Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog: Mini-Review

(Review of a Web Series)

File this whole thing under "wasting time".

I waste a lot of time online reading Freddie Deboer's Substack.  (Freddie is a very entertaining writer.)

Recently, Freddie posted another subscriber writing, which I always find interesting.  (Turns out, a lot of very good writers are subscribed to Freddie.  You can always find a lot of interesting things in his subscriber writing post.)

On of the entries I happened to click on was called: Dr. Horrible or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Hate Nerd Culture and Myself.

I've never seen Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog, and I'm not entirely sure I've ever heard of it.  (It sounds vaguely familiar, I've probably heard references to it at some point on the Internet.  But I certainly couldn't have told you anything about it.)

The article then included a link to a Youtube video which included the 3 episodes of Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog edited together into one video.  

Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog Full [HD] [sub ita/eng/esp]

I told myself I shouldn't watch it.  (I'm trying to reduce the amount of time I waste on screens.)  But I was in the mood for some entertainment.  So I clicked it.  And I watched it.  And now, I suppose, I have to review it.  (One of the goals of this blog is, as much as possible, review everything I watch.  I'm counting this as a web series, and filing it under Podcasts, Youtube Series, Radio Shows, Etc)

Given the fact that this was just a web series, it's kind of impressive.  I mean, they don't have great special effects.  But they have some big name actors.  They have several different sets, and even one scene involving a moving car.  It's definitely recognizable as a something professionally done.

I don't know how the economics of web series work, but I'm surprised that they could afford to spend that much money on a web series.  (See more about the production details on the Wikipedia page HERE.)

And yet, if I had to sum this thing up in one word, it would be "forgettable".  I mean, it's okay.  Mildly entertaining.  The jokes are forgettable--I mean, they're passable, but not really funny.  Nothing you'd remember after a couple days.

The songs--oh boy, are the songs ever forgettable!  I can't imagine anyone singing along to any of these songs in the shower.

And the story is also pretty forgettable.

Now, when it comes to comedy and songs, I think it's hard to dissect it too much.  (Something is either funny, or it's not.  A tune is either catchy, or its not.)

But when it comes to the story, I think there are identifiable structural problems that we can point to in order to explain why the story is not engaging.

There's a couple of well-worn tropes being retread here.  The first is "the supervillain is actually the protagonist" trope.  This has been done a few times before--see, for example, Megamind or Despicable Me.  (Although, to be fair, Dr. Horrible came out in 2008, before Megamind or Despicable Me, so maybe this trope was a bit more fresh back in 2008?  I still feel like it was already an old gag even at the time, but I'm having trouble thinking of an example.  Help me out in the comments if you can think of an example of "the supervillain as a protagonist" before 2008).

Anyway, this story has a certain structure.  The supervillain starts out as evil, but likeable.  By the end of the story, he redeems himself, and are now he is on the side of good.

However, in Joss Whedon's version, there's no redemption.

Dr. Horrible starts out as sympathetic.  (He's an underdog, so we root for him.  Also he's in love, so that's an identifiable characteristic that makes him sympathetic.)  But besides being sympathetic, he has no good characteristics.  (Nothing that we see in the first episode shows him doing anything that is of benefit to society--it's all evil villain stuff.)   So the logical place for this character to go, in order to reward the audience investment in him, is for him to gain some virtue as the story goes on.  But this doesn't happen.

The other trope is "man sacrifices what's most important to him to achieve his dream, and then regrets it".  (I feel like this is also an old trope, but again, I'm having trouble thinking of examples.  Help me out in the comments.)

However, in Dr. Horrible, the story beats are a bit different.  And in a way that doesn't improve the story.

In the normal telling of this story, the protagonist starts out as a good person.  He has a goal he's trying to achieve.  Maybe it's a worthwhile goal in theory, but he becomes obsessed with it in a way that's not healthy.  The irony is, the character doesn't need his goal to be happy.  He already has happiness right in front of him, in the form of his true love, who is absolutely devoted to him at the start of the story.  

Somewhere along the line, he loses his true love.  Either he makes a deliberate choice to sacrifice the relationship for his goal, or else he loses her as a side effect of his devotion to the goal.  In the end, he achieves the goal, but discovers that his goal doesn't actually make him happy.

