# Dollhouse 1x02 "Ghost" (OAD 2/13/2009) *Spoilers*



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

(ETA: For the few that did not follow the other Dollhouse pre-air threads, this is in fact episode *2* as the title indicates. Episode 1, the pilot, was thrown out at Joss' request.)

Not sure what to think yet. The most apparent observation for me was that this definitely didn't have quite the same sparkle as any of Joss' previous TV series. It's still early, though, so that's not really a major concern for me.

The opening scene with Echo and the lady who runs the Dollhouse seemed very tacked on, and did not seem to segue very well into the series. I was a bit lost at first until I figured out that was a flashback.

If the goal is to keep the Actives "innocent" while in the Dollhouse, they seriously need to re-evaluate policies - like, maybe, LOCK THE DOOR when you don't want an active walking in on a procedure - and how about not making an entire wall translucent when there's lots of flashy sparkling light that would attract anyone's attention, including the Actives.

This definitely does seem to be a very episodic (i.e. opposite of serial) series, per FOX's request, which is OK, I guess. We'll see how successful they are at developing the season arc within that framework.


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

SP Baleted!!


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

I was amused by the scene where the FBI guys basically sneer at how ridiculous the concept of the show is...


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

EMoMoney said:


> SP Baleted!!


In English this time?


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> In English this time?


Season Pass Deleted!!!


----------



## Gregor (Feb 18, 2002)

I'll give it a couple more eps for plot development.


----------



## Turtleboy (Mar 24, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> In English this time?


Oh Stewardess, I speak Strong Bad.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

EMoMoney said:


> Season Pass Deleted!!!


Now... any further discussion...?


----------



## betts4 (Dec 27, 2005)

I am just about to watch it, but I have a small 'brag'. I was at a Star Trek/Science Fiction Con tonight and they have Alan Tudyk as their guest. He came around to some of the tables and was chatting with us. He told me "man, Joss's new show is starting right now!" I chuckled, and asked if he could pull his iphone out and direct tv program it. (he is in a commercial for them) It was a great moment. His face lit up and he laughed and he is cuter in real life than on screen.


----------



## ruexp67 (Jan 16, 2002)

If they just showed Eliza dance in that white dress for an hour every week, I'd watch. 

I don't really see the value in operating the way they do. Why not go get an ACTUAL hostage negotiator, for example. But it's an interesting concept, and honestly I'd watch Eliza sit read the phonebook. 

It took me a few episodes to get into Firefly, so I will give Dollhouse more episodes before I evaluate it. But so far, I'm in.

Oh, did I mention Eliza looked SMOKIN?


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

It was fun. I'm not sure Eliza Dushku was the person for this role though. She kind of reads through her lines.

Though the good thing about the whole Dollhouse concept is that if someone sparkles more than ED, they can easily switch the focus of the show to another Active. 

It was good to see Amy Acker (as the Dr.). Anyone else get the feeling she was a former Active, judging by scars? I want to see more of her backstory.

They need to reign in the guy who plays the techie who does the treatments. He's way too over the top, IMO. Maybe he'll grow on me.

I'll keep watching. It's better than Knight Rider certainly, but that's faint praise.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> It was good to see Amy Acker (as the Dr.). Anyone else get the feeling she was a former Active, judging by scars? I want to see more of her backstory.


I would think that the Dollhouse hasn't been around all that long if Dushku is "Echo" and the new girl is "Sierra". If they're going alphabetically, then Echo was the fifth girl...or maybe even the fifth active...


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Peter000 said:


> They need to reign in the guy who plays the techie who does the treatments. He's way too over the top, IMO.


My thought exactly and my only complaint. They should have made the character older.


----------



## heyitscory (Apr 6, 2004)

Hmmm... that was kind of lame.

It gets 2 more views, and I'll see if it can change my mind. That gets one more view than Knight Rider did, because it's Joss.

Knight Rider was absolutely unwatchable. Awesome effects, and dialogue that makes me wish I didn't have ears.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

There's always too much exposition early on. I think there's plenty of promise, and I enjoyed it.


----------



## getbak (Oct 8, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> It was good to see Amy Acker (as the Dr.). Anyone else get the feeling she was a former Active, judging by scars? I want to see more of her back story.


I have a feeling she's "Alpha".


----------



## jschuur (Nov 27, 2002)

I enjoyed it. Will keep watching for a while to see it evolve.

What was happening at the end of the episode though? Were those Caroline/Echo's parents? Were we supposed to recognize the guy watching the video?

Obviously that and the 'Alpha' tease were meant as hooks to get us to tune in the next time.

I'm not sure about using 1x02 in the subject. Sure, the original pilot never aired, but will most people understand that or will they think a 1x01 thread is missing?


----------



## lordargent (Nov 12, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> In English this time?


Strongbad reference.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> I would think that the Dollhouse hasn't been around all that long if Dushku is "Echo" and the new girl is "Sierra". If they're going alphabetically, then Echo was the fifth girl...or maybe even the fifth active...


Unless they recycle names when Actives die...


----------



## EMoMoney (Oct 30, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> Now... any further discussion...?


Not really. I just didn't like it at all, and I thought I would keep is short and simple.


----------



## emandbri (Jul 5, 2004)

ruexp67 said:


> If they just showed Eliza dance in that white dress for an hour every week, I'd watch.


I'm not sure that really counts as a dress, I'd say it was a shirt. 

I liked it, I think it has great potential. My husband wasn't as impressed but he'll keep watching it. I do agree with LoadStar that they the bright lights in the room that wasn't locked is pretty dumb.

I liked Amy's hair, I thought it was cute.


----------



## super dave (Oct 1, 2002)

I found it meh, but will watch a few more before I judge it. Our local Fox, Fox29 kept dropping out of HD and giving us a picture no larger than my laptop on my 50" screen, because of breaking news, showing a bunch of police cars at a building. They did this for Terminator and Dollhouse, but went full HD for the commercials. I fell bad a cop was shot, but run a crawl, the local stations feel it is so important to chop up programming for "breaking" news that all routinely crawl over subtitles, drop out of 5.1 sound at the worst times and like last night, make the picture so small I couldn't tell what was really going on.

/rant off.


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

Not a fan of her face, but her legs looked nice.

I have a pet peeve about using asthma as a plot device.

The actual pilot episode must really suck because this episode was lame, weak, and cheesy, and they thought it was better.

There are a lot of interesting things they can do dramatically with mixing and imprinting personalities and memories, that's why I'm giving the show a shot. 

If you can't really wipe a slate clean, then what happens to the actives after they've been imprinted and wiped a few dozen times. I'm guessing that metaphor was a little foreshadowing.


----------



## mrmike (May 2, 2001)

getbak said:


> I have a feeling she's "Alpha".


You don't think the guy in the room full of dead bodies mailing pictures to the Feeb is maybe Alpha? I'm guessing escaped/gone bad Active.

I think the doc has issues with the Actives (Did you see her when Echo tried to touch her face?), but she's staying there because someone needs to. Hopefully we'll learn more of her backstory and motivation.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

ruexp67 said:


> I don't really see the value in operating the way they do. Why not go get an ACTUAL hostage negotiator, for example.


I think because this way they have an endless supply of negotiators without putting "the real thing" at risk.



jschuur said:


> What was happening at the end of the episode though? Were those Caroline/Echo's parents?


Yes. (IMO)



> Were we supposed to recognize the guy watching the video?


No. (IMO)

But I'm thinking he's going to come back later...


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Well, I FFd the tedious and completely unrealistic exposition right after Echo's first wipe, which I'd already seen and cringed at in numerous clips over the last few months.

Without that, the show actually wasn't too bad for a pilot. I'll keep it around for a bit longer.


----------



## anom (Apr 18, 2005)

Robin said:


> I think because this way they have an endless supply of negotiators without putting "the real thing" at risk.


What's the advantage of not putting "the real thing" at risk if you aren't going to use them?

I was a little distracted. Did the rich father know he was getting someone programmed to be a negotiator, or did he think he was getting the real thing?


----------



## jwjody (Dec 7, 2002)

I think Fox messed this up. I would have preferred to see the actual Pilot. The beginning and end didn't make a lot of sense to the overall show.

I'll keep watching. I have faith in Joss. But I wish Fox wouldn't interfere.

Spoiler about upcoming guest:


Spoiler



Felicia Day will be on later in the season



J


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

anom said:


> I was a little distracted. Did the rich father know he was getting someone programmed to be a negotiator, or did he think he was getting the real thing?


He definitely knew he was getting an active.


----------



## cherry ghost (Sep 13, 2005)

Is the original pilot "available" anywhere? Where's Malcontent when I need him?


----------



## Thom (Jun 5, 2000)

Ho-Hum episode.

I think they so fell in love with their set, they ignored the idiocy of putting the mindwipe room where all the dolls could notice it -- and no door locks.

Eliza Dushku is very attractive, but not a good actress. I watched the old Tru Calling show (currently being re-aired) and she wasn't very good there either.

I did like the viewer surprise of other dolls being programmed as a commando/cleanup squad.

- Thom


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

well - i think it has good possibilities but this episode was bogged down by exposition that i think they could have done without...

the techie guy is really bad.
here's hoping that actor finds his footing cos' he absolutely hands down was my least favorite actor and character...

the other thing that surprised me that i don't think anyone has mentioned is that there are also male actives... 
- i just assumed going in that there would only be women...


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

I enjoyed it. And I can see development coming on a lot of areas.

The first season of Buffy hadnt really found it's footing, and the start of firefly but they turned out great.

Is it because of the high expectations people have that they thought the 1st episode would be the best time they've ever had watching tv?


----------



## Fool Me Twice (Jul 6, 2004)

I had no expectations, and so far it's met them.


----------



## GTuck (May 23, 2004)

Meh. I'm sure it's going to get cancelled soon anyway. Why even bother getting involved? It's already banished to Friday nights, that can't be good. Either way, it's going to suck. The show will either get great and be cancelled, or it sucks. It's lose-lose.


----------



## philw1776 (Jan 19, 2002)

Eliza is kinda hot.
Otherwise the show fell below my expectations. Weak premise. WAY over the top techie. I'll try watching again next week...I think.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

anom said:


> What's the advantage of not putting "the real thing" at risk if you aren't going to use them?


I don't understand. If there's one all-star hostage negotiator on the planet, wouldn't it be advantageous to make disposable copies of her so that if something went wrong they could have a new one rather than risk the single person with these skills?

Besides, she was an amalgam of several different experts, so Echo's imprint was better than any one regular person. At least that's the story. The bit about having to preserve the handicaps (asthma, nearsightedness) was OTT, IMO.



> I was a little distracted. Did the rich father know he was getting someone programmed to be a negotiator, or did he think he was getting the real thing?


He knew.



Thom said:


> Eliza Dushku is very attractive, but not a good actress. I watched the old Tru Calling show (currently being re-aired) and she wasn't very good there either.


Glad it's not just me. I've never understood the obsession with her, dating back to the Buffy days. Maybe she's just not my type. 



NJChris said:


> Is it because of the high expectations people have that they thought the 1st episode would be the best time they've ever had watching tv?


