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.

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

But what are your thoughts on yaoi?

People who are used to seeing Buffy in a power stance or Zoe with a gun and holster are going to see Echo in a passive role without any agency. Even her name reflects that she doesn't have her own voice.

See, upon hearing the premise I immediately zeroed in on the idea of this character having to piece together who she's going to be from bits and pieces of the roles she's assigned to play, deciding for herself what she wants to keep and what she lets go. That didn't take me to a Real Girl place, it took me to Memento and Frankenstein, or, The Modern Prometheus. The idea of those themes in the hands of Joss, Tim, and Eliza is very exciting.

And as much as it sounds like Echo's going to be discovering the joys of agency (it's like Ibsen! updated!), for me, starting from a baseline of Exploited Female for your central character is problematic.

Didn't Tim start from something that could be described in that general manner with Rebecca's story on The Inside?

But I did like her more on Angel, where she was arguably the sanest person in the room.

During the first season? Really? MAYBE at the end of the second episode, but prior to that she was batshit crazy, IMO.

Yeah, I wouldn't mind taking it to literary, as it's getting less relevant over here. It's something I didn't realize I felt strongly about, just had a general sort of unease, until I started breaking it down.

But yeah, that's kind of what I'm getting at. Case and Rydell, especially, get to be a sort of everyman. A struggling against the odds sort of generally affable character. There aren't any women who are allowed to be just that. Although I forgot about Riviera (how could I forget about Riviera?) who seems to be a deeply fucked up, drug-addicted, not quite prostitutish but definitely sexual manipulator, who is a male character. If all those attributes were on a female character, I'd find them problematic, so maybe it's to Gibson's credit that they're attached to a male?

Although maybe it's tied more to violence? Molly, Konrad, Blackwell...they all have traumatic histories that perhaps Gibson felt was necessary to explain their tendency toward violent careers?

Anyway, to steer this car vaguely back on topic, I'll tell you what I don't want to see on the screen. I don't want to see women portrayed as perpetually helpless, abused, and exploited, particularly for the edification of the viewer. I don't want to see women portrayed as vacant, stupid, or naive continually.

Most importantly, I don't want to see a woman that has to be damaged in order to be allowed to be powerful. That's the problematic recurring theme that I was poking at in Gibson's work. And that's what I don't want to see here.

I'm fine with a problematic background, in and of itself. I'm fine with a slow reawakening to strength and character. I'm even fine with seeing difficult depictions of exploitation. I just don't want to be asked, as the viewer, to enjoy it. I want to be expected to be offended by it.

I am just concerned that, with the loveliness of Eliza playing into the picture here, the early scenes depicting her plight not be played for objectification and gratification.

eta: I trust that Joss & Tim etc. are going to do this well. But I don't think it's unreasonable to be concerned about the themes, as presented in the early descriptions.

Tossing another "doll" story into the mix: Valley of the Dolls. I have to admit, I thought Ibsen first, but very quickly skipped right over to Valley of. Ibsen had Nora, but Valley had...well, more than one doll in the dollhouse.