The problem with Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog is that the protagonist is already starting out as a supervillain, so he's already starting out as corrupted, and we don't get to see him being corrupted by the pursuit of his goal.

Plus, his goal is to get accepted in into the League.  But what causes the girl to die is not him trying to get into the League, but him trying to get revenge on Captain Hammer.  So the set-up and the payoff are not aligned.

And, he never really had the girl in the first place.  The girl was in love with his nemesis, not him, so there was no great thing in his life that he had to sacrifice for his goal.

Now, I know it might seem that I'm being overly prescriptive in my analysis of the story.  Surely a great storyteller is allowed to change the normal storybeats if it can produce a greater story, right?  But in this case, changing the story beats clearly did not improve the story. It's not a great story, is it?  It's a pretty forgettable story that lacks any emotional punch.

But to re-emphasize what I said above, it's not a bad little webseries.  Entertaining enough.  Watchable.  Neil Patrick Harris is good, and he's always fun to watch.

It's just completely forgetable.

...odd, then that this completely forgettable little series seemed to have spawned so much commentary on the Internet.  You don't have to look far to see a lot of opinion pieces on it.  (Again, see the Wikipedia page.) Perhaps a lot of this is because this story is part of the mythology of Joss Whedon.  (Once considered the greatest nerd storyteller ever, now a pariah.)

The article I linked to at the top is one such piece.  I'm not sure I agree with all of it.  For example, this quote:

Dr. Horrible has dated quite badly. Some of the gags are amusing, but the whole thing is smothered by the “well, that just happened” style of millennial/Gen X humor which Whedon helped make ubiquitous and is now treated with derision by zoomers. 

...I don't know, maybe I'm just out of it, but I didn't notice the humorstyle was particularly tied to Gen X/millennial.  I just thought it was a bit flat.  But maybe I'm missing something.

But anyway, I'm not sure I agree with the whole thing, but it's worth reading.

And then, I watched Sarah Z's video essay on it.

The Politics of Dr Horrible's Sing-Along Blog

...again, I don't agree with all of  it.  But there is some insightful stuff here.

Sarah did a good job of highlighting the theme of male vulnerability that runs all the way through.  I'm ashamed to admit I didn't catch this theme myself on my first viewing of Dr. Horrible, but after Sarah walked me through it, it seems so obvious in retrospect.

Also, I thought Sarah made a good point about how the girl in the story is just purely presented as a plot device, and not as a real character in her own right.  (Sarah says this is typical of Joss Whedon, and I'll take her word for it.)

However, I disagree with Sarah when she claims that the narrative is trying to make the viewer feel that the girl should have ended up with Dr. Horrible, and that it is the girl's fault for choosing the wrong guy.  I think the narrative was making it pretty clear that Dr. Horrible was the one who was sabotaging his own romantic prospects, and I think that is what the viewer is intended to take away.

So, agree with some of it, disagree with some of it.

There's a lot more Internet commentary out there, but I'm stopping here.  I've wasted enough time on this already.

The Phantom of the Opera (1925): Movie Review

 (Movie Reviews--Horror)

This is my first time watching this movie, so according to my new rules, I'm doing this as a video only review. 

The Phantom of the Opera (1925): Movie Review

Links to stuff mentioned:

* The version of this movie I watched on Youtube: https://youtu.be/WN0T2S4q9so?si=2SYm9YUmFTUGM6s7

* The Wikipedia page for this movie: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Phantom_of_the_Opera_(1925_film)

* My 2021 review of House of Dracula: https://youtu.be/j8VYm-D1XhQ

* The link to House of Dracula which is now unavailable here in Vietnam because NBC Universal has blocked it.  (Is it available in your country?): https://youtu.be/51eqFLkZrdk

* My 2022 review of The Invisible Man by H.G. Wells: https://youtu.be/8LSyEHM3Bc4

* My 2023 review of Dracula by Bram Stoker: https://youtu.be/HwEzalU9XJo

* Lindsay Ellis's review on how every adaptation of this story always removes The Persian: https://youtu.be/XrhrXTDeue0?si=E-i-k5w6yA8n7G91

* Who is the lantern man in Phantom of the Opera?: https://youtu.be/XfVj7RtsYxw?si=D5-MLXgZcSbyryRr

The Phantom of the Opera (1925) 1080p BluRay Full Movie

Race of a Lifetime by John Heilemann & Mark Halperin: Book Review

 The U.S. title is Game Change.  But the copy I picked up (through a book exchange at work) was the UK edition, which is called Race of a Lifetime.

