Didn't they say something about a five year (or some fixed term) contract?

That was my impression.

But, given that they're not exactly paragons of ethical-ness (c.f., running the Dollhouse), and if the Actives are mind-wiped, how would the Actives know their 5 years was up? They're relying on the higher-ups to hold to their contract (which isn't legal anyway), and, like I said, the higher-ups aren't big with the ethics, so -- it could theoretically be an infinite "contract."

And *that* is a concept that I find interesting.

I'm with AnthonyDe on the problem of the Actives themselves. They appear to be doped up or something in between "engagements", and if they get a new personality every time, there's no way for the actor & writers to develop a new character. Or for the audience to identify with that character, because there isn't one. They're just these weirdly infantilized blank slates.

In a sense, I found the way the Actives wandered dopily around the Dollhouse more creepifying than anything else in the episode. Like, even when not on duty, they're suppressed. Which means that at no point in their lives do they have any free will. No discipline, no choices, no nothing. That's just deeply disturbing.

Am I wrong that the promo is NOT under the control of the show?

Kristen wrote all the promos for Drive, where the characters are talking about what they're in it for. I'm unsure how common that is.

if they get a new personality every time, there's no way for the actor & writers to develop a new character.

Didn't Echo have a flash of seeing Sierra being wiped while Echo was the negotiator persona? (If that makes any sense, with the excess of gerunds and women in that sentence.)

The whole point is that Echo starts to persist, and that's already begun. That's her arc.

I had my first misgivings when I saw the first spoiler-clip of Echo in the house, devoid of personality. And I think that until she starts developing her own, it's going to be hard to watch and connect to Echo.

I lie, I had my first misgivings when I read that Joss created this role and show so that ED could showcase her diverse talents, which is wrong on so many levels for me. One, that seems like a bad basis for a premise for a show (creating an entire show for an actress that the writer has a crush on?), and two, I never thought and still don't think ED is all that.

That said, I didn't hate the ep, didn't love it, and I'm very divorced from the whole "Joss has set himself up as this savior to womankind and therefore is set to a higher standard". At this point, after months/years of reading the negativity that this "self-set" standard has created, honestly, I just really don't care. Maybe I'm wrong, maybe I'm an embarrassment to my sex, but I just do not give a f*** if Joss is purportedly better than his colleagues at representing feminine issues. I have a major disconnect to what makes a good pro-feminine show, and what makes a good Joss Whedon show, or something to that effect. Screw what he's said in the past or present - do I like the show? Right now I'm meh, but it has nothing to do with what I expect of Joss. I just... I can't jump on board with that. Maybe I'm wrong, but I can't get behind holding the man to some higher standard, even if he's proclaimed himself to be doing so. Maybe I'm jaded and past that? But a lot of the vitriol that I'm seeing is based on meta, and not on the show itself. Even in Equilibrium, the director realized that he couldn't have a watchable film if all the characters were lifeless zombies lacking emotions.

I don't think it is a matter of holding him to a higher standard. For me it is a matter of "meh" on the episode with really skeptical that the arc can be handled well. Because Joss can write well, I'm going to give him a chance. But I don't think I'm going to give him three eps. If the next ep is the same quality as this I won't watch a third. And if I get to a third it had better hook me, because I won't watch a fourth unless one of the first three is really good.

Juliebird, I'm not holding Joss to a higher standard. I'm giving him more benefit of the doubt than I would some random writer I don't know, because I know him and I often like his work. But if this show came out of some other shop? I wouldn't tune in next week.

creating an entire show for an actress that the writer has a crush on?

Where does the crush thing come from? The idea of a writer creating an actor vehicle doesn't seem all that strange to me. I just don't have that high an opinion of Eliza's acting.

I'm with Consuela. The show was okay. Not great, not something I would watch ep 2 of if not for the fact that Whedon is behind it.

I was squicked out a bit at some plot elements, but I watch "Criminal Minds" every week, so some of the themes touched on aren't much different than that show. If we start getting into SVU territory, then I'm out. The thing is, this show makes "The Inside" look like Perry Mason - so I wonder just how dark they are planning to get.

I think Eliza needs to up her acting game though. I feel her skills straining at the weight of this. She barely pulled it off this week. Here's hoping that some of her roles recur, so we can connect to her a bit easier.