Absolutely. I even knew going in that would be a factor and it's still hard not to compare it to say, _The Body_ or _Once More With Feeling_ or some other Joss masterpiece.

There's a lot of crap to get through in the first episode, and I enjoyed it regardless. I'm hoping enough people give it a shot that it sticks around.


----------



## DouglasPHill (Feb 10, 2005)

Nice looking babe, dress could not have been any shorter, but show's a no go.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

Robin said:


> (...) it's still hard not to compare it to say, _The Body_ or _Once More With Feeling_ or some other Joss masterpiece.


Neither of those episodes would have worked as a series premiere...


----------



## moot (Apr 8, 2006)

My gut reaction to the premise of this show was the same thing after I watched the first episode of My Own Worst Enemy... Why? 

So they can imprint another personality onto a person and turn them into someone else. Okay, so what's the point? I don't see how the customer hiring an Active gets any added value over just hiring a plain-old specialist (plus, it'd be cheaper I'm sure). And I don't see how the Actives themselves get anything out of it. Obviously to volunteer for such a thing, you'd either really want to get away from something bad in your past, or you aren't getting the full story when you sign on the dotted line. The whole thing just smelled of "super-powerful secret company does morally-gray thing but gets away with it". 

I'll give it another couple of episodes, because on average I enjoy Whedon's stuff. I was disappointed it didn't have any of the trademark wit of his other work.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

moot said:


> Okay, so what's the point? I don't see how the customer hiring an Active gets any added value over just hiring a plain-old specialist (plus, it'd be cheaper I'm sure).


There are several advantages that I can see.

For one thing, it's a one-stop shot. You need a hostage negotiator? Check. Hot party chick? Check. Aircraft pilot? Check. Expert mountain guide? Check. Acrobat? Check. All from the same place. And there's few worries that the expert will be otherwise engaged.

Secondly, you know that the active's memory will be wiped when it's all over.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

getbak said:


> I have a feeling she's "Alpha".


Nah, that would be Fred!

I realize Joss pulled episode #1 because it didn't come up to his standards. But, I suspect there was a lot of setup in it that left this episode hangin' a bit. Hopefully, they will bring in more backstory that may have been in #1.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

JimSpence said:


> I realize Joss pulled episode #1 because it didn't come up to his standards. But, I suspect there was a lot of setup in it that left this episode hangin' a bit. Hopefully, they will bring in more backstory that may have been in #1.


The network pulled the pilot, but Whedon ended up agreeing with the decision. This episode was specifically written to be the new first episode.

Apparently, the plan now is to have a number of relatively stand-alone episodes before the series arc kicks in.

By the way, Load, this is episode 1x01. That kind of designation is an episode number, not a production code (which would usually but not always be something like 101, 102, etc.), and is shorthand for "Season 1, episode 1." This was the first episode and was intended to be such, so it is 1x01.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> Neither of those episodes would have worked as a series premiere...


Of course not. My point is that it's hard not to compare it to the very best of Joss's work.



moot said:


> So they can imprint another personality onto a person and turn them into someone else. Okay, so what's the point? I don't see how the customer hiring an Active gets any added value over just hiring a plain-old specialist (plus, it'd be cheaper I'm sure).


I just answered that:



Robin said:


> I don't understand. If there's one all-star hostage negotiator on the planet, wouldn't it be advantageous to make disposable copies of her so that if something went wrong they could have a new one rather than risk the single person with these skills?
> 
> Besides, she was an amalgam of several different experts, so Echo's imprint was better than any one regular person. At least that's the story. The bit about having to preserve the handicaps (asthma, nearsightedness) was OTT, IMO.





> And I don't see how the Actives themselves get anything out of it. Obviously to volunteer for such a thing, you'd either really want to get away from something bad in your past, or you aren't getting the full story when you sign on the dotted line.


I thought they made that pretty clear in the opening scene. Well ok, not "clear", but maybe "touched on". Echo was trying to get away from something. IIRC she said she didn't have a choice, though, and I don't get that part.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

GTuck said:


> Meh. I'm sure it's going to get cancelled soon anyway. Why even bother getting involved? It's already banished to Friday nights, that can't be good. Either way, it's going to suck. The show will either get great and be cancelled, or it sucks. It's lose-lose.


I disagree. If it's good, it's worth it to watch. I don't regret watching the few episodes of Firefly that were made.



Thom said:


> Eliza Dushku is very attractive, but not a good actress. I watched the old Tru Calling show (currently being re-aired) and she wasn't very good there either.


I guess I'm not a great judge of acting talent. I thought she was ok. Not great, but not bad either.

Going back to Firefly, I didn't think that Summer Glau, Morena Baccarin, or even Ron Glass did a great job acting, but it didn't diminish my enjoyment of the show.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Ok, I just rewatched on Hulu. Got to help the ratings, you know.  Questions/comments:

What's with her date at the beginning?

Is it the lawyer that's boxing? Why? Is it an analogy for his run-in with the others at his firm, or was he really boxing at some point?

The programming guy is like someone who works with kids and doesn't genuinely like them. Very condescending.

"your only priority is echo"...why? Why isn't the mission the highest priority? Don't they have dozens of actives? Why is one so important?

Who is the guy the lawyer accosts in the bathroom? An active?

"see the blue areas? That's fear." classic Joss.

"I looked her up." Smooth move. Wouldn't you know the full history on all templates? He does say she killed herself a year ago so it's possible they had the full history but didn't stay up to date.

Envelope says Paul Ballard Keep Looking...is that the lawyer?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Robin said:


> Envelope says Paul Ballard Keep Looking...is that the lawyer?


Ballard is Helo, I mean...the FBI agent looking for the Dollhouse.


----------



## minorthr (Nov 24, 2001)

emandbri said:


> I'm not sure that really counts as a dress, I'd say it was a shirt.


That's what I told my wife but she insists its a dress. I didnt like the show at all she loved it. The episode just made no sense almost like it was played out of order which is what fox loves to do.


----------



## Alfer (Aug 7, 2003)

As I was cleaning up the house for the night I flipped channels and recognized that the girl on was the Dollhouse chick so I watched for a few minutes.

From what I saw, I'm not feelin the love at all for this....it was as cheesy and cardboard as I imagined...

I see no way that this can pull in any kind of audience, especially on a Friday.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Robin said:


> What's with her date at the beginning?


Based on nothing but personal interpretation I believe that guy (who's birthday it was) 'hired' her to be Miss Right. Which would explain why he knew that the clock had 'struck 12.'



Robin said:


> Is it the lawyer that's boxing? Why? Is it an analogy for his run-in with the others at his firm, or was he really boxing at some point?


He's an FBI agent, if I'm not mistaken. And yeah, took the boxing session as an analogy (he doesn't know when to back off/give up, in particular).

As for the guy he accosts in the bathroom, that dude is a human trafficker who he thinks is a degree (or two) removed from the trafficking people who supply the Dollhouse.



Robin said:


> "your only priority is echo"...why? Why isn't the mission the highest priority? Don't they have dozens of actives? Why is one so important?


As with all companies/agencies that operate outside the law, they want to make sure their setup - actives, handlers, template - isn't discovered. Perhaps in the case of Echo, it might have something to do with her contract (and/or debt incurred). At least that's how I'm interpreting the opening scene.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

I realize that the typical television viewer today tends to be impatient with plot development, but I thought they tried to cram way too much information in this episode, causing a lot of awkward scenes that did not fit well together.

I think they should have started off with a few episodes of Echo simply doing her various jobs without introducing law enforcement agents after them or philosophical discussions about what they were doing. After people got used to how the Dollhouse worked, then they could start introducing the other aspects of the series.

I thought that's what they were trying to do when they pulled the pilot in favor of the second episode, but if this episode was supposed to be the one with less exposition, then I'd hate to see what the pilot looked like.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> There are several advantages that I can see.
> 
> For one thing, it's a one-stop shot. You need a hostage negotiator? Check. Hot party chick? Check. Aircraft pilot? Check. Expert mountain guide? Check. Acrobat? Check. All from the same place. And there's few worries that the expert will be otherwise engaged.
> 
> Secondly, you know that the active's memory will be wiped when it's all over.


Thirdly, you know exactly what you are getting. Regular specialists carry a lot of extra baggage with them, but Actives can be designed with just the right skill set and attitude for the situation. Why waste time trying to find an escort who has motorcycle skills and is good at pretending she actually likes you when you can instead design someone to have those skills and actually be in to you? Why risk bringing a negotiator who might have reservations about keeping the law out of the situation or not be as discrete as you might want her to be when you can design someone to act differently?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Are we really sure there are "dozens" of actives? I don't think there are very many. There were only 5 of those "sleeping areas" where the ceiling closes on them. If they go alphabetically and the newest one is "Sierra", then there are 19 that have ever existed. We don't know how many are still active... apparently, from the folder at the end, Alpha at least is "a problem".

I understood the "priority" comment; it has to be pretty hard to find people willing to undergo that treatment, and even more difficult to find ones that are good looking (presumably this is a requirement for many of the jobs they're called on to do!) They would have to treat them as incredibly valuable, and more valuable than any single client. And, the handler is an ex-cop. Basically they were saying you're there to protect Echo, not to bring anyone to justice.


----------



## ruexp67 (Jan 16, 2002)

Robin said:


> "your only priority is echo"...why? Why isn't the mission the highest priority? Don't they have dozens of actives? Why is one so important?


Maybe because there were other actives there as tactical support. So the priority for Echo and the handler would be to protect Echo, who was not programmed for tactical. Just a theory.


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

ruexp67 said:


> If they just showed Eliza dance in that white dress for an hour every week, I'd watch.





emandbri said:


> I'm not sure that really counts as a dress, I'd say it was a shirt.


I thought the same thing --not that I'm complaining, mind you 



BitbyBlit said:


> I realize that the typical television viewer today tends to be impatient with plot development, but I thought they tried to cram way too much information in this episode, causing a lot of awkward scenes that did not fit well together.
> 
> I think they should have started off with a few episodes of Echo simply doing her various jobs without introducing law enforcement agents after them or philosophical discussions about what they were doing. After people got used to how the Dollhouse worked, then they could start introducing the other aspects of the series.
> 
> I thought that's what they were trying to do when they pulled the pilot in favor of the second episode, but if this episode was supposed to be the one with less exposition, then I'd hate to see what the pilot looked like.


I kind of agree with this. They could have introduced the FBI guy later. I also wonder what it is about Fox and Joss' pilots that just don't mix...


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

hanumang, nice insights, thanks.



BitbyBlit said:


> Thirdly, you know exactly what you are getting. Regular specialists carry a lot of extra baggage with them, but Actives can be designed with just the right skill set and attitude for the situation.


But actives carry the baggage of their templates. i.e. nearsightedness, asthma, and childhood trauma.



> Why waste time trying to find an escort who has motorcycle skills and is good at pretending she actually likes you when you can instead design someone to have those skills and actually be in to you? Why risk bringing a negotiator who might have reservations about keeping the law out of the situation or not be as discrete as you might want her to be when you can design someone to act differently?