(Book Review)

On My Shelves: January 05, 2023

Started: October 22, 2024

(This is my first time reading this book, so according to my new rules, I'm doing this as a video only review.) 

Race of a Lifetime by John Heilemann & Mark Halperin (also known as "Game Change"): Book Review

My review of the HBO Movie Game Change: https://youtu.be/dOzwpSscawM

Started: Circe by Madeline Miller (On my shelves since May 12, 2024)

Lesson on Quantifiers for Countable and Uncountable Nouns (Updated for the 4th Time)

(TESOL Materials--Countable and Uncountable Nouns, Quantifiers, CELTA Style Lesson Plans)

Google Drive Folder HERE

Lesson Plan: drive, docs, pub

Slideshow: slides, pub

Model Text: docs, pub

Noticing Activity: docs, pub

Clarification Meaning: Match the Definitions: docs, pub

Clarification Form: Sorting Activity: docs, pub

Controlled Practice 1: Human Bingo: drive, docs, pub

Controlled Practice 2: Kahoot for Quantifiers with Countable and Uncountable Nouns: Quantifiers with Countable and Uncountable Nouns

[Notes and explanations: This is the 4th (yes, 4th!) time I've updated this lesson.  The first version of the lesson is here.  I expanded it to include more quantifiers here. I then reworked it to make it follow the CELTA staging a bit better in the 3rd version here.  

However, recently I decided I wanted to use this lesson for a model lesson on how to stage a grammar lesson, and when I was looking it over, I discovered a couple problems with it.  

Firstly, I think in the clarification stage, I think I had confused clarification of meaning with the clarification of form.  In the previous version of this lesson, I had put the sorting of countable and uncountable quantifiers in the meaning section.  But upon reflection, I think the countable-uncountable distinction actually falls under form.  So I reworked it.   Now, in the present version, the clarification of meaning focuses only on what meaning the quantifiers convey.  Whether the quantifiers modify countable or uncountable nouns has been moved over to form.

Secondly, in the previous version of this lesson, I had clarified meaning with a match the definition activity.  But I've come to realize in recent years that this is a bad way to clarify meaning.  As I wrote back in April: 

I have also used "match the word to the definition" activity a lot over the years.  (If you search my archives, you'll find this activity pops up many times.)  It is, after all, the most obvious activity to use when you want to clarify the meaning of the words in the vocabulary set.  It's also the easiest to create.

But over the years, I've been noticing that my students don't really absorb the meaning of a lot of the vocabulary that I teach them.  And I think this is partly because it's hard to fully absorb a written definition, especially when it's in your second language.  

So recently I've been making an effort to get away from "match the words to the definitions" and return to the old CELTA method of presenting the words in context , and then, using that same context, using concept checking questions to check the meaning of the words.  

So, in this revised version, I now use concept checking questions to check the meaning.  (I've kept the matching activity in, but the matching activity now just serves to review what was established by the concept checking questions.)

Thirdly, because I was trying to make this into a model lesson for grammar, I wanted to include all 3 practice types: controlled practice, semi-controlled practice, and freer practice.  (The previous version of this lesson only had 2 practice activities.  Partly because the timing was different.  That version was for 1 hour, this version is expanded for 90 minutes.)

Finally, in an effort to make this the definitive lesson on quantifiers, I combined the comparative forms (i.e. more, less, fewer--from the first version of this lesson) with the other forms the 3rd version of the lesson.  And so consequently had to rework the model text a lot to fit everything in.

The hope is that this version of the lesson is the final version, and now stands as the definitive model lesson for grammar points.

