Joss Jumps ship: Dollhouse is done?

[Bob The Skutter]

So you're saying every time someone says "The show was cancelled because of low ratings" they're saying "You fucking idiot, you didn't watch the show so it's your fault. Fuck you"?

Nope. I'm saying that when the creator and writer of a show says a show is being cancelled because of low ratings, he's saying it's your fault for not watching, not his fault for creating a shitty product. With an implied "fuck you" as well for, obviously, not seeing the brilliance in all things touched by him.

Ratings aren't an indicator of quality, if it was most of the highest rated shows wouldn't exist, bad ratings don't equal bad shows just as good ratings don't equal good shows.
Regardless of the fact that your opinion of the show doesn't make it fact, why would he say he made a shitty product if he doesn't happen to think it's shitty, like the 2 or so million viewers who continue to watch it?

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Which is obvious nonsense

No, people obviously can't have a sense of humour, self-deprecation, irony or sarcasm without actually trying to hide the fact they're insulting you.

 

[Checkmate]

Regardless of the fact that your opinion of the show doesn't make it fact, why would he say he made a shitty product if he doesn't happen to think it's shitty, like the 2 or so million viewers who continue to watch it?

That's exactly my point.

The man can't admit that it's shitty. Despite what the countless millions who agree (ie, the non-2 or so million viewers who don't continue to watch it). It's a piece of crap show and it's low ratings are OUR fault for not recognizing its brilliance, not HIS fault for creating a shitty story. He's physically and mentally incapable of admitting any fault on his part for shit like this show. Hell, he even tried telling the audience what they were supposed to think about the show and its premise in one of the earlier episodes with the "man on the street" interviews because despite his inability to admit it, some part of him deep down realized just how craptacular it was.

And the little fanboys just sit back and eat it up and adamantly refuse to see it because they're too busy fantasizing about how awesome it would be to toss his salad. It's embarrassing to watch.

 

[Bob The Skutter]

Regardless of the fact that your opinion of the show doesn't make it fact, why would he say he made a shitty product if he doesn't happen to think it's shitty, like the 2 or so million viewers who continue to watch it?

That's exactly my point.

The man can't admit that it's shitty. Despite what the countless millions who agree (ie, the non-2 or so million viewers who don't continue to watch it). It's a piece of crap show and it's low ratings are OUR fault for not recognizing its brilliance, not HIS fault for creating a shitty story. He's physically and mentally incapable of admitting any fault on his part for shit like this show. Hell, he even tried telling the audience what they were supposed to think about the show and its premise in one of the earlier episodes with the "man on the street" interviews because despite his inability to admit it, some part of him deep down realized just how craptacular it was.

And the little fanboys just sit back and eat it up and adamantly refuse to see it because they're too busy fantasizing about how awesome it would be to toss his salad. It's embarrassing to watch.

It can't just be a difference of opinion? You don't like it, fine, plenty of people do. Why does it matter? I don't go around telling the millions of people who like American Idol and Dancing with the Stars that their show is shit because I don't care, why do you care so much that you have to come in a thread about a show you don't like and be combative about it?

 

[23skidoo]

That point yes, but not your point overall. Fox has also brought back internet-popular cancelled shows like Family Guy and Futurama (for years, the three Fs seemed to be the main beef people had with the network).

We can't really count Family Guy as SF (yeah they did the Star Wars thing and the occasional fantasy episode ... but so did the Simpsons and it's not considered SF). Futurama? Yes, I'll concede that. However what about Wonderfalls, Terminator, etc.? Futurama isn't the only show that was Internet-popular. It (along with Family Guy) were crumbs - not to mention far-less-expensive crumbs than, say, bringing back Firefly.

The problem with this geek narrative is it assumes a level of wilful neligence that doesn't make a lot of sense. If Firefly was destined to be a monster hit, don't you think Fox would want that to happen and then milk the damn thing dry until Mal Reynolds plush dolls were lolling around spouting pseudo-badass nonsense in every house in America?

Then why did they air it? They SHOULD have done exactly what you said, if they had the confidence in the show. They certainly did with X-Files. (Just a point of disclosure - I hate Firefly with a passion, so I'm not Browncoating here. But I certainly understand with and sympathize with those who felt it was unfairly treated by Fox).

The series didn't do well in the ratings so it got cancelled. It did very well on DVD, and the response from TPTB was fairly immediate: Go and make a movie. The movie didn't do well enough to justify sequels, though.