But that's an excellent point.



madscientist said:


> Are we really sure there are "dozens" of actives? I don't think there are very many. There were only 5 of those "sleeping areas" where the ceiling closes on them. If they go alphabetically and the newest one is "Sierra", then there are 19 that have ever existed. We don't know how many are still active... apparently, from the folder at the end, Alpha at least is "a problem".


I was wondering about that too. It seemed like in the exercise scene there were quite a few actives, many of them men. The five sleeping areas didn't seem like nearly enough.


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> The opening scene with Echo and the lady who runs the Dollhouse seemed very tacked on, and did not seem to segue very well into the series. I was a bit lost at first until I figured out that was a flashback.


I agree that they could have done more to highlight the fact that it was a flashback. OTOH, I think the intro bit helped establish that this is _not_ some human-trafficking thing (as the FBI guy thinks), but rather regular people signing their life away to get out of trouble. Honestly, I think it's something that Joss, the male-feminist that he is, felt he needed to establish, even if it weakens the mystery & drama of the initial episode(s).


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

*Viewers Give Warm Welcome To Whedon's Dollhouse*

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2009/02/viewers_give_warm_welcome_to_w.php



> Viewers Give Warm Welcome to Whedon's 'Dollhouse'
> 
> By Josef Adalian
> 
> ...


_Dollhouse_ also placed highly in both the female and male demographics.

http://hollywoodinsider.ew.com/2009/02/dollhouse-attra.html



> In fact, Dollhouse helped Fox double its viewership levels among women versus Chronicles and helped the net finish in second place among adults 18-34 and in first place across key male demos for the night.


----------



## tivogurl (Dec 16, 2004)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> The network pulled the pilot, but Whedon ended up agreeing with the decision.


Only people close to him know the real scoop. He's not going to publicly disagree with Fox, not if he wants to get his show financed and aired.


----------



## tivolovr (Feb 8, 2001)

Clearly I was slow on this ... the first job, the party girl one? That was the assignment?! I was under the initial impression that this had something to do with with crime solving. But if giving one man a great three-night-stand was the job then aren't the girls just brainwashed call girls? 

This doesn't seem to jive with Joss's usual girl-power mojo.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

tivolovr said:


> Clearly I was slow on this ... the first job, the party girl one? That was the assignment?! I was under the initial impression that this had something to do with with crime solving. But if giving one man a great three-night-stand was the job then aren't the girls just brainwashed call girls?


Sometimes, yes. They hire out the actives to anyone who can afford it. My suspician is that most jobs would be along the "perfect woman/man" type lines if something like that actually existed.



tivolovr said:


> This doesn't seem to jive with Joss's usual girl-power mojo.


Not so far, no. But this was just the first episode, too. We did see the asian woman as an ass kicking SWAT type operative.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

Well, after all of the mixed opinions and vitriol that's been thrown this show's way, I was pleasantly surprised. It did try to cram a ton into this first episode, but I chalk that up to FOX wanting this retooled pilot episode.

The only qualm I really had was why wouldn't a billionaire simply hire a hostage negotiator? Yeah, they addressed that but it's still a plot contrivance.

All in all, I'm eager to see where Joss takes us, assuming FOX is patient and allows _Dollhouse_ to find its footing.

And it was really great seeing Amy Acker on television once again.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

tivogurl said:


> Only people close to him know the real scoop. He's not going to publicly disagree with Fox, not if he wants to get his show financed and aired.


True, but he has gone way above and beyond in defense of the change...especially later (he struck me as a lot more pro-forma at the beginning, but then became enthusiastic, which suggests to me that he had a change of heart).


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

tivolovr said:


> I was under the initial impression that this had something to do with with crime solving.


This is *not* a spy show.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> This is *not* a spy show.


It could be a spy show... one week. The next week, it could be a medical show. Or a police show. Or...


----------



## jay_man2 (Sep 15, 2003)

If it weren't for the shirt-dress, I'd have already deleted the SP. But I'll hang in there a while.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

It's passed the "worth watching again" test, but it didn't grab me. Then again, even Firefly had me dubious at first. (If it hadn't been for Mal kicking the goon through the engine, it might not have gotten a second episode.) So I'm trying not to judge.

But for as exposition-heavy as it was, there seemed to me to be way too much padding of stuff that's there for nothing but visceral appeal. The dance calculated to get people drooling, the endless (and pointless) motorcycle chase, even the boxing behind the exposition.

The "they'll forget everything afterward" part seems to be a big part of the answer of "why would anyone pay for this", bigger than people are considering. Now consider Mr. Dream Date in the start. For $1M he could certainly have had a weekend with anyone he liked, but could he have gone into it knowing that she _would_ be entirely sincerely falling in love with him? Dollhouse can arrange that. That said... I don't know if they can find enough other legitimate answers to justify Dollhouse being created in the first place. And the FBI guy's explanation (about "always wanting something more") doesn't ring true at all, but it seemed like it was the writer telling us, not just the FBI guy telling his boss, what the right answer should be.

It was clear to me that Mr. Rich Daddy knew he was getting a doll. But it also seemed like he knew more about the doll than he should have. His questions about her background and why she did the things they did seemed way too lucky at hitting right on the exposition we (and Echo) needed. Maybe that's just a matter of the scriptwriter taking a shortcut.

I wasn't too impressed by Eliza's acting. The techie seemed a little over the top, sure, but unlike most here, I think that was a virtue: he was making up for the flatness in everyone else, being comic relief. Echoes of Marshall from Alias. I hope everyone picks up, though.

The second doll who burst in on the hostage situation pickup at the end didn't look human.


----------



## ahartman (Dec 28, 2001)

Didn't care for the show - it gets one more week before it's wiped clean. Unlike the scientist-dork, I'll get it right.

The biggest hole in this premise - The Dollhouse is the worst kept secret in the world, apparently.

Clients know how to get a hold of the company but the cops don't?!? What is this, the A-Team? At least the A-Team was constantly on the move so they got to fool different local police each week who wouldn't know to talk to other local PDs.

Even worse - all the clients know they're getting Actives? You don't think at some point, someone's going to mention it to a buddy who's not all secret-society about it?


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

tivolovr said:


> Clearly I was slow on this ... the first job, the party girl one? That was the assignment?! I was under the initial impression that this had something to do with with crime solving. But if giving one man a great three-night-stand was the job then aren't the girls just brainwashed call girls?
> 
> This doesn't seem to jive with Joss's usual girl-power mojo.


I expect it to evolve. The premise isn't that what she's doing is necessarily good.


----------



## Cainebj (Nov 11, 2006)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> This was the first episode and was intended to be such, so it is 1x01.


As was noted in a discussion before it aired (and I just double checked...)

TiVo is listing this as EPISODE 102.

which would indicate to me that the pulled pilot is still considered 101.



BitbyBlit said:


> I think they should have started off with a few episodes of Echo simply doing her various jobs without introducing law enforcement agents after them or philosophical discussions about what they were doing. After people got used to how the Dollhouse worked, then they could start introducing the other aspects of the series.


+1
I think it would have worked better with no explanation and then leaving us to figure it out as it went along...


----------



## Sromkie (Aug 15, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> As was noted in a discussion before it aired (and I just double checked...)
> 
> TiVo is listing this as EPISODE 102.
> 
> ...


Except the two of you are talking about two different things. You are referring to a production number (the order episodes were produced) and Rob is referring to the airing order (which is how show topics are typically listed to avoid the confusing complications of out-of-order airings).

It's not too uncommon for a network to air a show out of production order. If thread titles were based on production numbers, it would be a lot more confusing for people. Check TV.com --> http://www.tv.com/dollhouse/ghost/episode/1190127/summary.html?tag=ep_guide;ep_title;1

They consider it episode 1x01, as well.


----------



## ClutchBrake (Sep 5, 2001)

I've loved everything Joss has done, and own the DVD sets, but thought this was ATROCIOUS. I'll keep watching, but I'm not hopeful.

I think a big part of the problem is Eliza Dushku. She is great to look at, but really, she's a mediocre actress. She's better in guest spots when you don't have to deal with her wooden acting week after week. Her only performance I was really able to accept was Tru Calling.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Sromkie said:


> Except the two of you are talking about two different things. You are referring to a production number (the order episodes were produced) and Rob is referring to the airing order (which is how show topics are typically listed to avoid the confusing complications of out-of-order airings).
> 
> It's not too uncommon for a network to air a show out of production order. If thread titles were based on production numbers, it would be a lot more confusing for people. Check TV.com --> http://www.tv.com/dollhouse/ghost/episode/1190127/summary.html?tag=ep_guide;ep_title;1
> 
> They consider it episode 1x01, as well.


The reason I listed production number, not episode air order number, is because production order does matter, particularly if there is any sort of serial aspect to the show.

While they may work on (and possibly even complete) shows in all sorts of orders, the production number on a serial show gives an indication as to what order the episodes should be aired in, so as to ensure the season arc develops at the right pace, and details are revealed in the right order.

I added the disclaimer to the first post that explained the number I posted in the topic. If one chooses not to read the first post in a thread, that would tend to add to the confusion, not just in this thread, but _any_ thread.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

Amnesia said:


> Neither of those episodes would have worked as a series premiere...


The Body was the first episode of BTVS I ever watched, and it hooked me completely. Once I saw that I made it a priority to go back and watch the entire show from the beginning.



tivolovr said:


> Clearly I was slow on this ... the first job, the party girl one? That was the assignment?! I was under the initial impression that this had something to do with with crime solving. But if giving one man a great three-night-stand was the job then aren't the girls just brainwashed call girls?


Yes, exactly - this is why I complained about the premise of the show a few weeks ago. If the company isn't trying to save the world and instead is just out to make money then all the Actives will essentially just be expensive prostitutes.



Hunter Green said:


> It was clear to me that Mr. Rich Daddy knew he was getting a doll. But it also seemed like he knew more about the doll than he should have.


Yes, exactly. If the clients know what's going on then the secret wouldn't last very long.

I found this episode to be slightly boring, but adequate. I'll give it a few more eps to see if it improves, but that's it.


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

Mars Rocket said:


> Yes, exactly - this is why I complained about the premise of the show a few weeks ago. If the company isn't trying to save the world and instead is just out to make money then all the Actives will essentially just be expensive prostitutes.


I think that's exactly right. In fact I was listening to an interview on NPR with Whedon and they discussed exactly this point: apparently he was visiting the offices of a feminist organization (I forget which one) and he decided to pitch them the plot while he was there, because he knew it would be very controversial and wanted to gauge the reaction.

So, I think that he'll definitely be dealing with this aspect. I don't think we're supposed to be cheering for the people who created/run the Dollhouse.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

madscientist said:


> apparently he was visiting the offices of a feminist organization (I forget which one)


Probably "Equality Now," as that is Joss' preferred charity. All of the proceeds from the Serenity charity showings go to support Equality Now.


----------



## MirclMax (Jul 12, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> While they may work on (and possibly even complete) shows in all sorts of orders, the production number on a serial show gives an indication as to what order the episodes should be aired in, so as to ensure the season arc develops at the right pace, and details are revealed in the right order.


