Joss Whedon's 'Dollhouse'
- Thread starter dfergie
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 269
- Views 23K
Regardless not everyone may like the ending, but at least we aren't left hanging.
This one lost me totally this season. I liked it pretty well before this year, but tried to watch the first two episodes this year and hated them both. Timer and all unwatched episodes got deleted. Not surprised it got canned.
I went back and re-watched Epitaph 1 from the DVD last night. It makes more sense after seeing season 2, and shows that Joss has had a plan all along.
Mostly watched it getting ready for the series finale, Epitaph 2. I gigured that having the first one fresh would help understanding the second one.
Mostly watched it getting ready for the series finale, Epitaph 2. I gigured that having the first one fresh would help understanding the second one.
I plan on watching that episode again as well before the finale airs. I don't have the DVD, so I hope I can find it on the net somewhere.
I think the issue is that in order to maintain a sufficient level of "awesomeness" it was necessary to pack all his best ideas for a few years worth of episodes into just a half-season's worth of episodes. That argues for the series to have been limited run, but that in turn would have not warranted the investment made in the series in the first place. Eyes bigger than stomach syndrome.
With all due respect Bicker, this is BS. Dollhouse ran with a three set production. Adelle's office, Tofur's programming room and the main dollhouse. Everything else was location shots, and often just what was hanging around the Fox lot. The commentary track in Epitaph 1 talks about using the kitchen of the Fox commissary, and about how that episode had to be stolen from the limited budget of the other episodes and worked around their shooting schedule. Where are you getting the info that this was an especially expensive production?
I have seen a fair number of limited series on cable that had equally complex sets but without any serious plot.
I said it wouldn't have warranted the investment made in the series in the first place. Big difference. If it is supposed to be cheap, then cheapness is relative. If you want to see what a cheap limited-run series looks like, check out the first season of Primeval on BBC.
I don't know.....I think it could have been a slower-moving, quality show for a few more seasons a la Lost. I'm not sure if you watch Lost, but 'answers' come very slow, but the show is still entertaining.
Well, clearly, a lot of us were watching while it was indeed "slower-moving", but no where near enough people were.
There's a lot more they could have done with backstories and whatnot with other dolls (which they did to a degree with Sierra, Victor, and Millie) and activities in other houses (which they started to do with Bennet's house). Other former dolls could have resurfaced and then you have a whole parallel universe going on in the attic. These things could've been developed a lot more.
BTW, what ever happened with Alpha? He got away with Paul's mind, but then what?
BTW, what ever happened with Alpha? He got away with Paul's mind, but then what?
Wouldn't that all have been more along the lines of what they actually did do, that garnered so small of an audience? The only thing that really seems to have been able to get a lot of viewers excited about what they're presenting is the intensively condensed, series-arc-laden episodes that they've been presenting in the last few weeks. No question that there are loads of different things they could have done, but none of it sounds like slam-dunk blockbuster hit material.
'Dollhouse': Alpha, Alan Tudyk if you like, on the show's end
http://www.youtube.com/v/XGbRBSEIzI...x4e9e00&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
http://www.youtube.com/v/XGbRBSEIzI...x4e9e00&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1
Watched the video and he says what I said before: FOX kills sci fi shows , especially Josh Whedon shows.
ABC does too. (Someone bumped the Defying Gravity thread this morning -- did you see?)
And so does NBC. (Do you really need me to post a list?)
And don't forget which network canceled Jericho (CBS).
If it was one network, maybe you could blame the network. I suppose we could argue about it being the network, if there were only two. But when it is all four networks? It isn't the networks... it's the viewers.
And so does NBC. (Do you really need me to post a list?)
And don't forget which network canceled Jericho (CBS).
If it was one network, maybe you could blame the network. I suppose we could argue about it being the network, if there were only two. But when it is all four networks? It isn't the networks... it's the viewers.
Sci-fi is a genre , just like westerns , romance , war, etc. Not everyone likes them. So as long as these shows are being shopped on the big 4 nets they will fail. Only niche channels like Cw or cable channels like Syfy are going to be good venues for sci-fi related shows. Battle Star Galactica would of been canceled if it was on one of the big 4 nets too. Instead it was one of the best ratings grabbers that Syfy has ever had.
Not sure what point you are trying to make in this thread. The way the networks set shows up, you need to beat the other shows in your timeslot to be successful. If you are, they will often swap the timeslots around until you aren't. SciFi is a limited market. It will never draw the numbers that a sex and scalpel show like Grey's Anatomy does. However, the viewers are intensely loyal, and the show develops a focused audience that advertisers can target. It is unfortunate that the networks are too lazy to focus on that and instead put on more of the same drek that will attract Proctor and Gamble. That is why a focused cable network is a better fit.
To ensure that the discussion reflect a clear understanding of the reality of business, rather just the casting of reckless aspersions based on unfulfilled personal desires.
Then it doesn't "deserve" a spot on (Big 4) network television, as network television is today, and as such, cancellations are inevitable. If what you claim is true (and I don't doubt it) then the biggest mistakes the networks make in this regard is giving such programming series orders in the first place. And as I indicate below, probably that same logic even applies to cable network, and even an ostensibly sci fi-oriented cable network, because of the reasons I outline below.
Where is your documentary proof of this? If you don't have hardcore numbers, from recognized, independent and reliable sources, then I can only conclude that this is just a reflection of the aforementioned "unfulfilled personal desires". All of us who watch these shows wish what you're saying here was true -- that we (as an audience) are worth servicing. All indications are that that is not the case. Indeed, even if you just look at Syfy itself (and we've had lots of discussions about this already) you can see very clear indications implying that what any one specific "sci fi fan" wants, to satisfy their interest in the genre, is wanted by so few other people that it does not justify servicing -- that only by serving a broader (what some people, in their attempt to foster their own preferences and denigrate that of others, call "watering-down") can such shows have a hope of deserving the money spent producing and distributing the shows.
With respect, this is nothing but self-serving clap-trap. You want to think of them as lazy, because they don't service your personal preferences the way you want them to. They're actually exactly the opposite of how you're trying to characterize them -- they are working very hard to serve their overriding obligations (which, unfortunately, are not to satisfy you, specifically), and most of what you complain about, in this manner, are reflections of them working very hard in that regard, not reflections of laziness whatsoever. That's what I was trying to explain when I said that the problem is with the viewers -- that many viewers hold to such narrow interests that there is no hope of them ever being part of an audience large enough to warrant servicing.
Read the threads on Syfy. You'll see people expressing the same kind of misguided rhetoric as you've expressed here, with regard to the Big 4.
