Cindy is, as usual, me with the Buffy love.

Me four. I'm very excited by the idea of a new Joss show, and I am not going to even worry about the implications of the premise until I see it. I thought the premise of Buffy sounded lame until I finally started watching it 6 years after it began, so I'm obviously not a good judge of these things.

There's a tiny bit of information about the characters:

Beyond Dushku's character, the show will also revolve around the people who run the mysterious "dollhouse" and two other "dolls," a man and woman who are friendly with Echo. Then there's the federal agent who has heard an urban myth about the dolls, and is trying to investigate their existence.

Thanks to Jackal who dug it out.

Random, unrelated story:

I've been watching Six Feet Under during my recovery, and there was a recurring character, Melissa, Brenda's prostitute client/friend. I thought she was very cute and enjoyable as a character, and I was always happy to see her in another episode. After two or three episodes, I noticed the credits, which identified her as Kellie Waymire, who I remembered was in "Safety Canary." And had died. So for the rest of her episodes, I felt a little sadness watching her, seeing what the world had lost.

The end.

I thought Buffy sounded lame before I saw it. I thought Firefly sounded lame before I saw it. I also thought Wonderfalls, and Drive sounded lame before I saw them, and while I didn't think The Inside sounded lame, I did think it sounded very much not for me. And then I saw them. This has caused me to realize that I really don't care much about the premise as long as the writing is really good and the characters have depth, so that we really care about them before they are killed.

My biggest concern is that I don't really like Faith much. On reflection, though, I realize that I do like AtS!Faith, just not BtVS!Faith, so I think it's likely a writing issue instead of an acting one, so I look forward to seeing how the character is written. And I love the name Echo and am intrigued by all the meta already brought out here. Oh, and I thought Ibsen, but only vaguely so.

I think this is going to be a long metaphor of female awakening to awareness of exploitation and awareness of personal power.

The problem with this is that the long metaphor has to start from a depiction of exploitation. And as Burrell says, tone is going to be all important. It will matter how the audience is expected to react to the initial place-setting scenes. Are we supposed to be titillated? Horrified? Empathetic? Is it played for laughs, or sexual appeal, or shock value?

Molly Millions sounds like an apt comparison, but William Gibson is not necessarily a great example of how women should be treated in text. I adore him, he's probably my favorite living writer, but while his women can sometimes be tough and competent, they have a tendency to at least spring from a problematic background. They are either naive children (Kumiko, Chia, and to a certain extent Chevette), former prostitutes (Molly, Mona, Sybil), or sexualized unreachable ideals (Rei Toei, Angie, the woman whose name I can't remember in "The Belonging Kind"). Not too sure where Cayce fits in here, and I haven't read Spook Country yet.

Also, I want to stress that there is going to be conversation that is positive and negative about the show both before its airing and during its (hopefully long and illustrious run) and that is Just Fine. The strongest negative language I've seen here is "dubious" and "qualms" which I find to be a long way from gnashing teeth. I think it's reasonable to be both excited about the show, and to discuss its premise with concern for how the topics will be handled.

I have qualms about how Tim will handle faith in Miracle Man (particularly since he seems to have not yet hired me as Liaison to The World of Conservative Christendom). That doesn't mean I'm not completely looking forward to the show with bated breath. I totally am.

I have qualms about how Joss & Tim will handle exploitation of women in this show, but I am totally looking forward to the show, nonetheless.

Oatmeal and kiwi:

I hadn't connected that, P-C. How sad.

eta: Oops. I'm not used to this thread being so busy, especially this late.

The problem with this is that the long metaphor has to start from a depiction of exploitation.

Are you assuming that the exploitation will be sexual in nature?

I adore him, he's probably my favorite living writer, but while his women can sometimes be tough and competent, they have a tendency to at least spring from a problematic background.

What's the problem with problematic backgrounds? I mean, does he stand out in that?

I hadn't connected that, P-C. How sad.

It was like, "She'll never get another job! She won't be on any new shows!"

Good God, Kevin, you don't waste any time.

Are you assuming that the exploitation will be sexual in nature?

No. But that doesn't cause a difference in my concerns. Women are exploited in lots of ways in today's society, and in some ways, the sexual ones are the least of them.

I mean, does he stand out in that?

No. And lots of his women become really strong characters. I would be happier if more of them weren't previously prostitutes. And by contrast, his men don't seem to have similar problems in their backgrounds, they're just guys who have their profession.

Case - out of work geek, thief, Bobby - aspiring geek, Mick - steampunk era geek, Mallory - paleontologist, Rydell - failed cop, Konrad - he had some trauma in his history, Yamazaki - student of pop culture.

Laney is the closest analog to the topic at hand; he, like Cayce, is afflicted with an ailment that amounts to a career. His history is, next to Molly's, nearest our new show's protagonist's situation. He, an orphan, was exploited and damaged and his resultant talents put at the disposal of people with an agenda other than his own personal good.

There seem to be fewer of his female characters who are just women, living their lives, doing their jobs, than there are male characters doing such.

So I suppose you could say that the background alone does not indicate the tenor of the resulting content. Eliza is certainly capable of rising about problematic material. But again, I think it all depends on tone, and attitude toward the viewer.