But not as bad as Johanna in sweeney todd - all we really know about her is that she is pale with light hair.

She and Anthony are spoofs, though. They’re the people that the play would normally be about, if handled by a different author — the beautiful leads who survive. The focus is deliberately moved away from them, leaving both undeveloped within their archetypical roles in the melodrama, and refocused on those characters who would ordinarily have been the poorly developed villains. (Also, there’s a certain amount of both character development and comedy done in the way that Joanna’s lyrics are written, but nevertheless, the point holds.)

Having seen Dr. Horrible now, I’d say that while Penny’s role is weakest, this felt symptomatic of Wheedon needing another draft, or an editing hand, or a bit more experience with musicals. He didn’t really seem to have control of the material in a number of places, and I think that impacted all three characters.

I would add, though, that the actress playing Penny seemed to be holding back. Was she directed that way? Hard to say, but either way, I think a different interpretation might have made her lyrics funny in the way that Joanna’s lyrics are funny (”even not knowing who you were”) or Hope from Urinetown (”follow your heart”) is funny. I’m not sure whether or not Wheedon’s intent was to work within the model of the spoofed ingenue, but it would have worked better for me if the musical had been nudged in that direction.

I agree…she did have a cause but she could have been more interesting. But not as bad as Johanna in sweeney todd - all we really know about her is that she is pale with light hair. I thought it was stupid that he fell in love with her without even knowing what she was like.

Thus i get off topic and have to say “freeze ray“

You are making a claim. You need to provide evidence for that claim, including an analysis of the text that supports your argument. Otherwise there’s nothing for me to argue against, because without specific points in your analysis to refute (WHY do you think that routine supports your point?), you’re not actually arguing anything coherent.

Also: see Charles’s post.

Carlin is funny in that routine to the extent that he matches Mandolin’s description of how to be funny joking about rape. In fact, Carlin explains that he is funny to the extent that he meets Mandolin’s criteria. If you don’t understand that Carlin and Mandolin are basically in agreement here then your basic comprehension skills of one or the other need some brushing up.

This is why you need to provide an analysis of Carlin’s piece to be worth talking to, because only if you can explain how Carlin’s piece disagrees with Mandolin’s claim and make sense in doing so can you demonstrate that you aren’t the idiot that you appear to be by claiming without any argument that Carlin’s piece obviously refutes Mandolin’s claim.

Also, don’t tell a mod that they have to jump through your hoops, unless you want to find your waste-of-time ass banned from the site.

Carlin provides the analysis. Did you watch it?

If you can’t be bothered to provide one, I can’t be bothered to take you seriously.

Actually, I’d dispute that. Hell, people justify somone getting mugged because “That’s what you get for going into the bad part of town.” I don’t agree, but there’s a significant number of people who voice that kind of thing.

Then there’s the kid I had in my Troop who just whipped up on a kid who had shoved him. When I questioned him on his grossly-out-of-proportion response, he said that his Dad said that if anyone ever did anything bad to him I should do something a lot worse to them to make sure they didn’t do it again. Lovely. But it’s the same attitude that twists the concept of “respect” into “fear” on the streets; you ARE justified in an out-of-proportion response. And if you are justified, why not someone else?

Funny.

No one I can think of with a comedy career: Jews died! Haha!

Unfunny.

Potential comedian: Rapists are idiots. Haha.

Potentially funny.

Actual asshole comedians: People are raped! Haha!

Actually asholish and non-funny.

Or there’s Charlie Chaplin: “Tragedy is close up, comedy is a long shot” or something like that.

The difference though between rape and other forms of violence is the way that rape is minimized by society. Prison rape jokes are bad because it reinforces the belief that people in jail deserve to be raped. Other rape jokes help reinforce the belief that sluts deserve to be raped. If somebody has gotten into a fist fight no one will say that it’s okay to beat him with a bat or murder him. Yet if a woman is raped, she’ll have to be interrogated on her entire sexual history.

If you can’t laugh at something, then you’re living in fear of it and it controls you. The point of comedy is to make light of the world, even the terrible parts of it, to comfort you and let you live on without fear or sadness.

I am sorry, but I have a lot more sympathy for the young passenger whom I saw killed in a car crash less than two hours ago, than for any of the people who are probably getting raped at the end of the same street (Chino Hills Parkway leads to the California Institution for Men) So, I hardly think that a rape joke is worse that a joke about a flattened car.

Many, if not all jokes involve misfortune. Making a joke of that kind runs the risk of offending someone who has had a personal experience with that particular kind of misfortune. People have the right to label themselves as assholes by telling such jokes… I just do not understand those who single out rape jokes.

…in the actual show we’re talking about that millions of people have seen, not the ancillary comic book. It just seemed like a glaring omission, that’s all.

If you don’t like it when it’s considered funny that someone might rape someone else, then you must really not like it when it’s considered funny that someone might rape someone else.