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.

After catching up on the conversation I feel pretty sure that the epiphany that Joss had on his way to the bathroom was "Wouldn't it be cool to sell a show that implies Roger Corman's The Big Dollhouse, but is really Ibsen's The Doll House."

Plus lots of opportunities for Eliza to go all acting class on us. (Which I don't mind since I thought she was excellent as Fuffy.)

Still, like Ple, I think Joss and Tim have some blind spots that worry me a bit. Mostly I worry that there's going to be such a backlash to the premise that it won't get off the ground.

I ended up feeling protective of Sarah Michelle Gellar whether or not she deserves it, because I love Buffy Summers.

Hm. I think in retrospect I like Buffy more because I kind of dig Gellar. So we feel the same way for totally different reasons, which I find strangely satisfying.

Though it's probably an offshoot of this weird protective feeling I had toward Boreanaz after a few years of Angel, like I could make fun of him, but other people should leave him alone. And yes, I am very disturbed by that. Recapping did weird things to my brain.

I liked Faith on Buffy. I thought everyone else behaved incomprehensibly toward her, which probably is what made her so crazy. That's another thing I filed under "It's probably 'cause of the Hellmouth." But I did like her more on Angel, where she was arguably the sanest person in the room.

This has been "Strega's random opinions for the evening."

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.

Liese this is brilliant, and leads to a conversation about cyberpunk character builds - both genders = good, strong characters, but the females seem often very comic-drawn visions, instead of slightly weakened, run-down, fighting back types (esp. Case and Rydell) - you don't see that with Cayce necessarily - she sets her own terms and makes others abide by them. This may seem bound for literary, but if Dollhouse ever springs any razor ware, this is good reference material.

Ok if I bring in another set of dolls? Blade Runner? Just to be a pest.