia and Television Audiences. InQuality Popular Television: Cult TV, the Industry and Fans, ed. Jancovich, Mark andLyons, James. 148-162. London: British Film Institute.
Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee. 2007.Fandom: Identities andCommunities in a Mediated World. New York: New York University Press.
Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee. 2003. Introduction - Why StudyFans? In Quality Popular Television: Cult TV, the Industry and Fans, ed. Jancovich,Mark and Lyons, James, 1-16. London: British Film Institute.
Harvey, D. 1989. The Condition of Postmodernity: An Enquiry into the Origins of CulturalChange. London: Blackwell, 284-307.
The Horrible Awards. Livejournal. Last modified 2010, May 5.http://community.livejournal.com/horrible_awards
Hills, Matt. 2003. Media Academics as Media Audiences - Aesthetic Judgments in Media and
30
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Horriblehttp://community.livejournal.com/horrible_awardshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Horriblehttp://community.livejournal.com/horrible_awards -
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
31/33
Cultural Studies. In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed.Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee, 33-47. London: British FilmInstitute.
Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James. 2003. Quality Popular Television: Cult TV, the Industry and
Fans. London: British Film Institute.
Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James. 2003. Introduction. In Quality Popular Television: CultTV, the Industry and Fans, ed. Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James, 1-8. London: BritishFilm Institute.
Jenkins, Henry. 2003. Afterword The Future of Fandom. InFandom: Identities andCommunities in a Mediated World, ed. Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, andHarrington, C. Lee. 357-364. London: British Film Institute.
Jenkins, H. 2006. Convergence Culture: Where Old and New Media Collide. New York: New
York University Press. 3-334.
Jenkins, H. 2011. Courting Supporters for Independent Media. Unpublished. 44.
Jenkins, H. 2004. The Cultural Logic of Media Convergence. InInternational Journal ofCultural Studies 7(1), 33-43.
Jenkins, H. 2006.Fans, Bloggers, and Gamers: Exploring Participatory Culture. New York:New York University Press.
Jenkins, H. 2011. The Value of Media Engagement. Unpublished. 9-44.
Johnson, Derek. 2003. Fan-tagonism - Factions, Institutions, and Constitutive Hegemoniesof Fandom. In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Gray,Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee, 285-300. London: British FilmInstitute.
Jones, Sara. 2003. Web War: Resistance, Online Fandom and Studio Censorship. InQuality Popular Television: Cult TV, the Industry and Fans, ed. Jancovich, Mark andLyons, James, 163-177. London: British Film Institute.
Lauren, in discussion with the author, May 25, 2010.
Lessig, L. 2004.Free Culture: How Big Media Uses Technology and the Law to Lock DownCulture and Control Creativity. New York: Penguin Press, 116-173.
Magnus, in discussion with the author, May 13, 2010.
Meng, Bing. 2010. MC423 Lecture Notes Week Two. London School of Economics.
31
-
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
32/33
Miller, T. et al. 2005. The New International Division of Cultural Labor. In T. Miller et al.,Global Hollywood 2. London: BFI Publishing, 111-172.
Niklas, in discussion with the author, June 17, 2010.
Parikh, Sandeep, in discussion with the author, March 2011.
Pearson, Roberta. 2007. Bachies, Bardies, Treekies, and Sherlockians. InFandom: Identitiesand Communities in a Mediated World, ed. Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, andHarrington, C. Lee, 98-109. London: British film Institute.
Rantanen, T. 2009. When News Was New. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell, Chapter 1.
Rose, Frank. 2011. The Art of Immersion. W.New York: W. Norton & Company. 14-241.
Sandvoss, Cornel. 2005.Fans: The Mirror of Consumption. Oxford: Polity. 3-55.
Sandovss, Cornel. 2007. The Death of the Reader? Literary Theory and the Study of Texts inPopular Culture. In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a Mediated World, ed.Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee, 19-32. London: British FilmInstitute.
Scodari, Christine. 2007. Yoko in Cyberspace with Beatles Fans - Gender and the Re-Creation of Popular Mythology. In Fandom: Identities and Communities in a MediatedWorld, ed. Gray, Jonathan, Sandvoss, Cornel, and Harrington, C. Lee, 48-59. London:British Film Institute.
Shirky, Clay. 2008. Here Comes Everybody. New York: Penguin Books.
Silverstone, R. 2006. Hospitality and Justice, in Media and Morality. Cambridge: Polity, pp.136-161.
Transmedia Hollywood: Visual Culture and Design. 2011, April 8.
Turow, Joseph. 2005. Audience Construction and Culture Production: Marketing Surveillancein the Digital Age. InAnnals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,597(1): 103-121.
Uriel, in discussion with the author, May 2010.
Youtube Serves Up 100 Millions Videos a Day Online. USA Today. Last modified July16th, 2006.http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-16-youtube-views_x.htm
Villa, D. 1999. Theatricality and the Public Realm. InPolitics, Philosophy, Terror: Essays onthe Thought of Hannah Arendt, 128-55. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
32
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-16-youtube-views_x.htmhttp://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-16-youtube-views_x.htmhttp://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-16-youtube-views_x.htm -
8/3/2019 Web Series, Transmedia and Experimentation The Legacy of Dr. Horrible
33/33
Waisbord, S. 2004. McTV: Understanding the Global Popularity of Television Formats.Television & New Media, 5(4), 359-382.
WGA Contract 2007 Proposals. Writers Guild of America. Modified. 2010, July 20.http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2485
Whedon, Zack in discussion with the author, July 13, 2010.
Willis, Andrew. 2003. Marital Law and the Changing Face of Martial Arts on USTelevision. In Quality Popular Television: Cult TV, the Industry and Fans, ed.Jancovich, Mark and Lyons, James, 137-147. London: British Film Institute.
33
http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2485http://www.wga.org/subpage_member.aspx?id=2485