Buffy the Vampire Slayer

[vacantlook]

I really enjoyed Dollhouse too. I remember watching the first season as it aired and enjoying the show up until it's revealed that Mellie was a doll. I had known the actress had been cast to play a doll, but that info had been given out back before Joss decided to cannibalize the original pilot episode and restructure the whole flow of the show. The original pilot is on the DVDs and, having watched it, I'm glad Joss did what he did because I didn't think the pilot was anywhere near as strong as the show itself was. So, I kept thinking Mellie's a doll because of how I had read the actress was originally going to be a doll. But Joss did the rape&murder scene so well and so brutally that I convinced myself she wasn't a doll and was expecting her to be killed, and then blam, she actually is a doll. For the show to surprise me by doing something I had been expecting really impressed me. And it was that moment I totally fell for the show.

In terms of the twist in season two of Boyd being the Rossum Corp. founder, I like the twist, but I think it would have worked better if they had had more time to fill it out a bit more. I've read that Joss hadn't decided on making Boyd the founder until he began writing season season two. Maybe that's why it feels a little bit off.

I loved getting some Felicia Day in Dollhouse. That makes her one of the exclusive Whedon hat-tricks (actors that appear in three Whedon works) for being in Buffy, Dollhouse, and Dr. Horrible.

 

[KoshFan]

Dollhouse had its moments; it also had its problems. Personally the Boyd twist was brilliant and inspired, but ultimately poorly executed; not enough follow-through. And any physical, tangible explanation for Echo's resistance undermined the original point of the show.

Still, I really liked a lot of the episodes, especially "The Attic" and the two "Epitaphs." The second one was a minor marvel in that it set up a totally new world in a series finale, wrapped up old plot threads, and gave us a good emotional send-off, too. Plus I love Alpha being good.

Ultimately, however, the show was betrayed by its own premise, since it never had unanimous Whedonite support, and it never pulled in anyone else. Too weird for the mainstream, too dark/misogynistic/un-familial for the hardcore fans. Since it was the prospect of DVD money that helped get the show a second season, that drop-off in the fandom was the last straw.

 

[GKarsEye]

Why is everyone calling the show misogynistic? A few of the characters were misogynistic. Ok, sure, every male involved with Sierra in any way except Victor was like some cartoon super-villain representation of something dreamed up out of the collective consciousness of participants at a Take Back the Night rally. But the show itself was, like every other Whedon thing, essentially about some chick kicking ass. Empowerment and what-not.

 

[Sindatur]

Why is everyone calling the show misogynistic? A few of the characters were misogynistic. Ok, sure, every male involved with Sierra in any way except Victor was like some cartoon super-villain representation of something dreamed up out of the collective consciousness of participants at a Take Back the Night rally. But the show itself was, like every other Whedon thing, essentially about some chick kicking ass. Empowerment and what-not.

Female Viewers didn't see it that way in the beginning, they were outraged by the Prostitution and subjugation of the Dolls. I always felt in the end, the subjugated Dolls would bring down the houses, free themselves and be victorious and justify all that mysogynistic set up, but, the female viewers got turned off early, and didn't stick around long enough for that to play out.

 

[vacantlook]

It's funny that the misogynistic argument against the show always seemed only focused on the female dolls on sexual engagements, as if all the male dolls didn't also get used for sexual engagements.

 

[KoshFan]

Well, a) it wasn't just women who got turned off by the exploitative theme, b) not all women deserted in droves, c) you yourself might be a little stereotyped for making it that simple a binary, and d) a lot of people had a real problem with the lack of family above all. Buffy, Angel, and Firefly all had "found families" of people pulling together, and they all had them from the start. Dollhouse got to that sense of family but it took a long time, longer than some had patience for. Moreover, when your main character kept having all her character development erased, it was hard to root for her for a while.


Also Fox was lousy at promoting the show. This was in large part due to them not knowing exactly what they wanted, as Joss has talked about, and partially due to apparently spending no money on publicity at all. Dushku did an appearance on some well-known talk show or other, the host said, "So you're premiering this week?" and Dushku had to say, "Actually, we've been on for two weeks now." There was zilch awareness.