This is just not true all the time. Sometimes shows will produce an episode out of its intended viewing order (story arc-wise) for numerous reasons .. say to accommodate for an actor's schedule, availability of a shooting location/stage .. or that particular episode might need a longer post-production time for special effects .. any number of reasons ..

EVERY episode guide will list this as Season 1 Episode 1 .. Its common abbreviation on the Internet .. (particularly for all torrent sites) will be 1x01 (or 1.01 or S01E01)

If the OP has a thing for production numbers .. that's great.. but production numbers are not listed as Season# by Episode# .. they are generally just a number .. In this case it is likely to have been 102 (I don't still have the recording to check the info on it) .. But I see the next one is 104 so that seems to be the pattern they are using.

I'm just saying, focus on whatever info you want to .. but it would be less confusing if you presented it as a production number rather than in a method that is commonly used for listing them as they aired.

Or in short. Call it 1x01 or call it "102" if you insist .. but not 1x02 .. that's next week's episode.

Just my thoughts.. ultimately ... to each his own..

I'm looking forward to the next episode!


----------



## dtivouser (Feb 10, 2004)

Am I right that Echo's job in the beginning of this episode is that of "prostitute"? That sort of tarnishes the Dollhouse's motivations.

Dark Angel vibe, anyone?


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

dtivouser said:


> Am I right that Echo's job in the beginning of this episode is that of "prostitute"? That sort of tarnishes the Dollhouse's motivations.


"Prostitute" seems harsh. "Escort" would be closer, because the emphasis didn't seem to be on a sexual relationship - the client here seemed to want the experience of a perfect birthday weekend, including having the perfect girlfriend.



> Dark Angel vibe, anyone?


A bit, particularly with that particular engagement.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

dtivouser said:


> Am I right that Echo's job in the beginning of this episode is that of "prostitute"? That sort of tarnishes the Dollhouse's motivations.


Who ever said the Dollhouse is there to serve as a force of good?


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

MirclMax said:


> This is just not true all the time. Sometimes shows will produce an episode out of its intended viewing order (story arc-wise) for numerous reasons .. say to accommodate for an actor's schedule, availability of a shooting location/stage .. or that particular episode might need a longer post-production time for special effects .. any number of reasons ..
> 
> EVERY episode guide will list this as Season 1 Episode 1 .. Its common abbreviation on the Internet .. (particularly for all torrent sites) will be 1x01 (or 1.01 or S01E01)
> 
> ...


I agree. I also found '1x02' confusing, and will find it more so if we find that production order doesn't match with episode aired order. I know that Fox has committed to airing these episodes in order, so I don't know what titling these with production numbers gets us.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Mars Rocket said:


> Yes, exactly - this is why I complained about the premise of the show a few weeks ago. If the company isn't trying to save the world and instead is just out to make money then all the Actives will essentially just be expensive prostitutes.


My guess is that you could get the best call girl in the world for (considerably?) less money than it would take to hire an Active. When you hire an Active, you are looking for more than just the facade of a relationship that you would get from a call girl (escort, prostitute, "companion," whatever). Instead, you are looking for the unique opportunity to get a custom tailored person for your specific need.

In this week's specific instance, the guy was looking for not just any old hostage negotiator - he was looking for someone with a specific expertise in child abductions, and one that would be virtually guaranteed to recover the child without any involvement from any sort of law enforcement or investigative body. The client apparently felt that it would be difficult or impossible to find someone matching that description on such an immediate basis.

As for the first engagement shown in this episode - the guy didn't want a prostitute, he wanted a girlfriend, one that shared his interest and proficiency in racing motorcycles, and also had a personality programmed to so specifically match his that it would be immediately believable to everyone, even him, that it was a real relationship.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> My guess is that you could get the best call girl in the world for (considerably?) less money than it would take to hire an Active. When you hire an Active, you are looking for more than just the facade of a relationship that you would get from a call girl (escort, prostitute, "companion," whatever). Instead, you are looking for the unique opportunity to get a custom tailored person for your specific need.


That's just semantics. He was paying for female companionship that included sex. Call it whatever you want, but in the end it is what it is.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

LoadStar said:


> The reason I listed production number, not episode air order number, is because production order does matter, particularly if there is any sort of serial aspect to the show.


Except, as others have pointed out, in the thread title you didn't give the production number (102, apparently), you gave the (wrong) episode number (1x02, instead of 1x01).

They're two entirely different numbers. Look in a Babylon 5 episode guide, e.g., for plenty of examples of how a production number and an episode number can mismatch.

The problem is when you use the wrong episode number in the thread title, people will be confused, perhaps to the point of not opening the thread because they haven't seen the real 1x02 yet.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Cainebj said:


> the techie guy is really bad.
> here's hoping that actor finds his footing cos' he absolutely hands down was my least favorite actor and character...


Yeah.... since we know Joss doesn't mind casting from his "Joss Wheedon Repertory Company" (Amy Acker and Eliza, so far...) he should have cast Jonathan Woodward in that role. I can totally see that working.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Robin said:


> But actives carry the baggage of their templates. i.e. nearsightedness, asthma, and childhood trauma.


The nearsightedness and asthma weren't baggage, they were deliberately introduced imperfections that the Tech guy said were necessary to facilitate the extraordinary abilities in other areas. Apparently there needs to be some kind of balance.

The childhood trauma on the other hand was actual baggage, but baggage that they didn't initially notice otherwise they wouldn't have included it in the composite. So basically, that was a bug, not a feature.


----------



## tai-pan (Feb 9, 2006)

Fool Me Twice said:


> Not a fan of her face, but her legs looked nice.
> 
> I have a pet peeve about using asthma as a plot device.
> 
> ...


I'm thinking they save the active's original and then put it back after their contracted 5 years is up.


----------



## jafa (Jan 27, 2002)

Good show - got me watching - now a must-watch for next week!

Actions have consequences.
...
What if they didn't?


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

tai-pan said:


> I'm thinking they save the active's original and then put it back after their contracted 5 years is up.


I don't think they do. Or at least, not necessarily. It seemed like Echo was signing up to get away from something so why would she want to come back to it five years later?


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Speaking of vibes. Anyone get a Pretender vibe from this?

Let's just hope that Fox doesn't get in the way like they did with Angel.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Mars Rocket said:


> That's just semantics. He was paying for female companionship that included sex. Call it whatever you want, but in the end it is what it is.


Absolutely....the flashback was clear evidence of that.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

Angel was not made by Fox. It was on the now CW here.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

NJChris said:


> Angel was not made by Fox. It was on the now CW here.


Angel WAS produced by 20th Century Fox. It was aired on The WB. 20th Century Fox also produced Buffy and Firefly.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Mars Rocket said:


> That's just semantics. He was paying for female companionship that included sex. Call it whatever you want, but in the end it is what it is.


No, all the rest was part of his fantasy. Good luck finding just any hooker that can be the girl he wanted.


----------



## Fl_Gulfer (May 27, 2005)

We liked the show at our house. Even though Eliza Dushku is one of the worst actors on the planet. They should have got Summer Glau to play the part.


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

Fl_Gulfer said:


> We liked the show at our house. Even though Eliza Dushku is one of the worst actors on the planet. They should have got Summer Glau to play the part.


Problem with that is, a) Summer Glau is at least temporarily occupied, and b) this is part of Dushku's development deal with Fox. It's not like they put together this show and then cast Dushku...this show was built, from the ground up, as a star-vehicle for her. She's also got a producer credit as part of the package. Good luck telling her that you don't think that she's the right choice for the show that was custom built for her.


----------



## rrrobinsonjr (Nov 26, 2004)

Dushku is a horrible actress. She kind of just poses.

The show is pretty boring.


----------



## BeanMeScot (Apr 17, 2002)

I agree with those saying this should be 1x01. I wondered if I had missed something. Particuarly since the show wasn't called "Pilot" as many first shows are.

I have never thought Elisha was a good actress. I couldn't stand her in Buffy although I did enjoy Tru Calling. She is very wooden and it is surprising they would build a show about someone who is someone different every week with an actress that can't act. I will continue to watch though, at least a few weeks.


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

Finally watched it. I think Joss slipped up badly on this one. It's completely ludicrous.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Not enough Joss. Where's the snappy dialog?


----------



## Lori (Feb 20, 2000)

You guys all need to go back and watch the first few eps of Buffy--as I have this weekend. They, too, are pretty ridiculous, and not much with the snappy dialogue. Unless you consider "What's the sitch..." to be snappy dialogue. It took him some time to find those characters' voices...and I am going to give him time here.


----------



## scottykempf (Dec 1, 2004)

Did anyone see the intros by Summer Glau and Eliza Dushku before and during Terminator and Dollhouse? Man, both of them came off really flat.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

scottykempf said:


> Did anyone see the intros by Summer Glau and Eliza Dushku before and during Terminator and Dollhouse? Man, both of them came off really flat.


Saw them, and I agree they were bad - but I was not surprised. Those promo inserts are always awkward, stilted, relatively useless segments, no matter who they have in them.

They're a lot like award shows, with two or three celebrities with absolutely nothing in common, randomly selected to read a horribly written introduction before giving out the awards.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Was there a point to having sunken coffin-like holes with light-filtering glass panels on top, and putting them in a ridiculous OSX-like progress indicator pattern, or wasting a whole room for that? I won't even get into the plot or setup -- because there basically wasn't anything worthy of discussion -- the whole thing just came off really stupid.

I'll give it 5 or 6 episodes to do something to show there's some actual interesting development taking place... or else get the kid doing the mind-programming to take off his shirt regularly. Because right now I see absolutely no chance this is going to become an interesting series; lame concept -- at the very least give us a good reason for this device, because so far every reason I can think of was blatantly negated as a possibility in this episode.

Joss totally failed to do anything that might possibly capture the attention of an audience. The show is dead. If you can't grab viewers somehow, some way, at least a little, from the first episode, it has zero chance of lasting on FOX.


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

hefe said:


> Who ever said the Dollhouse is there to serve as a force of good?


Agreed.

Not sure where all these Whedonites are getting that idea from. Was it mentioned in an interview or something?


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Where's the snappy dialog?


Who cares about snappy dialogue. I'd rather have a fatherly type in the lead.

You know, like Edward James Olmos.


----------



## FilmCritic3000 (Oct 29, 2004)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Not enough Joss. Where's the snappy dialog?





dswallow said:


> Joss totally failed to do anything that might possibly capture the attention of an audience. The show is dead. If you can't grab viewers somehow, some way, at least a little, from the first episode, it has zero chance of lasting on FOX.


To this I say, give it a chance. What we've seen so far is the network-mandated first episode. Give Joss some time to let the series find its footing (assuming FOX does that as well); as others have stated, the first season of _Buffy The Vampire Slayer_ was certainly a work in progress in terms of character definition and fine-tuning.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

hefe said:


> Who ever said the Dollhouse is there to serve as a force of good?





hanumang said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Not sure where all these Whedonites are getting that idea from. Was it mentioned in an interview or something?


Well, the former cop now working for Dollhouse did say to the British woman in charge, "you like to tell yourself that what we do helps people".

