posted
Well, the first 5 of the first season was really Fox's fault. They kept Whedon on a pretty tight leash. And it took him a few episodes to recover.
I'm still blaming Fox.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There's still 9 episodes of season 2 we haven't seen so it may be too soon to speak of percentage of sucky episodes vs non-sucky episodes. Still though...
quote:Well, the first 5 of the first season was really Fox's fault
It didn't sound like Whedon fought for otherwise. He actually sold the idea of those episodes being stand-alone as a good thing.
Posts: 532 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
And wasn't the whole focus too much on Dushku's Echo problem because she had the deal with Fox?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, Eliza Dushku has a deal with Fox for a tv show, so she set up with Joss Whedon to make a show around her.
I know Fox put them in the Friday "Death Slot," but, really, I'm still not sure Dollhouse would have found its audience if put on at another time, or with better advertising, or whatever. Entertainment's subjective, and it seems like Dollhouse (even though I thought it was a great scifi show) didn't do it for a lot of people.
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh, here's Joss Whedon's comments on the cancellation, posted today on whedonesque.com:
"Hmm. Apparently my news is not news.
I don't have a lot to say. I'm extremely proud of the people I've worked with: my star, my staff, my cast, my crew. I feel the show is getting better pretty much every week, and I think you'll agree in the coming months. I'm grateful that we got to put it on, and then come back and put it on again.
I'm off to pursue internet ventures/binge drinking. Possibly that relaxation thing I've read so much about. By the time the last episode airs, you'll know what my next project is. But for now there's a lot of work still to be done, and disappointment to bear.
Thank you all for your support, your patience, your excellent adverts. See you again. -j."
Posts: 132 | Registered: Feb 2009
| IP: Logged |
posted
At the risk of sounding like a broken record, who but Fox would even give Whedon a chance? They get a lot of flak for cancelling more brilliant shows than any other network, but that's largely because they give a chance to more brilliant shows than all the other broadcast networks combined.
(Personally, I watched the first episode, and... well, maybe I'll watch the DVDs someday. They're pretty low on my list, though.)
Posts: 884 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I blame the original crappy concept - I never wanted to see a show about a collection of Barbie dolls. The very concept means that the main characters are mostly/often/usually passive. I don't find that interesting.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Kath, have you actually seen the show (and more than the first five episodes which were indeed similar to what you describe)? While I must admit that the show (and most advertisements for it) lend themselves well to exactly that kind of misinterpretation, it's not at all what the show is like.
Here is a review of dollhouse from a feminist perspective that I think is pretty interesting and does a good job of explaining the point of the show.
The cliff notes version is that in order to tell a meaningful story about the nature of power and patriarchy and consent, your metaphors need to address how all-encompassing the power disparities in the world actually are, and how they affect us from birth to the point that we can't even identify them. Yes, the doll characters begin the show devoid of "character," but that's because the overarching plot is for them to reclaim their identities.
Perhaps Whedon spent a more time than was necessary in season one establishing the "status quo," but I can see why he did it - to try and make it sink in exactly how powerless the characters are to change the system. Even those who theoretically CONTROL the system. We've already seen one flashforward of the future (the 13th episode of Season 1) and it is the characters who start with the least power who ultimately are the most active about saving everyone else.
Eliza Dushku never quite grows into the role she's supposed to play, but that's okay, because even though she's only an average actress the others in the show are phenomenal. (Victor and Sierra in particular are amazing)
It may be that you won't like the show anyway, but you shouldn't be ignoring it for the reasons you've stated.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
The show is okay if you look past the central concept and ignore more than half the episodes? That's a show with problems. If Epitaph One was a glimpse of the future where things are cool, why can't I watch THAT show?
Secondly, sadly, Eliza Dushku, while admirable in many ways, isn't a good enough actress to pull it off.
I LOVE anaylyzing texts for cultural meaning - it's my favorite part of pop culture. But something that is meaningful or enjoyable or useful ONLY after the analysis or the explanation of why it is "deep" is a show that doesn't stand on its own. Like Alexander Pope said, "A work of art that contains theories is like an object on which the price tag has been left."
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
P.S. I would be willing to watch a "greatest hits" DVD of it, but life is too short to watch unenjoyable stuff just out of affection for better stuff. I'd rather just rewatch Buffy and Firefly.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
But don't you remember how painful the first season of Buffy was? Not just a few episodes, but the entire season.
