Xander ,'Lessons'
TV, movies, web media--this thread is the home for any Joss projects that don't already have their own threads, such as Dr. Horrible.
That whole briefing the ATF scene was weird to begin with. Way too much nudge nudge wink wink about it if they really didn't want people to pick up that there was something hinky going on. Why not just "we can get someone in, none of your business how"?
Gitmo's an urban legend?
Well, what went on there used to be. Until it turned out to be horrifically true.
Turned out to be? When was there ever any doubt?
...so Joss is saying that the first five episodes didn't deal with as much of the disturbing Echo-as-sexualised-product thing as he'd have liked? Or did I misread that?
Wow, I already half-expect to see Gloria Steinhem joining forces with Alpha to shut the operation down in an upcoming episode. He wanted to hit people with more squick starting out?
Sexuality was a big part of it and certainly the most edgy and titillating part of it, but not in any way the only part of it. . . . I thought of her, more than anything, as a life coach. As the kind of person you absolutely need in your life at a certain moment who will either change you or comfort you or take your life to the level you want it to be. And that could be nice, evil, sexual. It could be any number of things. I think we ended up not going there as much as we would have in the first few episodes because we were still in that dialogue with some of the people at the network.
I could read that as the life coach part isn't what he'd explored enough, but I'm startled that people thought it came right out of the gate with too little sex.
I could read that as the life coach part isn't what he'd explored enough, but I'm startled that people thought it came right out of the gate with too little sex.
I think technically, only the first two epsiodes explicitly referenced Echo as having sex (and in the first it was only a flash and a bit of dialogue). But it's like that both Joss and the interviewer are completely oblivious to the in-your-face-ness of "Eliza is HOT!!!!!" that's been going on. The question itself made me tilt my head in a confused-dog fashion. Joss' answer didn't change that reaction.
I'm confused by this question:
Most of the dolls are there voluntarily, but knowing that at least one isn't, doesn't that continue to make the show uncomfortable?
Do we know that most are there voluntarily? Who isn't?
I seem to remember from some other interview that Joss wanted to get deeper into the ethical questions from the start and that the network wanted "Eliza is hot!" without the ethics.
According to Eliza there was a 'romance script' written very early on - possibly gay romance, I can't remember - and it was tossed out by the network.
Here's a thing:
"Man on the Street" definitely contains elements that were pitched by or developed by people at the network in terms of the motivations of the Dollhouse and the feel of the politics of the thing and the thriller aspect.
To my mind, if FOX edged Whedon to produce a well reviewed, well received episode - all credit to the network for that.
Most of the dolls are there voluntarily, but knowing that at least one isn't, doesn't that continue to make the show uncomfortable?
Do we know that most are there voluntarily? Who isn't?
I was wondering that, too. I don't remember anything other than Computer Guy saying something like "They chose to be here," and Handler Guy asking, "Did they?"
But I don't remember anything about a specific person being there involuntarily.