Dollhouse in Trouble?

[Lindley]

(Also not bashing Lindley, one of the most clearheaded Browncoats you'll find out there.)

Make no mistake, I'm as batshit as any of the others in my own way. I'm writing a game mod based on the thing, fer cryin' out loud.

But I just find it's a lot easier to get your point across when you don't sound like a raving luny in the process, that's all.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

(Also not bashing Lindley, one of the most clearheaded Browncoats you'll find out there.)

Make no mistake, I'm as batshit as any of the others in my own way. I'm writing a game mod based on the thing, fer cryin' out loud.

But I just find it's a lot easier to get your point across when you don't sound like a raving luny in the process, that's all.

I don't think you're any different than a lot, even most, Browncoats. It's just the loony ones make more noise, which is what always happens, fringe views drown out the quieter sane ones.

 

[Othello]

What the heck is there that is hard to follow?? Sheesh...

My take.. Just another inevitable screwing by Fox of Joss Whedon. They didn't "get" Firefly and don't wanna get Dollhouse. Total asshats.

 

[Othello]

there have been concerns raised inside the network about the fundamental underpinnings of the show.
Specifically, because the heroine of the show, played by Eliza Dushku, has no free will or ability to do much beyond what she’s told to do, viewers might find it hard to root for her.

From the first time I read this premise, my initial thought was similar: where's the Why-Should-I-Care factor in all this? The lead character must want something, and I must care about her enough that I want to see her get what she wants. Then the story is all about her overcoming the obstacles while the audience roots for her. That's the underlying structure of all stories, at least all pop-culture or reasonably popular stories (discounting just the arty/experimental stuff that never makes it to TV anyway). Without this, there's no reason for the audience to tune in.

The concept of Dolls themselves is not at all too "out there." You just have a lead character Doll who is struggling to become self-aware and what she wants is to break free and no longer be enslaved. The audience can certainly root for that! Then the problem becomes, how long can you extend that premise in a TV series...

If the Dolls are voluntarily being enslaved, then the Who-Cares factor is a problem. She brought it on herself, I have no sympathy for her plight. Also, there's a logic problem: who'd volunteer for that?

Hello, you ever see the Bourne movies?? VERY similar concept but not as versitile.

 

[Guy Gardener]

Amnesia?

I think it's more like Rohypnol and serial raping.

How would you feel if "things" happened to you while you were sleeping?

 

[Temis the Vorta]

Hello, you ever see the Bourne movies??

Yup, I enjoyed them too, but three movies (that's equivalent to six TV episodes) is about as much as you can stretch that premise. Six episodes won't get you very far on TV.

Also Matt Damon is very hot. Dollhouse is crippled by its lack of any hot guys in the cast. Massive oversight: they need at least one. A Matt-Damon-level hotty would buy them a bit of slack from me.

I wonder if Fox started getting panicky when they saw the season premiere ratings for T:SCC and Prison Break? They're gonna need a mid-season hit, the way things are going, so they're starting to intefer with Dollhouse. Fringe started off weak, and perhaps House can shore up the ratings, but next week will tell the tale.

 

[FordSVT]

Go back and listen to Joss and Tim's comments about the cancellation of Firefly (they're on the DVD). They pretty much state, in bald-faced terms, that FOX used the ratings as an excuse to justify cancelling a series that they didn't even understand from the moment they first greenlit it.

Oh, well if it was on a DVD commentary it MUST be true. Whedon wouldn't have a biased opinion about this, not at all.

I love how people hink that Fox is so fucking terrible to him when they keep giving him money. "They wanted the show to fail before they green lit it" is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard. What probably REALLY happened was that they loved the initial concept (enough to give him millions to make it) and then the finished product and ratings didn't meet their expectations so they cancelled it.

Quite honestly, and I've got so much shit for saying this in the past but I'll say it again anyway, Whedon has a very specific writing style that appeals to a very specific segment of the audience that simply doesn't understand that. They think he's Shakespeare and anyone who disagrees doesn't "get" him. When it comes to Whedon and his various projects, it's never WHEDON'S fault they fail, its some executive somewhere.

You know, the same "idiot" execs who keep giving him second and third and forth and fifth chances. On second thought, maybe they are idiots to keep throwing their money away like that.

If he's so great, why isn't NBC or ABC or CBC or HBO nipping at his heals to get him to create a show for them? They don't "get" him either?

 

[Lindley]

I love how people hink that Fox is so fucking terrible to him when they keep giving him money. "They wanted the show to fail before they green lit it" is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard. What probably REALLY happened was that they loved the initial concept (enough to give him millions to make it) and then the finished product and ratings didn't meet their expectations so they cancelled it.

The truth lies somewhere in the middle. Everything I've heard from the start suggests that Fox was definitely surprised when they saw the finished pilot----it wasn't what they were expecting. The ratings were a factor, no question, but the trouble started there.