Posts: 1711 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But even painful, bad season one Buffy is fundamentally more interesting that the premise of Dollhouse.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Buffy season 1 was hilarious. But then, I was genuinely convinced that it was meant to be a deliberately campy comedy, making fun of the horror genre.
Season 2 took me by surprise.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:The show is okay if you look past the central concept and ignore more than half the episodes?
The central concept is not bad - my point is that the central concept lends itself easily to misinterpretation by people who haven't seen the show.
The only episodes that are universally agreed as disappointing at the first five. Episode six of Season 1 functions somewhat as a "second pilot" and is the point at which Joss gained significantly more creative control over the show. I do think it might be necessary to watch the very first episode just so you have a better sense of who the characters WERE, before episode 6 starts showing you what they become. The first episode isn't amazing but wasn't bad, and I thought it was interesting from episode 6 onward. (It does jump up an order of magnitude of interesting-ness in season 2, but it's not really possible to skip to there).
Edit: I am the 666th poster in this thread. Yay?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not surprised about this. The show always seemed to be missing something - it was so close to being great, but there was something intangible missing from the mix. It just wasn't that special yet, but I expect that season 3 would have been amazing.
After the demise of Sarah Connor last year, I stopped watching Dollhouse because I knew it was just a matter of time until this happened, so I didn't want to get attached. I hope that they can at least tie up some loose ends before curtain time.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
It seems to me that if everyone gives up on shows because we know they'll get cancelled eventually... isn't that just contributing to the problem? And no matter how much it sucked that Sarah Connor was lost, I don't regret my time watching it.
In the case of Dollhouse, Joss is clearly approaching with the expectation that he COULD get cancelled at any moment. Season 1 ended in such a way that even if that was it, it could have been a complete series, and some interviews have suggested that Season 2 is similarly structured. I wouldn't worry about feeling like the time spent watching it is a waste.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Dogbreath: I thought Buffy season 1 was hilarious. But then, I was genuinely convinced that it was meant to be a deliberately campy comedy, making fun of the horror genre.
Season 2 took me by surprise.
This.
I greatly prefer season one to the final season. The high school years ending with graduation was my favorite of the big arcs (to be followed by the college years and the adult years.) The later seasons had some brilliant moments, of course, but I think the whole campy "hellmouth as a metaphor for high school" was what made the show for me. Its what got me hooked.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
Gosh, Whedon. Of course network television execs wouldn't have felt comfortable with the sort of overt sexuality you were going for.
Sexuality in network television is almost ways childish. It's either played for laughs or is that sort of romantic PG 13 stuff that you can find in any day time soap opera...some hunky guy with his shirt off passionately kissing a gal. Anything deeper than that is a no no. Heck, it's a surprise he got away with the Companion character on Firefly, and if that show grew in popularity that character and what she does would most certainly have been ditched (of course Whedon would have just solved that by killing off the character.)
Point is, Whedon miscalculated big time. The concept that he describes sounds like prime SHOWTIME material and taboo on regular networks.
posted
But the network bought it with the original description, and then got cold feet. That's the annoying bit.
I don't think Inara would have changed her profession. Whedon stood fast on certain things, such as when the network wanted Wash and Zoe to have other romantic entanglements and he flatly said no and was willing to walk because he wanted at least one solid married relationship on television. She might have died, though, every Whedon character faces that possibility.
I agree though, this show would have been better served on Showtime both for subject matter, ratings expectation, and network support (look! I agreed with Clive about something!).
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sexuality on television doesn't have to be "explicit" to deal with the subject seriously. But often just dealing with the subject seriously is more than network brass is willing to handle. You can have an ensemble cast that jumps into the sack with one another in every possible combination in a sitcom played for laughs, but heaven help you if you try to touch on why a character is doing so and if some of what they're seeking from their sexual relationships is peculiar or troubling or unhealthy... Let alone that it be any of the above and still something that they might have in common with the viewing audience.
Posts: 3826 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: Whedon may not be in denial about the ratings (I doubt even Glenn Beck could muster that level of denial), but he’s still in denial over the show itself. It wasn’t always awful, but it was never very good. And it wasn’t just FOX that had a problem with the ‘cuddly whoremongers’ angle–his own diehard fanbase frequently had problems with it as well. Even on Whedonesque, a lot of people have been quietly rooting for Dollhouse to end, so Joss can get back to the kind of show they want from him.