....except, there remain a couple problems with it.  In the clarification of meaning section, I doubled up on the clarification activities by first using concept checking questions and then following it up with a match the definition activity.  Actually, in a classic CELTA style lesson, you're not supposed to do this.  You just have one activity to clarify form, not two.  I actually wrote about this exact thing in a previous post, so I did actually know better. But even though I knew better, I just couldn't resist.  I liked both activities, so I wanted to keep both in.

And I also have 2 controlled practices in this lesson--another CELTA no-no.  (You're supposed to have one controlled practice, but not two).  Again, I liked both activities, so I couldn't bring myself to cut one out.

Obviously, both of these problems would be easily fixed by just cutting out one of the activities.

Finally, there's another error, which is that in the model text, the quantifier some is only paired with countable nouns, which unfortunately gives the students the impression that some can only be used with countable nouns.  This was a simple oversight on my part.  I didn't notice the oversight until I was already using this lesson in the classroom.

I may try to rework the model text at some point to solve this problem, but for the moment, I'm just posting it here. (At the moment, I feel exhausted with this lesson.)

When I gave this lesson to another teacher, I told him about the problem with some.  But he wasn't worried about it.  "No problem," he said.  "I'll just tell them that some can also be used with uncountable nouns."  And I suppose that would solve that problem easily enough.]

Lesson: Quantifiers with Countable and Uncountable nouns: not many, too many, a few, fewer, not much, too much, a little, less, some, a lot of, more, enough, not enough, not any, plenty of

Materials Slideshow Kahoot (optional additional controlled practice) Worksheets     Model Text (1 copy for each student)     Noticing Activity (1 copy for each student)     Clarification: Meaning: Matching Activity (1 copy for each pair.  Cut up and shuffle before class)     Clarification: Form: Sorting Activity (1 copy per pair)     Controlled Practice: Human Bingo (1 copy for each student)