Quite honestly, and I've got so much shit for saying this in the past but I'll say it again anyway, Whedon has a very specific writing style that appeals to a very specific segment of the audience that simply doesn't understand that.

Honestly, I don't think it's all that specific. Funny is funny. The only reason I can imagine why funny wouldn't appeal is if the container funny comes in is too unusual to get used to. Unfortunately, as I said previously, Whedon likes unusual.

There's a tipping point with all of Joss's shows---except possibly Doctor Horrible. At first, they seem strange or off-putting, and you wonder what the heck you're doing in front of the TV. But after a certain point----usually not very far in, just far enough to lose the general public----everything that seemed strange and annoying suddenly seems awesome and central, and it's as if the show suddenly "clicks".

Buffy -- the name. It bugs you at first, then you get past it and the story just flows and the characters lock you in.
Angel -- Cordelia's character. If you didn't follow her through Buffy, she's really annoying at first. Later she becomes everyone's favorite, naturally, even in her season 1 persona. (If you had seen Buffy first....well, upon first seeing Charisma in the Angel credits, my roommate shouted "YES!" I'd kept that bit a secret from him.)
Firefly -- Well, the entire concept is just bizarre. Until all the details of it start revealing themselves and suddenly it seems like the best idea ever.
Dollhouse -- Most of the concerns have been raised here. I'm hopeful we'll get the same sort of effect.

They think he's Shakespeare and anyone who disagrees doesn't "get" him.

Now that's just hyperbole. The man's good, but he's not that good.

 

[Professor Zoom]

Not to go off topic...but...

Why is the concept of Firefly so "bizarre"? I've never understood that.

 

[Lindley]

Not to go off topic...but...

Why is the concept of Firefly so "bizarre"? I've never understood that.

Because it's the old west. With spaceships.

On the surface, seems pretty silly, don't it?

 

[Dream]

Torchwood had it easy. Just copy the way Angel was written and hope that people don't realize it.

 

[Bishbot]

Not to go off topic...but...

Why is the concept of Firefly so "bizarre"? I've never understood that.

Because it's the old west. With spaceships.

On the surface, seems pretty silly, don't it?

I thought it sounded a brilliant idea when I first heard it (after it had already been cancelled - go figure) but it can be kind of hard to explain it to people until they actually watch the damned thing - at which point they often love it.

 

[FordSVT]

Not to go off topic...but...

Why is the concept of Firefly so "bizarre"? I've never understood that.

Because it's the old west. With spaceships.

On the surface, seems pretty silly, don't it?

I thought it sounded a brilliant idea when I first heard it (after it had already been cancelled - go figure) but it can be kind of hard to explain it to people until they actually watch the damned thing - at which point they often love it.

It's neither an original idea nor an idea people haven't embraced in other mediums, especially sci-fi literature and to a lesser extent cartoons and comics.

Again, a thread full of people who've convinced themselves that if everyone would just give him a chance they'd fall in love with his work, like it's some undeniable law of nature.

Explain me then; I've watched plenty of Buffy, Angel, and all of Firefly. The first annoys me to no end, the second is watchable about half of the time the time (it's easily the best of the three, especially the broader arc stories), and the latter was good for one viewing and I could care less if I ever watched any of it again. As well, I do not think he's that appealing to mainstream audiences because I think most people can only take sci-fi and fantasy seriously when it itself is largely serious, or at least attempting to be. Cool, serious, lots of big FX..... to be honest I think a lot of people are personally embarrassed to watch everything from LOTR to Star Wars, they just manage to justify it to themselves in some way. But Quirky Sc-Fi/Fantasy? Most people wouldn't be bothered.

This isn't an indictment of anyone's personal opinion of his show, I'm not telling anyone they're stupid for like his stuff. This is really about Whedon's track record with a broader audience (not so good).

 

[Professor Zoom]

Not to go off topic...but...

Why is the concept of Firefly so "bizarre"? I've never understood that.

Because it's the old west. With spaceships.

On the surface, seems pretty silly, don't it?

Not really. It's Star Wars (A New Hope) without the Aliens.
I don't know. I guess I just wouldn't call the idea out there or strange...

 

[BlackestPanther]

Quite honestly, and I've got so much shit for saying this in the past but I'll say it again anyway, Whedon has a very specific writing style that appeals to a very specific segment of the audience that simply doesn't understand that. They think he's Shakespeare and anyone who disagrees doesn't "get" him. When it comes to Whedon and his various projects, it's never WHEDON'S fault they fail, its some executive somewhere.

AMEN.

Joss is a moderate talent, at best. The middle seasons of Buffy were good, but the first season was complete crap, the first two seasons of Angel were unwatchable and Firefly was just boring. Even his comic book writing style has that overdone angsty bullcrap that we keep getting from him. I could not get past issue #2 of Buffy Season 8. Whedon has no style other than being Joss Whedon. He has become a charicature of himself and I have zero interest in Dollhouse. It may work as a TV movie, but I just can't see the premise keeping me engaged past a few episodes.