 

[GKarsEye]

It's funny that the misogynistic argument against the show always seemed only focused on the female dolls on sexual engagements, as if all the male dolls didn't also get used for sexual engagements.

By the boss of the dollhouse herself no less!

Also Fox was lousy at promoting the show. This was in large part due to them not knowing exactly what they wanted, as Joss has talked about, and partially due to apparently spending no money on publicity at all. Dushku did an appearance on some well-known talk show or other, the host said, "So you're premiering this week?" and Dushku had to say, "Actually, we've been on for two weeks now." There was zilch awareness.

Not to deny your main point, but you just described every Larry King and David Letterman interview I've ever seen.

 

[vacantlook]

I'm not biased because I didn't see the show as a depiction of real life, so I wasn't in a crusade against the evils of the unconscious whore aspect of the dolls. It was so strange to me to read so many condemning the show for the sexual engagements as if we, as vieweres, were being expected to approve of the way the dolls were being used. We weren't... ever. People complain about it being hard to "root for" the characters; how could it possibly be hard to root for the dolls to regain their real consciousnesses and strike back at the Dollhouse? It seemed so contradictory to me to both complain about the slavery aspect of being a Doll, yet see no characters for whom to "root for."

I recognized that the show doesn't have the "family" formula that Buffy, Angel, and Firefly did. That's part of why I welcomed the absence of such a "family." Joss had done it three times; time for something different. And it's not even like the show was totally void of the family aspect, it was just fuzzier and took time until we got to it; people just wanted their family orgasm right way instead of enjoying the foreplay that would lead to it.

Echo didn't have her character development erased. Her imprints were erased (though eventually we find out that as Caroline so definitively states in the first episode, you can still see what was written after you wipe a slate "clean"). But Echo, as a person totally seperate from the persons that each of her imprints were, most definitely developed as a character episode by episode from the beginning. It seems a lot of viewers couldn't see the character beyond the (metaphorical) clothes (ie the imprints) she was wearing.

Totally agree with the point about the lack of promotion. Not to mention the yet again Fox idea that they can put a big show on Friday nights, also known as the night that the show's target demographic often is out on dates and stuff, and expect big ratings.

 

[GKarsEye]

Wasn't Firefly also on Fox? I wonder why Whedon et al trusted them to handle their next show.

Maybe part of the confusion about the moral issues in the show is that, at times, it seemed to present the idea of a "doll" as a moral quandary. This is actually what bugged me about the first season. I loved the DeWitt character for the most part, but the fact that she thought she was helping anybody blew my mind. The only way I was able to convince myself to go with it is that tyrants and monsters are able to justify their actions in real life as well.

Honestly, I dunno, maybe it's a fault with me, but I never gave much thought to the moral stuff and misogyny and "character development" and "family" (family, really, that's what people want from sci-fi tv, wtf?!). It was Eliza Dushku playing dress up (and dress off) and kicking ass. And there were ridiculous accents* and guns and motorcycles. Honestly, folks- fuck family.

Most ridiculous part of the show- River as the awkward geek. I would nominate her as 3rd most unrealistic hot girl geek ever, after Denise Richards in that Bond movie and Elizabeth Shu in The Saint.

Amy Acker to a much less degree- this being her 2nd Whedon show where she goes from shy nerd to vicious villain.

* kudos to Dushku for attempting the Russian. The words were real, btw, and her accent was almost as horrible as mine.

 

[KoshFan]

Not to deny your main point, but you just described every Larry King and David Letterman interview I've ever seen.

Oh, okay. Never mind, then, I don't usually watch those.

Wasn't Firefly also on Fox? I wonder why Whedon et al trusted them to handle their next show.

They didn't have much of a choice. The deal was between Fox and Dushku; Eliza's the one who brought Joss in to run her show. There was much hand-wringing about "Why is he going back to Fox?" But the deal already existed, with Fox as an essential element.

The only way I was able to convince myself to go with it is that tyrants and monsters are able to justify their actions in real life as well.