Stage name	Stage Aim: Why?	Timing	Procedure:
Lead-In	To generate interest, build confidence & set context for the lesson.	5 mins	Set-up: Show picture of Ho Chi Minh City on slide 1.  Elicit from students where it is. “I live in Ho Chi Minh City now.  I like it.  It’s a nice city.  But in the future, I want to live in… (shows slide 2, elicits) Dalat.  I want to live in Dalat because (holds 3 fingers, enumerates on fingers.  Either elicit reasons from students or provide them) it’s cool, it has lots of fresh air, and it has lots of trees. Talk with your partner.  If you could live anywhere, where would you live and why? Task: students talk with a partner for 2 minutes Feedback: Nominate 2 students to share their answers in open class feedback.
Orientation to Text/ Prediction	To prepare students for the content of the listening text. To generate predictions which will be used in the subsequent gist listening	5 mins	Set-up: (slide 3): This is Jeff.  Jeff used to live in the (slide 4: and elicit) city.  But one day he moved (show animation) to… (slide 5, elicit) the countryside. Talk with your partner.  Write down 5 things you think will be different between Jeff’s life in the city and the countryside.  (Do the first one as an example.) You have 2 minutes. Task: Students talk with partner.  Teacher monitors to see if they are on task.   Feedback: Nominate students for ideas.
Model Text: Gist Listening	For students to process the Model Text for general understanding	3 mins	Set-up: Teacher: I’m going to read Jeff’s story.  Listen and check if anything is the same as your list.   Task: Teacher reads.  Students listen. (Brief pair check) Feedback: Teacher: How many things were the same?
Model Text 2nd listening: Noticing Target Language	To make students notice the Target Language in the Model Text	8 mins	Set-up: Teacher displays slide 7: How much excitement was there in the city? (elicits, or displays “a lot of”).  In the countryside? (not much).  What about buildings in the countryside? (not many).   Teacher points to blacked out box.  Do you need to write anything here? (no) Chesting: Listen again, and write these words in the table.   Task: Read the first time quickly.  Students pair check with partner.  Read again a second time slower.   Feedback: Give out transcript for students to check their answers.
Clarification:  Meaning	For students to understand the meaning of the quantifiers	10 min	Display slide 8 with marker sentences: There is a lot of excitement in the city.  CCQs: Is there excitement in the city?  A little bit?  Some?  More than some? Slide 9: there is only a little traffic.  CCQs: Is there traffic in the city?  A lot? Slide 10: There are some houses.  CCQs: Are there houses in the countryside?  A lot? A little? Medium amount?  Do I know how many? there aren’t many stores.  CCQs: are there a lot of stores in the countryside? there aren’t any big shopping malls.  CCQs: How many shopping malls in the countryside? Slide 11: There is too much traffic. CCQs: Is it a little or a lot? (a lot)  Is it more than I need?  (yes) Is it a problem? (Yes)  Am I happy? (No) (Teacher writes sad face next to sentence). There are plenty of stores.  CCQs. Is it a little or a lot? (a lot) Is it more than I need? (yes).  Is it a problem (No)  Am I happy? (Yes).  (Teacher draws a sad face next to sentence). Slide 12: Jeff has enough time to read.  CCQs: Does Jeff has as much time to read as he needs in the countryside? There wasn’t enough time to read. CCQs: Did Jeff has as much time to read as he needs in the city? Slide 13: there are fewer cars than in the city.  CCQs: Is the number of cars in the countryside bigger or smaller than in the city? Slide 14: In the city, there are more car accidents.  CCQs: Is the number of car accidents in the city bigger or smaller than in the countryside? Slide 15: In the city there is a lot of excitement.  In the countryside, there isn’t much excitement. CCQs: When do we use “much”? In positive or negative sentences  Slide 16: There are plenty of stores. there aren’t many stores.  CCQ: When do we use “many”? Optional Follow up Matching Activity:  Set up: Teacher shows cards.  Next, match the words to the definitions.   Show slide 17 as example.  Get students to predict answer, and confirm on animation. Task: Students match cards together in pairs Feedback: On slideshow.  Slides 17-26
Clarification: Form	For students to understand the form of the quantifiers	10 minutes	Set-up: Slide 27: Countable and uncountable nouns: Slide 28: Can we count books? ( elicit “yes”)  Demonstrate counting the books.   Slide 29: Do the same for buildings.   Slide 30: Can we count excitement? (elicit “no”) Slide 31: Sort these nouns into countable and uncountable.  (Show example on slide  32.) Task: Pass worksheet out.  Have students work in pairs (one worksheet per pair).  Teacher monitors Feedback: Feedback on Slideshow—slides 33-49 Set-up:  Next, display slide 50.   chest story.  Look at the underlined words.  What is the first underlined word? (a lot of).  Can we use that with countable or uncountable nouns, or both. (“both”) What countable nouns is it used with?  What uncountable nouns is it used with?  Slide 51: Write “a lot of” in the both column.   Task: Hand out one sorting worksheet (one per pair).  Students write the quantifiers in the appropriate column.   Teacher monitors. Feedback: Feedback on Slide 51 Teacher: Slide 52 Look at the story again.  (Teacher chests story). When do you use “there is”? (uncountable nouns)  When do you use “There are” (plural countable nouns)
Clarification: Pronunciation	For students to understand the pronunciation of quantifiers	5 min T-S	Advance slideshow to blank slide (or turn off display) so that students cannot see the written form of the sentences.  Drill: There are a lot of cars. There is too much traffic There aren’t many buildings There is plenty of fresh air. Display slide 54:  Mark Sentence Stress on Board.