Something that "helps people" could be interpreted as being a "force of good".

That said, though, I myself have no doubt we'll see Echo in some 'shady' engagements... bank heists.


----------



## cheesesteak (Jul 24, 2003)

The first episode wasn't too bad. I'm willing to give the first season a chance to build to its payoff. Eliza Dushku isn't anywhere near as bad an actress as some posters make her out to be.

The head tech guy was way over the top. The Dollhouse headquarters set was ridiculous. I'm also tired of evil female CEO types and their hoity-toity accents and speech patterns.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

FilmCritic3000 said:


> What we've seen so far is the network-mandated first episode.


I thought Joss pulled the first episode.


----------



## scottykempf (Dec 1, 2004)

cheesesteak said:


> The first episode wasn't too bad. I'm willing to give the first season a chance to build to its payoff. Eliza Dushku isn't anywhere near as bad an actress as some posters make her out to be.
> 
> The head tech guy was way over the top. The Dollhouse headquarters set was ridiculous. I'm also tired of evil female CEO types and their hoity-toity accents and speech patterns.


Just hope that she can't turn her arms into blade weapons. (Sarah Conner Chronicles)


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I thought Joss pulled the first episode.


He did... but I definitely got the impression from watching this episode that this was "The Train Job" (i.e. _Firefly_) all over again. That is to say, an episode requested by FOX, one that not only had to be a fairly "normal" episode, but also had to serve the secondary purpose of introducing the world and all the characters, all at the same time.

The difference between this episode and "The Train Job" was that there, Joss and crew went back and (very quickly) wrote a unique episode that served that purpose. Here, it seemed that they took what may have been a mostly complete episode, and had to hack in those introductory expository scenes. I don't have any information that is for certain what happened, but it definitely didn't have a good "flow" to it.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

IndyJones1023 said:


> I thought Joss pulled the first episode.


My understanding is that the network said it wasn't going to work as-is, and Joss then shut down production to retool the show. His initial comments were kind of bland, but he later became more enthusiastic, which tells me it might have took a while for him to come around to the network's way of thinking, but eventually he did.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

for the people that watched my own worst enemy, do you think this was better or worse? I like to watch shows 'within the context' of themselves. Maybe i missed the explanation but making someone up with asthma and child abuse just seems to hinder, not help, the mission. They clearly demonstrated that in the show. Fine if she had it before but introducing it was stupid. And why are they sleeping without covers? that sliding glass ceiling cant be very comforting.

also it seems she needs 'treatment' at inopportune times as well



JimSpence said:


> Speaking of vibes. Anyone get a Pretender vibe from this?


yes and i think they'd do better to mimic the pretender because he was more believable



scottykempf said:


> Did anyone see the intros by Summer Glau and Eliza Dushku before and during Terminator and Dollhouse? Man, both of them came off really flat.


well they were reading a script..problem is they showed it


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

My Fox channel spidy senses is tingling.
Things better start developing real fast or DH will not last 6 episodes.
Remember this is Fox we are talking about.


----------



## BobB (Aug 26, 2002)

Robin said:


> I thought they made that pretty clear in the opening scene. Well ok, not "clear", but maybe "touched on". Echo was trying to get away from something. IIRC she said she didn't have a choice, though, and I don't get that part.


It seemed pretty clear to me that she had committed a crime (with, it was implied, altruistic motives - maybe some kind of eco-protest that ended up getting someone killed) and that this was offered to her as an alternative to prison, or maybe even a death sentence, in such a way that she felt she had no choice but to do it.

As for that scene being a flashback - it took me all of about two seconds to pick up on that, I don't think they were being obscure at all. It was clear from the dialog that we were seeing the "real" person there, before she entered the Dollhouse.

Overall I liked it enough to stick around, especially knowing that this is a Whedon project.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

Robin said:


> But actives carry the baggage of their templates. i.e. nearsightedness, asthma, and childhood trauma.


By "baggage" I was thinking of everything else that might currently be going on in the person's life, which might include family problems, various addictions, or anything else that might distract the specialist from the task at hand.

Not all flaws are bad, however. Sometimes in overcoming certain weaknesses, we gain new strengths. Who we are is determined not just by what we can do, but also by what we can't.

Although I admittedly can't think of how nearsightedness and asthma contributed to Echo's negotiating skills (perhaps they affected her personality in some way which ultimately contributed to her attitude when dealing with negotiations), the childhood trauma served as a key driving force in who Echo was.

Of course, being debilitated by running into someone who had kidnapped one of the people whose personality was in use was not helpful, but therein lies a flaw in the Dollhouse operation, one of many I'm sure we will see in upcoming episodes.


----------



## ehusen (Jan 7, 2002)

Ehhh, I liked "My Own Worst Enemy" far better and was bummed when it got the axe. I think Christian Slater is a far better actor than Eliza Dushku. And CS only had to handle 2 personalities. ED is going to be a different person every week? I just don't think she's got the acting chops to do this.

And yes, the "leave the door to the treatment room unlocked, translucent, and not soundproofed"? Come on, that's venturing into what I call "the stupid people plot". You know, the one where people have to be pretty much willfully stupid to make the plot move? (I think I heard that from Roger Ebert or some such). And what's the point to the bed chambers? Okay, so maybe they pipe gas into them or something. I can let that one go.

I'll give it a few more episodes. I'm sure it will probably be canceled with me still trying to decide whether I liked it or not..


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

The stupid thing about _My Own Worst Enemy_, though, was that the entire covert program was unnecessary. They took operatives and for no apparent reason, gave them normal lives. Why? Slater's asskicking personality had an apartment, car, an entire life. Why inconvenience it with a family?

Now, if they took normal people and gave them spy personalities (for some convoluted reason), then the show would have made sense.


----------



## sburnside1 (Jan 28, 2009)

I will give it a few more weeks to warm up.

Half of what makes Joss shows good are the characters. We havent seen enough to know them yet.

I believe Alpha was the guy that had killed Echos parents. Amy Acker probably was scarred from his escape from the dollhouse. There will be a story tie between him and Echo since they specifically mentioned he did not hurt Echo while he was escaping.

I think the DH will not really be a good or evil force. Kind of a Grey area. The FBI guy (helo) will be the good force. Alpha will be the evil force. (similar to a Sylar)

Did anyone else notice that the guy Helo was boxing was Toa from American Gladiators? It looked like him anyhow.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

BobB said:


> It seemed pretty clear to me that she had committed a crime (with, it was implied, altruistic motives - maybe some kind of eco-protest that ended up getting someone killed) and that this was offered to her as an alternative to prison, or maybe even a death sentence, in such a way that she felt she had no choice but to do it.


This, plus the fact that they had her sign a contract, makes me think this is some sort of Black Ops project, or at least an operation with connections to people in high authority.

That would also explain how they could stay hidden in plain sight. If you have enough top authority figures looking the other way or even actively helping you, you don't need to worry about anybody ratting you out.

Well, at least not until some goody two-shoes agent starts poking his head where it doesn't belong, causing trouble for everyone.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

IndyJones1023 said:


> The stupid thing about _My Own Worst Enemy_, though, was that the entire covert program was unnecessary. They took operatives and for no apparent reason, gave them normal lives. Why? Slater's asskicking personality had an apartment, car, an entire life. Why inconvenience it with a family?


It gave him a plausible undercover identity without the real him having to be bogged down with that life. Paperwork can be faked, but relationships need to be developed over time. Henry's friends and family helped to "prove" that he was really Henry, thus making it less likely that anyone would suspect he wasn't, at least not all of the time.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

jones07 said:


> My Fox channel spidy senses is tingling.
> Things better start developing real fast or DH will not last 6 episodes.
> Remember this is Fox we are talking about.


Well, they have committed to airing all 13 episodes. Past that point... my magic 8 ball is broken, but even I can probably predict that one.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

newsposter said:


> for the people that watched my own worst enemy, do you think this was better or worse?


No comparison is possible, IMHO - they're almost ENTIRELY different shows.

Asking me to compare this to MOWE would be like asking me to compare "ER" to "Scrubs" - yes, they're both medical shows, but they are such different shows that any comparison would be pointless.


----------



## BobB (Aug 26, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> Although I admittedly can't think of how nearsightedness and asthma contributed to Echo's negotiating skills (perhaps they affected her personality in some way which ultimately contributed to her attitude when dealing with negotiations), the childhood trauma served as a key driving force in who Echo was.


I don't think we were supposed to assume that they contributed to her negotiating skills, just that they were inseparable from them. You want this particular negotiator's skills, you have to put up with her asthma.

One thing I'd really like to know that has not been addressed is, where did they get this library of skilled personalities? Presumably they'll have some of whatever it is anyone might conceivably ask them for sitting on the shelf ready to be implanted.

I know, too nit-picky, and they already spent way too much of the first episode on exposition, but I'd still like an explanation. Maybe in an upcoming episode...


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

BitbyBlit said:


> It gave him a plausible undercover identity without the real him having to be bogged down with that life. Paperwork can be faked, but relationships need to be developed over time. Henry's friends and family helped to "prove" that he was really Henry, thus making it less likely that anyone would suspect he wasn't, at least not all of the time.


But he didn't even need an undercover identity to begin with.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

Dushku played the brain-dead doll after a mind wipe really well. She's a natural at that.

I liked it more than most in this thread. It wasn't great or anything, but I was expecting it to be really terrible based on reviews. It definitely needs more Whedonian dialogue. It felt like an amalgam of The Island, Charlie's Angels, and Mission: Impossible to me. Except The Island actually made more sense to me than this weird HQ they have.


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

IndyJones1023 said:


> But he didn't even need an undercover identity to begin with.


I thought they addressed that in the show. He needed a normal life to "switch to" when not in missions for his own mental health and in case of capture... something like that??


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

BobB said:


> I don't think we were supposed to assume that they contributed to her negotiating skills, just that they were inseparable from them. You want this particular negotiator's skills, you have to put up with her asthma.


It goes back to the "nature vs. nurture" debate. In this show, it's clear that it isn't either/or - it's both. It's the sum of your experiences AND how you deal with your circumstances (such as your nearsightedness or your asthma) that make you into a particular person.


----------



## jones07 (Jan 30, 2001)

LoadStar said:


> Well, they have committed to airing all 13 episodes. Past that point... my magic 8 ball is broken, but even I can probably predict that one.


Well if they are legally committed to airing them, I'm sure the dog days of august in the middle of the week will fulfill that commitment.


----------



## Jeeters (Feb 25, 2003)

BobB said:


> One thing I'd really like to know that has not been addressed is, where did they get this library of skilled personalities? Presumably they'll have some of whatever it is anyone might conceivably ask them for sitting on the shelf ready to be implanted.
> 
> I know, too nit-picky, and they already spent way too much of the first episode on exposition, but I'd still like an explanation. Maybe in an upcoming episode...


Not too nitpicky at all; I wondered the same thing. I've read that the show is supposed to get deeper into its mythology around the half way point of the season. I presume that where the personalities come from, more details on how the Actives are recruited, etc. are all part of the mythology.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

jones07 said:


> Well if they are legally committed to airing them, I'm sure the dog days of august in the middle of the week will fulfill that commitment.


