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.

Does a seven episode commitment mean they will air all seven episodes?

Does a seven episode commitment mean they will air all seven episodes?

No.

It doesn't mean they won't, either.

Does it mean they will pay to have them all filmed and in the can, or just pay for the scripts?

Not going to worry about it. Even though we try to make it our problem, how many episodes get shown is not under our control There is an old engineering cliché : "No solution, no problem". There will be however many episodes there will be. If there are not as many as we would like, I'm going to count on the scripts of any episodes we don't see being put on-line. And if it becomes a hit series and there are seven seasons , so that this is not needed -- so much the better.