 

[Lindley]

Again, a thread full of people who've convinced themselves that if everyone would just give him a chance they'd fall in love with his work, like it's some undeniable law of nature.

Well, also a thread full of people (well, me) who used to avoid his stuff because it sounded silly; and then "just gave him a chance", and now love 90% of it.

Is it really so surprising that I might think I'm not unique in my reactions?

Explain me then; I've watched plenty of Buffy, Angel, and all of Firefly. The first annoys me to no end, the second is watchable about half of the time the time (it's easily the best of the three, especially the broader arc stories), and the latter was good for one viewing and I could care less if I ever watched any of it again.

Hmm, okay. With Buffy, you may have picked up on the annoying Love-Angst factor. It does get in the way whenever it shows up. The show is strong enough to keep one watching despite that, but if your sampling of episodes was unlucky, I could see it being a real turn-off. Besides which, the early part of the show was a bit on the cheesy side. Not in a bad way, but it certainly didn't reveal its dramatic potential until part way through season 2.

I agree about Angel being the best of them. Firefly was better episode-for-episode, but it just didn't last long enough to build up as cool an overall story. As with all of Whedon's stuff, the standalones were fairly weak story-wise, pretty much just hack-and-slashes, but the character interaction and evolution makes them worthwhile.

And speaking of Firefly, have you *tried* rewatching any of it? Not saying you have to, but for my own part, I didn't really start to pick up the nuances until I did.

As well, I do not think he's that appealing to mainstream audiences because I think most people can only take sci-fi and fantasy seriously when it itself is largely serious, or at least attempting to be. Cool, serious, lots of big FX..... to be honest I think a lot of people are personally embarrassed to watch everything from LOTR to Star Wars, they just manage to justify it to themselves in some way. But Quirky Sc-Fi/Fantasy? Most people wouldn't be bothered.

This isn't an indictment of anyone's personal opinion of his show, I'm not telling anyone they're stupid for like his stuff. This is really about Whedon's track record with a broader audience (not so good).

You're not wrong there.

 

[DigificWriter]

Go back and listen to Joss and Tim's comments about the cancellation of Firefly (they're on the DVD). They pretty much state, in bald-faced terms, that FOX used the ratings as an excuse to justify cancelling a series that they didn't even understand from the moment they first greenlit it.

Oh, well if it was on a DVD commentary it MUST be true. Whedon wouldn't have a biased opinion about this, not at all.

I love how people hink that Fox is so fucking terrible to him when they keep giving him money. "They wanted the show to fail before they green lit it" is one of the most asinine things I've ever heard. What probably REALLY happened was that they loved the initial concept (enough to give him millions to make it) and then the finished product and ratings didn't meet their expectations so they cancelled it.

Here's the bare facts concerning the Firefly situation:
* 20th Century FOX Television asked Joss to give them another show based on the success of BtVS and ANGEL, and Joss gave the FOX Network execs the idea for Firefly. It wasn't what they were expecting, but they let him go ahead with the idea and write and shoot a pilot (the result was the episode "Serenity").

* When Joss and Tim Minear gave the FOX execs the final cut of "Serenity", they (the FOX execs) didn't 'get' it, and asked Joss and Tim to write and shoot a second pilot. The result was "The Train Job".

* When Firefly finally went on the air, FOX aired "The Train Job" as the first episode, despite Joss and Tim hoping they'd air "Serenity" first.

* After the series premiered, FOX didn't adequately promote it, and kept pre-empting it. They also kept airing the episodes out of order.

* Because of the pre-emptions and lack of promotion, the series's ratings were less than what the network wanted.

* Because the ratings were low, the network cancelled the series.

Take a look at those facts, and tell me that there's any other interpretation to be gleaned other than the FOX execs using the ratings as an excuse to cancel a series which their previous behavior - while it was on the air and before it hit the air - indicated that they didn't entirely understand it, but wanted another series from their proven 'hitmaker' regardless.

Edited to clarify something: I'm not one of those people who thinks you're crazy if you don't like Joss Whedon or the stories he tells. I only have problems with the non-Joss fans when they exhibit an attitude of 'well, his shows all got cancelled or sucked, so he therefore sucks, and the people who like him create scapegoats to justify why he's the greatest thing ever'.

 

[Lindley]

I should also mention that I have no problem discussing the shortcomings of Joss's work; however, I will object to blanket statements which are patently untrue.

 

[stonester1]

Me, I love Whedon's work, and consider him in an elite group of creators whose work I will check out just because their name is there.

I recognized he has his detractors, too. I'm not going to dismiss them as "not getting it", but I do object to their characterizations of his fans as mindless cultists and the like.

 

[Lindley]

You know, it occurs to me that I might have listened to Dave Barry. He was going on about how great Buffy the Vampire Slayer was years before I ever decided to give it a look-see.

Suppose it goes to show that no matter how much you respect a source, if your own skepticism is sufficient, you won't follow their recommendations.