Legally? No... it's just that they have said that they would "let the 13 episodes play out" and see what happens.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> Legally? No... it's just that they have said that they would "let the 13 episodes play out" and see what happens.


Don't forget this is FOX we are talking about so anything can happen.


----------



## BitbyBlit (Aug 25, 2001)

TAsunder said:


> I thought they addressed that in the show. He needed a normal life to "switch to" when not in missions for his own mental health and in case of capture... something like that??


Not just mental, but also physical health. When not on missions, he can't just sit around in his apartment all day. But at the same time, he doesn't want to start developing a life that might interfere with his job. Having the undercover identity allows his body to stay active while his mind goes on vacation.

Also, people might start to suspect something is up when they see a guy who keeps to himself walk into a highly secured building every day for work. On the other hand, a seemingly public office where people can walk in and see the guy working at a desk amongst a bunch of other people would not seem out of the ordinary. But working a mundane job to keep his cover would get very tedious for Edward. I'm thinking Sarah from _Chuck_ is probably tired of serving ice cream and hot dogs all day.


----------



## Hunter Green (Feb 22, 2002)

LoadStar said:


> He did... but I definitely got the impression from watching this episode that this was "The Bank Job" (i.e. _Firefly_) all over again.


*Train* Job, not Bank Job.


----------



## Mr. Soze (Nov 2, 2002)

Expections not met. Luckily there are no SP conflicts for Dollhouse, so for now it can stay.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

Hunter Green said:


> *Train* Job, not Bank Job.


D'oh... serves me right for trying to post while working on other stuff. Corrected.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Lori said:


> Problem with that is, a) Summer Glau is at least temporarily occupied, and b) this is part of Dushku's development deal with Fox. It's not like they put together this show and then cast Dushku...this show was built, from the ground up, as a star-vehicle for her. She's also got a producer credit as part of the package. Good luck telling her that you don't think that she's the right choice for the show that was custom built for her.


In fact, to expand on that, I'm pretty sure that Eliza talked Joss into doing this show. I've heard/read interviews where she says they had this four-hour lunch and by the end, she had talked him into the concept of the show. That would make the most sense, because she was under contract with Fox and was in charge of the project. She simply brought Joss on as the show runner, but there's been no indication (that I've seen) that he created the concept.


Rob Helmerichs said:


> My understanding is that the network said it wasn't going to work as-is, and Joss then shut down production to retool the show. His initial comments were kind of bland, but he later became more enthusiastic, which tells me it might have took a while for him to come around to the network's way of thinking, but eventually he did.


From what I read, Joss now looks back at the original pilot as very dark and not setting the right tone for the show. I get the sense that what he originally wrote and how things turned out after writing producing several episodes were not really in line, so the original pilot no longer worked with what the series became.

I found the episode to be a little confusing, with way too much exposition. As others have said, I'd rather have them simply show the story, without any exposition or trying to shoehorn stuff in, and then let that other stuff find its way in over the next few episodes to create some additional suspense/mystery.


----------



## Rosincrans (May 4, 2006)

I'm torn on this show. I found the concept, and execution of the dollhouse to be totally ridiculous. But I did get drawn into the kidnapping story. I guess if each story of the week is intriguing, I might get hooked.

The concept seems to be based on teenage boy fantasy. Beautiful women who can be programmed to be whatever you want them to be. (The promos with her and Summer seemed to be pushing that idea as well. I was half expecting them to tell me to send a Text, so that I could meet hot girls in my area) Joss does have a history of taking teenage fantasy ideas like this and flipping them around, so that we see the real life consequences. So I wouldn't be surprised to see a darker story arc appear.


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

It looked like there were guys too in there.

I still think the expectations and talk of failure for the show puts this under the microscope more than other shows.

So when people watch they are looking for what's wrong with it, or if the expectations are ridiculously high, they will not be happy no matter what.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Cainebj said:


> the other thing that surprised me that i don't think anyone has mentioned is that there are also male actives...
> - i just assumed going in that there would only be women...


I assume so since alphabetically speaking they will need a Charlie, Mike, Papa, Romeo, and Victor.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

markz said:


> I assume so since alphabetically speaking they will need a Charlie, Mike, Papa, Romeo, and Victor.


Well, Charlie can be a woman's name, and they're not military, so they can easily switch to a feminine name for M P R and V.

Maria
Penny
Rebecca
Victoria, (Vicky)


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Fleegle said:


> Well, Charlie can be a woman's name, and they're not military, so they can easily switch to a feminine name for M P R and V.
> 
> Maria
> Penny
> ...


Yeah, as soon as I type "Charlie" I remembered Kelly McGillis' character in TopGun! Of course that was her callsign because her name was Charlotte.


----------



## Robin (Dec 6, 2001)

Fleegle said:


> Well, Charlie can be a woman's name, and they're not military, so they can easily switch to a feminine name for M P R and V.
> 
> Maria
> Penny
> ...


Since they went with "Echo" and not "Ellie" I'm thinking they'll stick with the regular alphabet.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

Anyway this show could morph into "Vampire Slayers: The Next Generation"?

I'll give it a few more episodes, as new shows are always a little stiff trying to work out the problems. I'm sure there are people taking notes from forums such as this. Hopefully, they take the comments here as constructive criticism and not a reason to just cancel.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Robin said:


> Since they went with "Echo" and not "Ellie" I'm thinking they'll stick with the regular alphabet.


Echo and Sierra.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

Robin said:


> Since they went with "Echo" and not "Ellie" I'm thinking they'll stick with the regular alphabet.


Oh, I'm sure they will. I was just thinking that if they WERE going with all females, they could easily make a few adjustments and keep the schema going.


----------



## markz (Oct 22, 2002)

Fleegle said:


> Oh, I'm sure they will. I was just thinking that if they WERE going with all females, they could easily make a few adjustments and keep the schema going.


They can do male dolls too. They will just have to refer to them as "action figures".


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

markz said:


> They can do male dolls too. They will just have to refer to them as "action figures".


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Jeeters said:


> Well, the former cop now working for Dollhouse did say to the British woman in charge, "you like to tell yourself that what we do helps people".
> 
> Something that "helps people" could be interpreted as being a "force of good".
> 
> That said, though, I myself have no doubt we'll see Echo in some 'shady' engagements... bank heists.


Just because the person in charge is rationalizing doesn't mean that's the position that the show takes. I'm sure we'll see some conflict around that point.


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

The best part of the whole thing was the announcer telling you exactly how long the commercial break was going to be. He'd say something like "Dollhouse will be back in 90 seconds", and I'd hit the 30-second skip 3 times and I'd be exactly at the start of the next segment. Every show should do that! :up: :up: :up:


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Jeeters said:


> That said, though, I myself have no doubt we'll see Echo in some 'shady' engagements... bank heists.


If someone can afford Echo's services, they don't need to rob banks.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

busyba said:


> The best part of the whole thing was the announcer telling you exactly how long the commercial break was going to be. He'd say something like "Dollhouse will be back in 90 seconds", and I'd hit the 30-second skip 3 times and I'd be exactly at the start of the next segment. Every show should do that! :up: :up: :up:


Fringe does. It seems to be a new Fox thing.


----------



## Fleegle (Jan 15, 2002)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Fringe does. It seems to be a new Fox thing.


They call it "Remote Free TV".


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Fleegle said:


> They call it "Remote Free TV".


That makes no sense. Because they're telling you how many times to press your remote!


----------



## busyba (Feb 5, 2003)

Fleegle said:


> They call it "Remote Free TV".


Seems more like "Free Remote Tips TV" to me.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Fringe does. It seems to be a new Fox thing.


No it is a new Fox thing with limited commercial interruptions.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

DevdogAZ said:


> In fact, to expand on that, I'm pretty sure that Eliza talked Joss into doing this show. I've heard/read interviews where she says they had this four-hour lunch and by the end, she had talked him into the concept of the show. That would make the most sense, because she was under contract with Fox and was in charge of the project. She simply brought Joss on as the show runner, but there's been no indication (that I've seen) that he created the concept.


I've heard Eliza say the same thing.
But Joss got the "Created By" credit


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

DevdogAZ said:


> In fact, to expand on that, I'm pretty sure that Eliza talked Joss into doing this show. I've heard/read interviews where she says they had this four-hour lunch and by the end, she had talked him into the concept of the show. That would make the most sense, because she was under contract with Fox and was in charge of the project. She simply brought Joss on as the show runner, but there's been no indication (that I've seen) that he created the concept.


No, that's not what happened.

She had a talent contract with Fox, but had no show idea. She took Joss out to lunch and over the course of the meal, they (he) came up with the idea for the show. So, yes, she convinced him to do the show, but the show didn't exist at that point.


----------



## IJustLikeTivo (Oct 3, 2001)

EMoMoney said:


> Season Pass Deleted!!!


Wow, faster than a Network Exec. Damn.

Way too early to know. Had some good moments and a few that fell flatter than a pancake. The visuals are nice.


----------



## IndyJones1023 (Apr 1, 2002)

Einselen said:


> No it is a new Fox thing with limited commercial interruptions.


Umm, yeah, that's pretty much what I said.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

NJChris said:


> It looked like there were guys too in there.
> 
> I still think the expectations and talk of failure for the show puts this under the microscope more than other shows.
> 
> So when people watch they are looking for what's wrong with it, or if the expectations are ridiculously high, they will not be happy no matter what.


based purely on the commercials right before any other show (unavoidable to miss those few seconds), and the amount of chatter on this board, i certainly was disappointed. The threads on here months/years? before the show aired sure made me think it would be the next hit.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

IndyJones1023 said:


> Umm, yeah, that's pretty much what I said.


I expanded on it then. As House doesn't go we will be back in 4 min (or however long its commercial breaks are).

BTW how do shows like this have the limited commercial interruptions?


----------



## ElJay (Apr 6, 2005)

newsposter said:


> for the people that watched my own worst enemy, do you think this was better or worse?


Some others may claim that you can't compare the shows, but I can do it pretty easily: This is worse. First off, the obnoxious love by the show's makers for the ridiculous set. The less we see of that joke, the better. Every set on TV is sexed up, but the designers usually retain some sort of level of usability. This one felt like something out of a "vision of the future: mad scientist's lair" exhibit at a 1960s World Expo. (Those sleeping troughs, WTF?) This show has positioned itself as a My Own Worst Enemy that can reboot itself on demand, and it hasn't left me feeling that they can pull it off.

That's especially true given the person expected to pull the show's weight. I've never watched a show with Dushku in it before and I wasn't impressed. I won't write her off after seeing one episode, but this wasn't a good introduction. There are plenty of amusing shows that have characters playing characters every week (Burn Notice, Chuck, Alias) but the first two examples in this show of a prostitute followed by the "hot librarian with issues" hostage negotiator were pretty boring. I don't know what to blame more, the writing or the acting.


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

I wish they'd just go start writing and filming more Tru Calling episodes.


