It's "Hero's Girlfriend", not "Heroes Girlfriend". Unless she was a character on another show, in which case it would be "Heroes Girlfriend". Please make a note of it.
Also, killing her? Totally not cool. Happy endings can be ironic, too.
Some Cranky Editors group folks thought the typo was specifically making fun of media errors.
I watched the first episode (which was great fun), then saw from others' comments that Penny buys it and things go bad. So I'm not going to bother with the rest, and just have that first fun impression stay.
It's getting close to cut-off time, but as someone who watched part III and was disappointed, I don't think your good impression would be hurt by watching part II. I liked it better than part I, even.
I really feel like it's almost a joke at this point. If Whedon was tapped to make a documentary on the planet Mars, I would fully expect him to find a way to strangle a puppy at the end of it.
Yeah, that would have blindsided us because it would have been totally out of character, and that's not good storytelling, that's just making stuff up. Surprises should not be unexpected due to being illogical.
Dr H idolized her, but she seemed a bit of a twit to me. It wouldn't be out of character --- what character we'd gotten so far, anyway --- for her to turn out to be a bit shallower than he thought.
And if JW had wanted that to be the twist, he would have been able to draw Penny's character differently in the first place, if necessary, so it wouldn't have been as illogical as you say.
Sure, if Penny's character had been drawn differently, your suggestion would have been a pretty interesting twist to pull on us, and would make plenty of sense.
As written, I didn't actually think she was shallow. Naive, innocent, polyannaish, gullible, sure.
(Speaking of which, I do think her dying line helped avoid the cliche a bit.)
My goodness, are we actually discussing whether a musical was too pat or predictable?
i didn't mind the penny demise so much. it seemed less predictable than inevitable, if that makes sense. but i think it actually says something positive about the story that so many people cared enough about the arc to even be bothered, both in terms of being emotionally invested in the story and of analyzing the plot.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
baggyeyes![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 03:52 pm (UTC)I watched the first episode (which was great fun), then saw from others' comments that Penny buys it and things go bad. So I'm not going to bother with the rest, and just have that first fun impression stay.
Too bad. I guess you get what you pay for.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-21 01:19 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-21 01:27 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 07:24 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-20 07:34 pm (UTC)What if she'd made a fully aware decision to go with Hammer? "Yeah, he's shallow, and you really care, but man, he has a hammer, y'know?"
Now that would have blindsided all of us.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-21 12:54 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-21 01:21 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-21 02:18 am (UTC)Anyway, I liked it.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-21 02:26 am (UTC)And if JW had wanted that to be the twist, he would have been able to draw Penny's character differently in the first place, if necessary, so it wouldn't have been as illogical as you say.
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-21 11:44 pm (UTC)As written, I didn't actually think she was shallow. Naive, innocent, polyannaish, gullible, sure.
(Speaking of which, I do think her dying line helped avoid the cliche a bit.)
My goodness, are we actually discussing whether a musical was too pat or predictable?
(no subject)
Date: 2008-07-21 02:28 pm (UTC)