If he wanted to do a really edgy show with lots of sex, why was he on FOX at all? They titillate, sure–that’s not the same thing as following through. They looked at what he gave them, and they knew they had a ratings loser–that’s why they backed away, but they still gave him plenty of time, and lots of promotion.
It was a concept very poorly suited to a network primetime show, and frankly, I doubt Whedon’s take on it would have worked on HBO or Showtime.
No excuses–nobody forced him at gunpoint to pitch this concept to FOX, or to pitch it to anybody. He wanted to do a new show, he had a relationship with FOX and with Dushku, and Dushku had a development contract with FOX. He went there because he knew he could sell it there. He isn’t a very adventurous showrunner, when you get right down to it–he works with 20th or Universal, because he’s got friends at both studios. He can’t work without a cheering section. And that limits him horribly.
His approach to the most unconventional subjects is always very conventional and TeeVee101. He makes good use of old cliches, at the very best of times. His characters are always CHARACTERS–they never feel like real people, and they speak a slightly elevated dialect of sitcom-ese, all wisecracks and one-liners.
Firefly was a WORSE show, IMO. Dollhouse at least tried something different. But the fact that he wanted to get basically legitimize prostitution in both shows is–well–kinda creepy. Yes, he’s saying, the Dollhouse is wrong, but it COULD be made right. No it couldn’t, Joss. And you way miscalculated when you tried to make us like these scummy people who belong in jail. David Chase managed that trick, sure–but he never tried to sugarcoat what his gangsters really were, and he showed them warts and all. Nobody on your shows is allowed so much as a pimple.
posted
The Firefly sucking part proved to me the guy had no taste.
I'll admit freely, Dollhouse got off to a slow start. I won't even say it's the network's fault. More recent episodes have more than made up for it.
Joss nailed on the head why the network was against the sexual fantasy aspect of it. TV only does sex when it's a joke (Seinfeld, Friends, How I Met Your Mother, I could go on forever). Joss was actually trying to explore something and make people think. Big No-no.
I liked this last episode, though perhaps not as much as some others. Summer Glau's character is quite creepy.
Posts: 4089 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: I liked this last episode, though perhaps not as much as some others. Summer Glau's character is quite creepy. [/QB]
Well, it certainly is a big change from all the healthy, happy, well adjusted characters she's played before.
Posts: 2222 | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, they had mentioned earlier that she wouldn't be playing a doll because "she'd like to play a normal girl for once before she does of old age." I did like her character here (especially once the beautifully awkward conversations with Topher began) but it certainly didn't deliver on "normal."
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
What I wasn't quite sure of was whether her "mutual" crush on Topher was just an act - did she see through him from the very beginning and was merely manipulating him? Or when she said "now we're even" was it intended as a genuinely playful flirt?
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the way she acted before he showed up (the way she fixed her hair, her reaction when she saw the Disruptor) I'd say she is genuinely interested in him.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Clive Candy: And oh yea, Enver Gjokaj is the most talented actor on the show.
God, yes. He was so absolutely Topher.
That was absolutely awesome. I wasn't looking at the screen at first, and I honestly thought Topher was talking to himself. I think the best part of that one was Victor/Topher in the chair and Real!Topher next to him, talking simultaneously to Adele.
Posts: 4515 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
The voice sounded different enough to me (and Enver has demostrated enough prior awesomeness) that I'm willing to assume it was really him. Voice actors can sound like all kinds of different people.
Posts: 4136 | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Victor as Topher bantering with the real Topher...totally made up for the horrible first half of season one. It was like a special gift from Joss to the fans. And I accept his apology.
I'm liking the show alot more now and I'm starting to regret its end. I was pleased to see more of Langton and November/Mellie/whoever, and even found myself rooting for Ballard which is very unusual.
I can't stand Alexis (Perrin) though. I loved him on Buffy and Angel but the accent thing takes me completely out of the moment. He's fine for the most part. The Britishness of his voice works for someone from a privileged background but then he'll randomly throw out a word with these wonky vowels and it spoils the character for me. Still, its mere presence on the show proves Joss' loyalty to his actors and gives me hope that we'll see my Dollhouse favorites in the future.
As for Summer...I have such a girl!crush on her. She's so adorable. You know, when she's not absolutely terrifyingly crazy.
Posts: 1733 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Denisof moved to England when he was 17. So his early adult years were spent there. He grew up in Seattle, so what you're hearing is a hybrid of Seattle/London. If you're not used to it, you keep expecting it to be one or the other, and the mixture clashes.
Posts: 12266 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