Making a movie at this early stage was a huge mistake. The cost of the movie could have gone towards producing a mini-series, or a second season for another network (remember TPTB did not include Fox). It was way premature to do a movie, so it surprised no one when the film didn't do as well. I heard a lot of "WTF is Serenity"-style comments when it came out. It was huge in the SF niche fandom, but it hadn't had a chance to go mainstream yet. By comparison, had Futurama gone to film instead of being brought back it probably would have done OK.

Which is to say, Fox didn't maliciously pull the plug. They may have screwed up but in theory they would have wanted the show to be a success. Everywhere Whedon fans were howling that Dollhouse could never survive a single season on Fox, and it seems surviving two and then kicking the bucket is a 'same-difference' appeal for them (but then, if the show isn't too popular, what else should Fox do?)

Well, getting it off Friday and into another time slot for a start. There seems to be this mindset (and not just at Fox, to be fair) that most shows live or die depending on how the dice rolls for their timeslot, and a show is rarely moved away from the hand it has been given. Dollhouse (and Terminator) tanked on Fridays. Who is to say putting DH after Fringe or on Sunday night might not have paid dividends? We don't know because they didn't try.

Also, especially with a show like Dollhouse, Fox and its advertisers need to once again realize that this is 2009 and that the viewership of any show cannot be accurately gauged anymore just based upon the Neilsen ratings for a broadcast. It hasn't been the case for years. Yes, some sort of gauge is needed to make sure sufficient viewers are looking at a production. But with DVDs, downloads (illegal and legal), etc. there's more to take into consideration.

Sucks to be an advertiser, for certain. But the advertising industry has always rolled with the punches, so they'll come up with a workaround, such as more sponsorship of sites like YouTube, Hulu and Fox.com, or maybe there might be a bit more product placement in a show, which I really don't understand why people get worked up over as long as it doesn't interfere with the story. With was only about 40 years ago that scripted series like Bewitched stopped incorporating company logos into their opening credits. (Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JnDF3-Forms)

Is Fox being malicious? No, of course not. There HAVE been strong allegations of "malicious cancellations" made against shows like the original Doctor Who, Enterprise and most recently Southland. But I wouldn't call the cancellation of DH (or Firefly for that matter) malicious.

I do, however, think the decisions are being made based upon outdated business models and need to be brought into the 21st century before the mainstream networks cease to be viable as more viewers and producers turn to alternate media. We've already seen Whedon test those waters with Dr. Horrible and it's generated more mainstream response than anything he's done since Buffy and Angel.

Alex

 

[Lindley]

That's exactly my point.

The man can't admit that it's shitty. Despite what the countless millions who agree (ie, the non-2 or so million viewers who don't continue to watch it). It's a piece of crap show and it's low ratings are OUR fault for not recognizing its brilliance, not HIS fault for creating a shitty story. He's physically and mentally incapable of admitting any fault on his part for shit like this show. Hell, he even tried telling the audience what they were supposed to think about the show and its premise in one of the earlier episodes with the "man on the street" interviews because despite his inability to admit it, some part of him deep down realized just how craptacular it was.

And the little fanboys just sit back and eat it up and adamantly refuse to see it because they're too busy fantasizing about how awesome it would be to toss his salad. It's embarrassing to watch.

Wow, you're far more off the rails about this than any of his "fanboys" could ever hope to be.

Need I remind you about this bit from Angel:

Mrs. Burkle: "Bill just loved those horror movies with the aliens and stuff.... Except for the last one, that put him to sleep."

How does a quote on of his Joss' own shows disparaging another of his projects fit with your conceptions? Self-deprecating humor is one of his staples.

 

[Kegg]

Checkmate, you know, I'm pretty irked by Joss Whedon fandom too, and I think Whedon's said some pretty dobutful things, but I think you're going a trifle overboard.

We can't really count Family Guy as SF (yeah they did the Star Wars thing and the occasional fantasy episode ... but so did the Simpsons and it's not considered SF).

I didn't say it was. I just said it was a series that was popular on the internet. I'm bringing these up because I've been more or less batting about this argument since Firefly was originally cancelled, and those two shows were, at the time, the most popular other examples of Fox axing TV shows. This was way back before Wonderfalls and the Terminator TV show, naturally.

Then why did they air it? They SHOULD have done exactly what you said, if they had the confidence in the show. They certainly did with X-Files. (Just a point of disclosure - I hate Firefly with a passion, so I'm not Browncoating here. But I certainly understand with and sympathize with those who felt it was unfairly treated by Fox).