Controlled Practice: Human Bingo	For students to be able to practice the target language in a controlled setting.	10-15 min	Set-up Display worksheet on Slides 55  Look at the sentences.  Write what you think is true. For example: There is ______ traffic in our city.  What do you think?  Too much?  Not enough?  Write your answer here. CCQ: Can I say “too many”? Why not? Task: Students work individually. teacher monitors.  Helps with any confusion of form or countable / uncountable. Feedback: Feedback by nominating students for two answers. Set-up: Next, ask your classmates what they think.  If they think the same, write “S”.  If they think different, write “D”. Do two examples with students.  “What do you think about the traffic in our city?” “What do you think about the chairs in this room?” Model ways to agree and disagree: ex: Yes, I think so too.” “Oh, no.  I don’t agree.  I think….”   Elicit one “S” and one “D” on the board. “How can you win?” (Attempt to see if students can intuit that you need 5 in a row.  Otherwise tell them directly).  “You need 5 in a row.  you can go across, or down, or diagonal.  But they have to be the same.  5 Ss in a row is win, or 5 Ds in a row is a win.” ICQs: Demonstrate by example on whiteboard. 5 Ss.  “Is this a win?” 5 Ds. “Is this a win?” A mixture. “Is this a win?” Talk to your classmates.  You can use this useful language.  (Display useful language on slide 56). “Stand up” Task: Students walk around the class asking questions.  Teacher monitors from sitting position.  Corrects any mistakes with immediate correction. Conduct game until there is a winner, or stop after 5 minutes or so if there is no winner. Feedback: Congratulate any winners.  If there were any consistent language issues, reclarify
Second controlled Practice (optional)			Kahoot (link on slide 57).  Only do this one if there is time allowing for an extra controlled practice.
Semi-Controlled Practice	For students to practice the target language in full sentences	10 min	Set-up: Show slide 58: pictures of Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh city.  Elicit from students the names of the respective cities.  “Do you know these cities? What city is this? What city is this?”  Elicit from students sentences with lakes.  “Which city has more lakes?” Hanoi.  “Can you make a sentence?” (attempt to elicit “There are more lakes in Hanoi”.)  “Which city has more motorbikes?” (Ho Chi Minh City).  “Can you make a sentence? (attempt to elicit “There are more motorbikes in Ho Chi Minh City”)  T: Talk to you partner.  What are the differences between Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City?  Use this language.  (slide 59: “There is more…., There are more…, There is less…, There are fewer…) Task: Students talk with their partner.  Teacher monitors.  If there are any mistakes, teacher intervenes immediately and corrects Feedback: Content Feedback: Teacher nominates 2 students for feedback.  “Tell me one difference you came up with. Linguistic Feedback: Teacher puts on the whiteboard correct and incorrect sentences that he picked up during monitoring.  “Here are some sentences that I heard.  Some are good, and some have mistakes.  Talk to your partner.  Which sentences have mistakes?”  Students briefly talk to their partner, and then in all class feedback, the students help the teacher correct the sentences.
Freer Practice: Debate	For students to practice the target language in a fluency practice	15 min	Set-up: Teacher divides room in half.  “This half of the room is team Ho Chi Minh City.  This half of the room is team Hanoi.  Move your desks together.”  (Students move their desks.  Teacher assists.) Talk with your group.  What are the good points about living in Hanoi?  What are the good points about living in Ho Chi Minh City?  Use this language.  (Teacher displays target language on slide 59) ICQs (Instruction Checking Questions): Which group is talking about Hanoi?  Which group is talking about Ho  Chi Minh City?  Are you talking about good points or bad points. Planning: Students work in their groups to come up with list.  Teacher monitors to make sure students are on task.  Possibly helps if students get stuck.  Also monitors for any mistakes with the target language, and writes them down for delayed feedback later. Set-up: Next, we’re going to play a game called “Yes, but… (Show slide 60)  (slide 61) What are they doing? (elicit arguing) Show demonstration on slide 44  Do demonstration on the slideshow Play “yes, but…” with your partner.  Remember to use these words.  (Display Target Language on Slideshow).  Decide which is better:  Hanoi or Ho Chi Minh City? Teacher pairs students up with new partner.  Students are paired up with a partner from the other group. Task: Students talk together.  Teacher monitors and writes down any errors, as well as any good language use.   Feedback: Content Feedback: Teacher nominates 2 students.  “What did you are your partner decide?  Which one is better? Why?” Linguistic Feedback: Teacher puts on the whiteboard correct and incorrect sentences that he picked up during monitoring.  “Here are some sentences that I heard.  Some are good, and some have mistakes.  Talk to your partner.  Which sentences have mistakes?”  Students briefly talk to their partner, and then in all class feedback, the students help the teacher correct the sentences.
Optional Extension Activity (If Extra Time)	For students to practice the target language in a fluency practice	T-S T-S S-S	Think of a place.  Don’t tell  anyone, just think.  Use these words to describe it.  (Gestures to Target Language on the Slideshow) Give an example: There are a lot of lakes.  There are a lot of old buildings.  There are a lot of tourists.  There is too much traffic.  (Hanoi) Stand up.  Talk to your classmates.  Tell them about your place, and guess the place