there are enough mega-rich out there that it would seem logical for one to simply buyout one of the Actives for months if not years at a time.

I guess that depends on how expensive they are. They may be rare enough that only the mega-rich can afford to buy them for even short times.

Hrm...

A pilot is not wholly representative of a series, of course, but see how the first 'client' is portrayed, how he is dressed, the environments he is seen in and so on. I can buy that character is an Internet millionaire (hell, considering some of the character cues, I would even consider it likely) but a billionaire on the level of Gates? Probably not.

But this is off what, 90 seconds of footage that may not survive to broadcast? Who knows. (Well, some people know but that is not the point...)

It finally clicked this afternoon why the premise of the show was so familiar to me - the same thing happened to Molly in Neuromancer.

(The trailer is off YouTube but there are a bazillion copies out there already if you google "Dollhouse trailer." I found one here.)

Right now I can't tell what I think. The line that pings me the hardest is "It's cutting edge science in a house full of hot chicks!" It's one of those classic Jossy "I get a pass on this because I'm a feminist and it's therefore all ironic and shit, right?" lines that tends to make me wince.

And yeah, my take on the "they volunteered" aspect is that when you "volunteer" to have your memory wiped, it doesn't really matter what else it said on the contract at the time. You'd never know the difference. Is it not rape if you agreed to take the roofies?

I'm very happy to see Tahmoh Penikett playing one of the good guys. I don't think I could take evil Helo.

If there is an inherent limit to what any one Active could do, that would mitigate some of the squick

Not really, because it's the mind-wipey that bothers me, regardless of what the Actives are hired to do, or for how long.

"It's cutting edge science in a house full of hot chicks!"

That seemed like something Warren would say. Pretty much a villain. Bugs me big but in the "man do I hate that character now!" sorta way, which I think is pretty intended.

Tim, one of my concerns is that the whole set-up doesn't just read as exploitation, but of rape.

I've seen the phrase "Joss's mind wiped whores" used more than a few times to describe the show.

And I think you can't use rape as a metaphor for anything.

I'm somewhat reminded of the Buffy episode "Seeing Red" and the writing staff being tone deaf to the fact that even though Spike was a well-established murderer and torturer, the sight of him sexually assaulting Buffy obliterated all of the metaphoric aspects of a vampire.

I think there's some cinematic (televisual?) distance from screen death - enough that you can employ it metaphorically - but there isn't that distance from sexual assault.

Also, there's some concern that this is a bit of a blind spot on Joss' feminist resume with bad pings about the Geek Trio mind-controling Warren's ex, and the Buffybot, and the sexbot in Serenity, and even Inara to some degree. He's gone back to that theme several times and it hasn't gotten more illuminating or deconstructed the stereotype. It pings kind of icky.

Still, I'm intrigued by the show and the talent and the writers assembled. I won't be watching it with my litmus paper pressed to the screen. I will almost certainly watch the whole run. But I am afraid of the premise alienating a lot of its potential audience.

Hec, it's pinging me more as sexual abuse of children, rather than rape of an adult. For instance, the Actives have been described -- by Joss -- as being "childlike" when they live in the dollhouse between assignments.

Which is not to say that child sexual abuse is "worse" than rape of an adult, but there's a degree of extra-abhorrence in people who abuse children, given the children's lack of understanding about sexual matters in general.

Wow. I think I will have to stay away from b.org when this airs because my brain just goes nowhere near rape or child abuse even though I am pretty familiar with both.

I can see that, Tep. To me it still comes under sexual assault and exploitation tied up into one undigestible ball. I mean, I think the problem is the same - that the subject can't be used as a metaphor for something else. That it's very bad form to use sexual abuse and/or rape as a metaphor for how Hollywood demeans actresses.

It's related to the notion that you don't use the Holocaust as a metaphor for something else. Certain things are too visceral to be processed in a symbolic fashion.

Wow. I think I will have to stay away from b.org when this airs because my brain just goes nowhere near rape or child abuse even though I am pretty familiar with both.

I haven't prejudged it! I'm willing to meet the show on its own terms. I just think that it's a very large pitfall.