Equal full disclourse: I dropped Firefly when it first aired but figured it deserved a second chance eventually, so I finally did so earlier this year. I'm going to grudgingly admit I really enjoyed it and thought it was a stellar project, and I do so grudgingly that because I've never really liked Whedon's ouevre and still have a pet irk about Alien: Resurrection in particular.

My understanding is the series was fairly highly touted early on but not subsequently, and the major misstep made was insisting on "The Train Job" as a pilot rather than the original. Still, Firefly looks like a serious investment to me - my understanding is it was a fairly expensive series - so you'd need some serious mismanagement to intentionally sink it.

Making a movie at this early stage was a huge mistake.

Very definitely, but it was certainly a sign of faith in a series based apparently just on its DVD sales... and doesn't quite accord to an image of basic hostility to the project.

I do, however, think the decisions are being made based upon outdated business models and need to be brought into the 21st century before the mainstream networks cease to be viable as more viewers and producers turn to alternate media.

Oh, quite possibly. I understand the 'Fox's market strategy is outmoded and that's the problem' argument a helluva lot better, and it may indeed be the issue.

But Fox's market strategy being flawed isn't the same as it being a shiftless network no sci-fi/fantasy producer should touch with a pointy stick. Christopher made a pretty interesting point about Fox's receptiveness to such shows.

 

[Samurai8472]

Finally, the long-awaited sequel to "Once More With Feeling"!

 

[Lindley]

Making a movie at this early stage was a huge mistake.

Very definitely, but it was certainly a sign of faith in a series based apparently just on its DVD sales... and doesn't quite accord to an image of basic hostility to the project.

Universal made the movie, because Mary Parent was impressed with the show. Fox didn't really do anything except allow them to buy the movie rights.

Fox was only willing to sell the movie rights----they held on to the television rights, making any made-for-TV-movie or miniseries from Universal an impossibility.

 

[IndyJones]

Fox was only willing to sell the movie rights----they held on to the television rights, making any made-for-TV-movie or miniseries from Universal an impossibility.

And I'm sure they made a nice chunk of money from the Firefly DVDs based on Universal's Serenity. Profit with no risk.

For those of us with advanced reading skills, the second line of the second paragraph says they will probably get cancelled because they have low ratings.

Right. And those with a hint of common sense would realize that it means that it's your fault for not watching it and making it popular. Not his fault for creating a shitty show that no one wants to watch. What, being a god amongst men and all.

Wow. Look at you. You're Beverly Crusher in Remember Me. "If there's nothing wrong with me, there must be something wrong with the universe!"

Because there is no one else here who is reading that the way you are. So, either you are on a whole other plane of understanding that we aren't capable of acheiving...Or maybe you're just wrong.

 

[tharpdevenport]

Wow, I love how much in denial he is.

Listen up guys, it's not his fault the show sucks and is doing so poorly! It's the ratings, meaning it's solely your fault! How dare you not acknowledge his brilliance and wonder! The show is perfect and flawless in all ways; it's not his fault the story is ridiculous, the acting is shite, or the concept itself is absolutely asinine. No! It's all your fault! Damn you for not finding a way to pad the ratings!

Spot on.


Three good, strong shows, and then this -- the kind of thing that makes me feel less inclined to give him a chance next new series.

 

[Captain Craig]

That article in the OP is more editorial than it is news.
Joss has stated he was approached and would do it when he could.
The episode he'll direct will not happen until he is done focusing on Dollhouse for the next 5 episodes.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Nope. I'm saying that when the creator and writer of a show says a show is being cancelled because of low ratings, he's saying it's your fault for not watching, not his fault for creating a shitty product.

Your post is arrrant nonsense.

When anyone who is in a position to know says that a show is being cancelled because of low ratings, they are stating a fact - nothing more, and nothing less.

However, to call a show a "shitty product" is to state an opinion and nothing more. To conclude that a show does not find an audience because it is bad or becomes an enormous hit because it is of high quality is to state an opinion, expressing personal preference and nothing more.

 

[Christopher]

For those of us with advanced reading skills, the second line of the second paragraph says they will probably get cancelled because they have low ratings.

And the third line of the second paragraph says "But I kid." Why this haste to assume the worst?

I think you are rather missing the point of the conversation I was having. Try reading it again. I was saying that specific sentence was not accusing people of bringing down his show, as was suggested, but merely innocuously commenting on the ratings.

What you claimed was that Whedon was saying "they will probably get cancelled because they have low ratings." My point is that since he stated that as a joke, your use of the word "probably" is a premature assumption. Maybe that wasn't your primary point, but it was still an assumption that doesn't track with the actual text.