----------



## dtivouser (Feb 10, 2004)

So if the Dollhouse is some sort of perfected brothel that solves crimes on the side, are we supposed to root for them? I could always get behind the crew of Firefly (sort of the Robin Hood thing), but the Dollhouse seems to rent out women without their consent if I'm not mistaken. Is the girl who became Echo still "in there" mentally? Did she sign up to be a prostitute, and hostage negotiator, and motorcycle racer, etc?


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

dtivouser said:


> Is the girl who became Echo still "in there" mentally? Did she sign up to be a prostitute, and hostage negotiator, and motorcycle racer, etc?


That will be part of the story line (guessing no knowledge).

This is easily one of the futuristic sci-fi look what technology could possible do for us in the future and is in the gray area of rights.


----------



## DeDondeEs (Feb 20, 2004)

I thought it was a good show. I think people had too high of expectations, this plot can take all sorts of directions. I can see the episode threads being like the 24 ones, you will have all sorts of people pointing out inaccurate parts the show, yet people will continue to watch. 

I will actually say that IMO I find this show more entertaining than Firefly (ducks, runs for cover....)


----------



## hanumang (Jan 28, 2002)

Einselen said:


> BTW how do shows like this have the limited commercial interruptions?


If you're talking from a business standpoint, they charge more for a 30 second spot, compared to other new shows on FOX like _Lie To Me_ (with the exception of _Fringe_).

The logic is, with fewer ads, more folks will retain the stuff that advertisers want - who they are, what they're advertising, etc - meaning it'll be more bang for the buck. <shrug>


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

hanumang said:


> If you're talking from a business standpoint, they charge more for a 30 second spot, compared to other new shows on FOX like _Lie To Me_ (with the exception of _Fringe_).
> 
> The logic is, with fewer ads, more folks will retain the stuff that advertisers want - who they are, what they're advertising, etc - meaning it'll be more bang for the buck. <shrug>


That is what I assumed but not sure if that was the case.


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

dtivouser said:


> Is the girl who became Echo still "in there" mentally?


My impression is that she's *not* in there, but instead is sitting on a hard disk somewhere, ready to be reimplanted when her term is up.[/QUOTE]


dtivouser said:


> Did she sign up to be a prostitute, and hostage negotiator, and motorcycle racer, etc?


My impression is that she didn't sign up to do those roles in particular---rather she signed up to do *any*thing in exchange for...what? Money, I guess?

BTW: Although it's fair to say that Echo became a hostage negotiator and her first role included motorcycle rding (though I doubt the overlay was actually a motorcycle racer), she certainly did not have an overlay of a prostitute. The guy seemed to want a temporary girfriend for a weekend. Although you might think that makes Echo a prostitute, she wasn't *playing* a prostitute, but rather just a girl. Just like she was playing a hostage negotiator.


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

Amnesia said:


> My impression is that she didn't sign up to do those roles in particular---rather she signed up to do *any*thing in exchange for...what? Money, I guess?
> 
> BTW: Although it's fair to say that Echo became a hostage negotiator and her first role included motorcycle rding (though I doubt the overlay was actually a motorcycle racer), she certainly did not have an overlay of a prostitute. The guy seemed to want a temporary girfriend for a weekend. Although you might think that makes Echo a prostitute, she wasn't *playing* a prostitute, but rather just a girl. Just like she was playing a hostage negotiator.


This is one of the philosophical issues that I hope the show will try to explore: what happens to free will when someone else can make you think/remember/'be' whatever they want? In this case, if she has sex while in a false identity, is it consensual sex, prostitution, or rape? Does her initial consent to joining the program constitute consent for everything they manipulate her into doing after that? (assuming that they gave her enough info to make an informed decision in the first place?) If the inflict pain during the process (as with the new girl), does it matter if she doesn't remember it? Etc.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

dtivouser said:


> So if the Dollhouse is some sort of perfected brothel that solves crimes on the side, are we supposed to root for them?


What? Really? Are people missing the point that badly?

Who says you're supposed to "root" for the Dollhouse? Who said the Dollhouse is a good thing? Who said that solving crimes has anything to do with their "charter?"


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

hefe said:


> What? Really? Are people missing the point that badly?
> 
> Who says you're supposed to "root" for the Dollhouse? Who said the Dollhouse is a good thing? Who said that solving crimes has anything to do with their "charter?"


Like I said it goes into that gray area. If we can taken hardened criminals, wipe their minds and install a new program/personality so they can then do good for us and bust other criminals is that something we should do? I mean we are doing good, but we are also taking a free being (though locked up for a crime) and taking around that person and individual.

I like shows/movies like this that make you torn and makes one think.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

hanumang said:


> If you're talking from a business standpoint, they charge more for a 30 second spot, compared to other new shows on FOX like _Lie To Me_ (with the exception of _Fringe_).
> 
> The logic is, with fewer ads, more folks will retain the stuff that advertisers want - who they are, what they're advertising, etc - meaning it'll be more bang for the buck. <shrug>


I read somewhere that Fringe has the highest ad rates on television, for that exact reason.

The fact that they're using the same model for Dollhouse suggests that they must be getting results...


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

dtivouser said:


> but the Dollhouse seems to rent out women without their consent if I'm not mistaken.


The first scene seemed to indicate that she signed a contract permitting them to rent her out without her consent for a (5 year?) contract term. If you mean they don't consent to each individual "mission" (forgot the show's term) then that's true.



hefe said:


> What? Really? Are people missing the point that badly?
> 
> Who says you're supposed to "root" for the Dollhouse? Who said the Dollhouse is a good thing? Who said that solving crimes has anything to do with their "charter?"


Right. It seemed obvious to me they want us to at best be conflicted but more likely be rooting against the Dollhouse in general, due to the blank stares on their faces, the seemingly obvious pain experienced, and a few other things.


----------



## hefe (Dec 5, 2000)

Einselen said:


> Like I said it goes into that gray area. If we can taken hardened criminals, wipe their minds and install a new program/personality so they can then do good for us and bust other criminals is that something we should do? I mean we are doing good, but we are also taking a free being (though locked up for a crime) and taking around that person and individual.
> 
> I like shows/movies like this that make you torn and makes one think.


Sure, I like exploring those kind of questions, I just don't think that the premise here is that the Dollhouse is some altruistic entity working for the common good. That may be a rationalization that they try to use to convince themselves and their employees that they are in the right.

The people that worked for SD-6 believed they were working for our country.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

hefe said:


> Sure, I like exploring those kind of questions, I just don't think that the premise here is that the Dollhouse is some altruistic entity working for the common good. That may be a rationalization that they try to use to convince themselves and their employees that they are in the right.
> 
> The people that worked for SD-6 believed they were working for our country.


We will see in upcoming episodes on if the Dollhouse is good or trying to do good, this is what I am looking forward to, how Echo was initiated into the program (looks like almost forced into it, yes agreed but when put between a rock and a hard place people will do almost anything), how the program started, who is behind it, etc.


----------



## Mars Rocket (Mar 24, 2000)

The young tech guy who is the only one who knows how everything works is rapidly becoming a cliche. I fully expect his character to do amazing things every week that only he knows how to do, but are integral to the plot.


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

hefe said:


> What? Really? Are people missing the point that badly?
> 
> Who says you're supposed to "root" for the Dollhouse? Who said the Dollhouse is a good thing? Who said that solving crimes has anything to do with their "charter?"


Yeah, I'm confused too. I have absolutely no idea where people are getting the "solve crimes" thing from.



dtivouser said:


> So if the Dollhouse is some sort of perfected brothel that solves crimes on the side, are we supposed to root for them? I could always get behind the crew of Firefly (sort of the Robin Hood thing), but the Dollhouse seems to rent out women without their consent if I'm not mistaken. Is the girl who became Echo still "in there" mentally? Did she sign up to be a prostitute, and hostage negotiator, and motorcycle racer, etc?


Rules of a Whedon show:
1) The world is _never_ black and white. It is any number of shades of gray.
2) People are flawed, every one of them. Even the most heroic character has issues that he or she (or those around them) have to deal with.
3) An authority figure or organization will not always be the most benevolent and may not have the most pure motives. The larger the organization, the more it tends towards "evil."
4) Life is struggle, and often that struggle is manifested as a fight against authority. Because of rules 3, that struggle is often seen as a positive thing.
5) Life isn't happy endings; the hero will often end up losing in the end.

That's pretty much it. Now, consider the show with those rules in mind... I'll bet it'll be a considerably different show than what you were thinking of before.


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

I was pleasantly surprised by this episode. Based on the preview clips I had seen, and the reports of problems, I had lowered my expectations. While it didn't blow me away like Firefly did (I watched Firefly on Hulu so started with the pilot), I enjoyed the episode.

One benefit of it being Friday nights is that I have no conflicts to deal with, so I don't really have to choose between this and another show I may like more. I'll definitely be keeping my season pass, and hopefully the show finds its legs and just keeps getting better.


----------



## newsposter (Aug 18, 2002)

when i realized this was about kidnapping i couldnt help but think of "Kidnapped"


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

Amnesia said:


> My impression is that she's *not* in there, but instead is sitting on a hard disk somewhere, ready to be reimplanted when her term is up.


My impression is that she didn't sign up to do those roles in particular---rather she signed up to do *any*thing in exchange for...what? Money, I guess?

It was obvious from the beginning flashback (which was obviously a flashback to me) that she was in some kind of trouble.
I read it to be more legal in nature but it could be financial.
It would seem to me that their willing recruits would skew more towards the extremely desperate.



hefe said:


> What? Really? Are people missing the point that badly?
> 
> Who says you're supposed to "root" for the Dollhouse? Who said the Dollhouse is a good thing? Who said that solving crimes has anything to do with their "charter?"


From reading this thread, it seems a number are missing things.
Crime show and rooting for the bosses?
If the Dollhouse is supposed to be an out and out good thing, why is Echo's handler starting to have misgivings?


----------



## TAsunder (Aug 6, 2003)

JYoung said:


> If the Dollhouse is supposed to be an out and out good thing, why is Echo's handler starting to have misgivings?


Isn't he "the new guy"?


----------



## Graymalkin (Mar 20, 2001)

The Dollhouse is not an out-and-out good organization, like the fictional F.L.A.G. in Knight Rider. It just likes to rationalize itself that way.

OTOH, it's not diabolically evil, either. If it was, it would have simply made sure that the client -- the kidnapped girl's father -- died so that their secrecy wouldn't be compromised and left the little girl to a dreadful fate.

On the surface, it appears to be a covert for-profit enterprise, like Blackwater USA, as envisioned by conspiracy theorists. In time, we may learn of a much darker ulterior motive such as world domination. But for now, it appears to be willing to do whatever its wealthy and powerful clients want it to do. I wonder how it might handle conflicts of interest -- one client wants it to protect him from another client, who wants it to assassinate the first client.


----------



## gchance (Dec 6, 2002)

All these posts, but I have to wonder, would anyone be talking so much about this show, had it not been created and written by Hoss Whoden?

Greg


----------



## LoadStar (Jul 24, 2001)

gchance said:


> All these posts, but I have to wonder, would anyone be talking so much about this show, had it not been created and written by Hoss Whoden?
> 
> Greg


You mean Josh Weeden? Hmm. Good question.