To me that was the point. Back then I had this theory about how the show was Joss's indictment of capitalism, etc., and her being a self-justifying stooge played into that theory.

It was Eliza Dushku playing dress up (and dress off) and kicking ass. And there were ridiculous accents* and guns and motorcycles. Honestly, folks- fuck family.

Ah, you were the ideal target audience for the first few episodes, then... I'll be excited to tell them about you over on the Whedon site I go to. We thought you were a myth.

 

[GKarsEye]

Ah, you were the ideal target audience for the first few episodes, then... I'll be excited to tell them about you over on the Whedon site I go to. We thought you were a myth.

You're giving me this impression that the internet of full of pretentious Whedon fan-boys who think the shows they like are some fancy intellectual artsy thing.

Let's remember we're talking about fucking vampires and shit.

The genius of Buffy is that is hooks you with action and eye-candy, and then brings in the more mature and clever story-telling and character stuff. But it's still about a hot chick and her buddies killing monsters. Yes I liked the most involved stuff in Buffy and Dollhouse (it's what justified the long run of the first), but without the hook, the basic premise, there is no show.

I dunno man, I guess I'm glad I'm done with my days of hardcore fanboy-ism, because from what you're telling me, the Whedon faithful aren't very faithful. If JMS had a new show I'd watch it and give it every chance, 'cause he earned it. Now I don't hold Whedon in quite that high regard, but he's still earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt. Also, Eliza Dushku on motorcycles and little dresses!

 

[Sindatur]

KF, perhaps I'm being stereotypical, or simply just going by own experiences, but, I received many replies on the internet from women when trying to convince them to watch longer, and give it a chance to play out and the mysogyny was what they complained about (and in some cases, they had never seen it, and after trying it out on my reccomendation, were not pleased.). And my mom had the same reaction when I loaned her my DVD copies (though she also cited lack of likable characters)

As far as exploiting male dolls, Victor was really the only one we saw to any degree in the first half of Season 1, which is where most of the audience losses occured, plus, I don't think you're ever going to get the same response from an audience when a man is being sexually exploited as you will from a woman being exploited in the same manner (Not that I condone that, but, it's the way the world thinks in general)

 

[KoshFan]

You're giving me this impression that the internet of full of pretentious Whedon fan-boys who think the shows they like are some fancy intellectual artsy thing.

Certain corners of the internet are full of people like that. And yes, we need to get out more. Thing is, we got this nice little groupthink feedback loop going, where we think we're the entire internet or even the world, and going outside our comfort zone would mess with that.

It's true, however, that we see so much truth and beauty in the shows that we forget even Joss refers to his actors as "the cheesecake."

I dunno man, I guess I'm glad I'm done with my days of hardcore fanboy-ism, because from what you're telling me, the Whedon faithful aren't very faithful. If JMS had a new show I'd watch it and give it every chance, 'cause he earned it. Now I don't hold Whedon in quite that high regard, but he's still earned the right to be given the benefit of the doubt. Also, Eliza Dushku on motorcycles and little dresses!

Oh, a lot of Whedon fans showed up to start with. They just didn't stick around. Thing is, Whedon fans get to be that way because of Firefly, Buffy, Angel, and Dr. Horrible, which are all rather disparate things. You'd never get 100% of all Whedon fans to agree on any of his shows, actually. Personally, my regard for Angel is lower than the rest. So if you show up expecting Cap'n Tightpants and his close-knit crew, or if you show up expecting Eliza's tiny dresses to be justified by her being a consistently strong female character...

Still, I stuck it out. I don't own a TV but I watched every episode on Hulu, and bought the S1 DVDs. So did a lot of other people.

KF, perhaps I'm being stereotypical, or simply just going by own experiences, but, I received many replies on the internet from women when trying to convince them to watch longer, and give it a chance to play out and the mysogyny was what they complained about (and in some cases, they had never seen it, and after trying it out on my reccomendation, were not pleased.).

Oh, wasn't denying the truth of your statement, I was just pointing out it wasn't the whole truth. And I used excessively loaded language in the process. Mea culpa.