Also, especially with a show like Dollhouse, Fox and its advertisers need to once again realize that this is 2009 and that the viewership of any show cannot be accurately gauged anymore just based upon the Neilsen ratings for a broadcast.

They already have realized that. As I said above, FOX has already committed to showing all 13 episodes of the current season order because of the strong DVR ratings, whereas if they were using Nielsens alone, the show would probably already be gone -- and indeed would probably have never gotten a second season in the first place (the strong DVD sales were a factor in the renewal, I believe).

Is Fox being malicious? No, of course not. There HAVE been strong allegations of "malicious cancellations" made against shows like the original Doctor Who, Enterprise and most recently Southland.

Enterprise? Really? I would've thought that was a clear case of low ratings dooming the show. If anything, it's surprising it even got a fourth season. If there'd been any malice on the network's part, it would've likely been cancelled earlier.

 

[Pingfah]

And the third line of the second paragraph says "But I kid." Why this haste to assume the worst?

I think you are rather missing the point of the conversation I was having. Try reading it again. I was saying that specific sentence was not accusing people of bringing down his show, as was suggested, but merely innocuously commenting on the ratings.

What you claimed was that Whedon was saying "they will probably get cancelled because they have low ratings." My point is that since he stated that as a joke, your use of the word "probably" is a premature assumption. Maybe that wasn't your primary point, but it was still an assumption that doesn't track with the actual text.

Oh I see, you were just picking little bits out of my point to split hairs, and ignore my actual point.

I do apologise. Carry on.

 

[Admiral Buzzkill]

Enterprise? Really? I would've thought that was a clear case of low ratings dooming the show.

Not entirely. The numbers were still working out for both the network and the studio at that time, low as they were. While not "malicious," UPN's decision to eliminate Enterprise had a good deal to do with the fact that the show's demographics fit less and less well with the audience they were pursuing - no matter what they did with Trek it continued to skew older and male. UPN's management thought that they were successfully courting more of the WB audience, and for the first time in years had a tentpole with a future ("America's Next Top Model") to build a schedule around.

 

[Admiral2]

Hey kids and parents of kids and super-old, like ancestor-old-but-not-dead-yet-type people, just poking my oversized head in to say that the rumors are true... unless something very odd happens in the next few months, I will have the privilege of shooting an episode of GLEE. Why GLEE? Because I love cops, serial killers and gritty urban drama (I haven't seen the show yet). Why me? Because they're struggling and can't afford real directors. And to head off a few queries:

No, this doesn't mean Dollhouse definitely won't get a back nine. Our numbers mean that! But I kid. Okay, we're not exactly saving all the good stuff for 14-22, but nobody's closed the door. If D'House suddenly busts wide, huzzah, we'll still bring it, and I'll still go and direct an episode of Glee, because of my love of cops. These realities can co-exist. And possibly cross over, at least in fiction that I have wri - read. About.

What can we expect from a 'Joss Whedon' epsiode of Glee? An episode of Glee. God willin' and the crik don't rise, a good one. A television director's job is, on some level, to be anonymous; to find the most compelling way to present a story without calling attention to himself. I had a wonderful time doing just that on The Office, and hope to again. A guest director can bring a huge amount to the party (we've had CRAZY talent on Dollhouse), but the party isn't his. I just want to work with good people on a show that I like enough to have watched every episode several times. (I lied: I HAVE watched the show. And seriously, when do the cops show up?)

Whom will I kill? When will that go away? Is death really the only thing I'm known for? I'd hope not. You know how many people in the world actually die? ALL OF THEM. You know how many I've killed? Statistically, somewhat fewer. Can't we focus on another element of my work? Having said that, probably Principal Figgins. (No! I kid! God.)

Anyway, I hope that clears things up. I'm going to do my best, and more importantly, I'm going to do my best not to gush like a fanboy for eight straight days on set. Don't worry. I practiced with Bamber. I'm a pro.

Happy Monday. Especially for me. -j.

What a self-important douche. Someone really needs to remind him in big neon letters that his shit really does stink.

 

[Dionysis]

How do you get 'self-important douche' from that article? I don't see it.

 

[Guy Gardener]

He's like Galactus, beyond the rules of good and evil. NASA made him a special environmental suit for whenever he has to leave the Wheedonverse.

 

[Christopher]

How do you get 'self-important douche' from that article? I don't see it.

Yeah... he's basically saying that he intends to be as anonymous as possible when he directs his episode, that it's their show and he's just there to follow their lead, and he's happy to do so because he's a huge fan of their work. Hard to reconcile that with "self-important."