----------



## Einselen (Apr 25, 2006)

LoadStar said:


> You mean Josh Weeden? Hmm. Good question.


I would talk about any show I watch (and I am watching this not because of Josh) if anyone else would discuss it. Problem is lots of shows don't get must discussion anymore (at least not the ones I watch)


----------



## dswallow (Dec 3, 2000)

Without Joss's involvement, I doubt we'd have been talking about it much more than a day or two before it aired; but I think after it airing, we'd all be complaining about the same garbage we watched.


----------



## Bai Shen (Dec 17, 2004)

I thought it was interesting and I'll give it the full thirteen ep run.

Also, I thought they were moving the original pilot to episode two status?


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

I don't see the point of the "Dollhouse." If the dolls were being used for highly illegal activities and situations where you need someone competent but expendable, then maybe. But if you just need a chick to party with, is that who you call? And if your child is kidnapped and threatened with death, you'd trust the kid's life to a science experiment? It just doesn't make sense. I'll go with it for a couple more episodes, but I may be checking out pretty soon.


----------



## BobB (Aug 26, 2002)

JYoung said:


> It was obvious from the beginning flashback (which was obviously a flashback to me) that she was in some kind of trouble.
> I read it to be more legal in nature but it could be financial.
> It would seem to me that their willing recruits would skew more towards the extremely desperate.


I think it was pretty clearly legal - remember, in that scene they repeated several times, "Acts have consequences." She did something she shouldna.


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

BobB said:


> I think it was pretty clearly legal - remember, in that scene they repeated several times, "Acts have consequences." She did something she shouldna.


But later in the episode one of the handlers made a quip about them doing time if the cops ever found the place (can't recall the exact quote). And the FBI wouldn't have assigned a guy to look for them if their existence was a matter of public legal record (and there's no indication that they're government/spy-agency backed or anything that would keep them legally secret).

That actually is a bit of a continuity issue, although I suppose if (big _if_) they plan to let these people go after their terms are up, they'd have to make it _look_ legal for their benefit... Perhaps there's some other, legal program that's a front for this operation? One that would explain the subjects dropping off the face of the Earth for five years?


----------



## madscientist (Nov 12, 2003)

tivoboyjr said:


> I don't see the point of the "Dollhouse." If the dolls were being used for highly illegal activities and situations where you need someone competent but expendable, then maybe. But if you just need a chick to party with, is that who you call? And if your child is kidnapped and threatened with death, you'd trust the kid's life to a science experiment? It just doesn't make sense.


I think this point has been pretty well discussed earlier in the thread; there were a number of reasons given. If none of those convince you, then I guess it's just "suspend your disbelief" time ... or, I guess, "cancel your SP" time


----------



## tivoboyjr (Apr 28, 2003)

madscientist said:


> I think this point has been pretty well discussed earlier in the thread; there were a number of reasons given. If none of those convince you, then I guess it's just "suspend your disbelief" time ... or, I guess, "cancel your SP" time


Sorry - I usually read the whole thread prior to posting but in this case I didn't. I know it wasn't touched on in the last couple of pages. Will go back and read it.


----------



## JYoung (Jan 16, 2002)

dcheesi said:


> That actually is a bit of a continuity issue, although I suppose if (big _if_) they plan to let these people go after their terms are up, they'd have to make it _look_ legal for their benefit... Perhaps there's some other, legal program that's a front for this operation? One that would explain the subjects dropping off the face of the Earth for five years?


I suppose that cooking the books a bit could fix that.
The cover story could be that they are overseas contract workers.

And it's possible that after the contract is up, they give them memories that match the cover story.

Assuming they let them go.....


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

JYoung said:


> It was obvious from the beginning flashback (which was obviously a flashback to me) that she was in some kind of trouble.
> I read it to be more legal in nature but it could be financial.
> It would seem to me that their willing recruits would skew more towards the extremely desperate.


I'm guessing that she was in the military and got into some kind of trouble there. My only real basis for this is that she was holding a cammy hat:


----------



## Amnesia (Jan 30, 2005)

johnperkins21 said:


> I'm guessing that she was in the military and got into some kind of trouble there. My only real basis for this is that she was holding a cammy hat


I don't see why you would think that. It's not like she's in uniform...Anyone can buy a camo hat...


----------



## johnperkins21 (Aug 29, 2005)

Amnesia said:


> I don't see why you would think that. It's not like she's in uniform...Anyone can buy a camo hat...


You are correct. However, it could also explain what makes her one of the better actives, if not the best they have.

The reason I think that is because it's the first thing that popped into my head during that scene. I saw the hat, recognized that she didn't necessarily volunteer for the job, and figured that she was probably sent there by a commanding officer.


----------



## Peter000 (Apr 15, 2002)

johnperkins21 said:


> One benefit of it being Friday nights is that I have no conflicts to deal with, so I don't really have to choose between this and another show I may like more.


Friday nights has suddenly become the most busy TV night of the week, though weirdly there are no unresolvable conflicts.

There are 6 shows I watch that air during prime-timeGhost Whisperer, Sarah Connor, Dollhouse, Monk, Psych and Numbers. BSG gets pushed back to 11 central because of a conflict. If I hadn't had caught the DirecTV season of Friday Night Lights, that would be the only real unresolvable conflict. I guess I could record Psych at a different time as well.

So Dollhouse is staying for now. I did enjoy it but it was nothing to write home about.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> Friday nights has suddenly become the most busy TV night of the week, though weirdly there are no unresolvable conflicts.
> 
> There are 6 shows I watch that air during prime-time-Ghost Whisperer, Sarah Connor, Dollhouse, Monk, Psych and Numbers. BSG gets pushed back to 11 central because of a conflict. If I hadn't had caught the DirecTV season of Friday Night Lights, that would be the only real unresolvable conflict. I guess I could record Psych at a different time as well.
> 
> So Dollhouse is staying for now. I did enjoy it but it was nothing to write home about.


I feel your pain, Peter. I deleted my Dollhouse SP and will catch it on Hulu when I can. I'm also watching SciFi's airing of Moonlight which presents even more scheduling conflict; I thought it was a great show and was sad to see it go. I've pushed both Monk and BSG to later recording times on Fridays. Other conflicts on Friday night for me include Blackhawks hockey.


----------



## balboa dave (Jan 19, 2004)

Peter000 said:


> Friday nights has suddenly become the most busy TV night of the week, though weirdly there are no unresolvable conflicts.
> 
> There are 6 shows I watch that air during prime-time-Ghost Whisperer, Sarah Connor, Dollhouse, Monk, Psych and Numbers. BSG gets pushed back to 11 central because of a conflict. If I hadn't had caught the DirecTV season of Friday Night Lights, that would be the only real unresolvable conflict. I guess I could record Psych at a different time as well.
> 
> So Dollhouse is staying for now. I did enjoy it but it was nothing to write home about.


This Friday will be the season finales for _Monk_ and _Psych_.


----------



## Bierboy (Jun 12, 2004)

balboa dave said:


> This Friday will be the season finales for _Monk_ and _Psych_.


Those shows aren't the problem; they air all over the place. It's the shows that only air once a week that pose the problem (though not so much now with the proliferation of availability on the Web).


----------



## DreadPirateRob (Nov 12, 2002)

hefe said:


> What? Really? Are people missing the point that badly?
> 
> Who says you're supposed to "root" for the Dollhouse? Who said the Dollhouse is a good thing? Who said that solving crimes has anything to do with their "charter?"


This.

I liked it. I didn't *love* it, but I liked it. My only main quibble with it at this point is that Joss is playing it a little too straight insofar as dialogue is concerned. I'm sure that will come as the show - and the characters - find its footing.


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

DreadPirateRob said:


> This.
> 
> I liked it. I didn't *love* it, but I liked it. My only main quibble with it at this point is that Joss is playing it a little too straight insofar as dialogue is concerned. I'm sure that will come as the show - and the characters - find its footing.


With the exception of the tech guy, I don't see much opportunity for Joss' usual quirky characters and dialog here. The 'actives' are intentionally dull and blank, and the handlers are way too serious to fall into that kind of banter easily. He may be able to _occasionally_ write a personality-of-the-week with some attitude/humor, but not every week lest it seem like some underlying trait showing through (though perhaps that could factor in later?).


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

Even tho I liked the first one, maybe they will implant her with the Faith personality and then she escapes and it turns into another show...


----------



## realityboy (Jun 13, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> I read somewhere that Fringe has the highest ad rates on television, for that exact reason.
> 
> The fact that they're using the same model for Dollhouse suggests that they must be getting results...


Well, they announced they would be doing this for Fringe and Dollhouse back at the upfronts last May. If I recall, Dollhouse was supposed to take over Fringe's slot after it wrapped for the season.


----------



## Rob Helmerichs (Oct 17, 2000)

realityboy said:


> Well, they announced they would be doing this for Fringe and Dollhouse back at the upfronts last May. If I recall, Dollhouse was supposed to take over Fringe's slot after it wrapped for the season.


Right, but Fringe has been on the air long enough that if the experiment weren't working, they wouldn't be able to get away with it with Dollhouse.


----------



## DevdogAZ (Apr 16, 2003)

Rob Helmerichs said:


> Right, but Fringe has been on the air long enough that if the experiment weren't working, they wouldn't be able to get away with it with Dollhouse.


Or they already sold the ads at the Upfronts last May and didn't want to have to give any of the money back.


----------



## ronsch (Sep 7, 2001)

Thank goodness there is a new episode tonight to put this thread out of it's misery.


----------



## JimSpence (Sep 19, 2001)

NJChris said:


> Even tho I liked the first one, maybe they will implant her with the Faith personality and then she escapes and it turns into another show...


Yeah, I alluded to that earlier.


----------



## dcheesi (Apr 6, 2001)

ronsch said:


> Thank goodness there is a new episode tonight to put this thread out of it's misery.


You were so happy that no one would post here anymore that you just had to post here to let us know?


----------



## NJChris (May 11, 2001)

JimSpence said:


> Yeah, I alluded to that earlier.


 My bad. I cant remember things past 30 minutes.


----------



## Jonathan_S (Oct 23, 2001)

Well the flashback scene where she signed up put me off long enough that I didn't get around to watching the rest of the episode until last night. (When I watched a Dollhouse double feature )

This first episode is interesting enough to keep me watching at least the next few.


----------



## MickeS (Dec 26, 2002)

I finally watched this episode (have all of them on my TiVo).

I thought it was GREAT. It didn't have the "witty" dialog of other Whedon projects, which is a plus for me since I can't stand it.

The show came across as very well thought out, with details mentioned that lesser writers would have ignored. It felt much less tacky and tongue-in-cheek than the ads made it out to be. It was fun, well-crafted entertainment, which is what I was hoping for. Yeah, a few silly things like the glass doors to the mind-wipe room, but nothing really dumb.

The arc being set up, with BSG-Helo looking for the Dollhouse, looks interesting (of course, you all know if it is or not, I have yet to find out ).

Looking forward to catching up on the rest of the series.


----------

