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.

Ibsen had Nora, but Valley had...well, more than one doll in the dollhouse.

As the late lamented Vonnegut noted, it had its ups and downs, ups and downs.

I want to be excited about this, but the reality of it being on Fox dampens all my enthusiasm.

Good luck!

quester is me. After Drive I'm afraid of falling in love with another Fox show.

I feel okay about it being on Fox, actually. With a seven episode commitment, I feel like it has a real chance. It will be able to gain momentum and create buzz and gather viewership and be promoted. Not that all those things will happen, and not even that if all those things happen the public will love it and hug it and call it George, but it'll at least get its chance.