CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › Joss Whedon's Dollhouse
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Joss Whedon's Dollhouse - Page 2

post #51 of 1734
10/27/08 at 3:57pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu
The pilot script was really not fantastic, Woodward.
I said "I thought it was fantastic" and I do. You're free to think what you want.
Reply
post #52 of 1734
10/28/08 at 2:08pm
You know what? That all sounds pretty good to me. Whedon is talented but often a bit unfocused. As long as he's happy (I guess he could be lying, but he makes a convincing case) it could be a good thing the networks' kicking his ass. I actually think the reshot opening to the Firefly pilot was a good move (the stupid decision was to start airing the episodes out of order, but it looks like they're not falling into that trap), and given that the premise of this show has me going "huh?" based on what I've heard, being forced to clarify things will probably help. I personally don't think the pilots of Buffy or Firefly were that confusing, but again, outside input is probably good (especially for a guy who could easily coast on his fan following like Whedon).

I actually have a suspicion this will do fairly well. The writer's strike seems to be making it hard for networks to cancel shows, since they have nothing waiting in the wings, and I suspect TV viewership (especially among geeks) will go back up in the new year, when Lost and BSG come back. Plus, Whedon has something this time he's never had: a star. Yeah, OK, Tru Calling got cancelled, but it seems to have at least gotten people's attention up front, enough to linger on for a while.
Reply
post #53 of 1734
10/28/08 at 10:49pm
As long as it's entertaining, this show could do acceptable-to-good and stick around for a while. So far, nothing has interested me which is weird since I really like Whedon, but I'm still checking it out and giving it a proper shot once its out. But for some reason, the fact that nothing has interested me has a lot to do with the nondescript photos and sort of perfunctory trailers and the like, and for some reason, they might just make people tune in for Eliza and because it seems to be "normal".

I have this theory that Lost worked because it basically conned its audience, being a very "straightforward high concept" show, relatable, yet not completely "genre" until quite a while. There were hints and interesting things, but the lack of information made them hook a lot of people that wouldn't normally watch stuff with time travel or physics (and I suppose that's why most people claim the show is confusing, when it's really not). Maybe if Alias hadn't pushed the Rambaldi thing that much at the beginning, it would've stuck to plan and been a bigger success. Sadly, the Rambaldi thing was the selling point for me...
Reply
post #54 of 1734
10/29/08 at 9:10pm
From Whedonesque:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joss Whedon
Joss takes pleasure (again, not naughty).

Just a list containing happies.

Hi guys. I was talking today to Patton Oswalt, which already makes me cool, but he said something that struck me: He said if he’s snarky as hell, everybody feels him, but if he talks honestly about things he truly loves, he’ll get flamed right off the net. Which makes a twisted sense: for what do haters hate more than love? Since I am burnt from work, I’ve decided to light a flame of my own by listing, in absolutely no order of importance, a few things that jazz me right now. Haters, start your search engines.

1) Patton Oswalt is on my f%#&ing show! I wrote a part with him in mind and now he speaketh it! Credit goes to Marti Noxon, who sent me the album with him meeting George Lucas in it, for getting him stuck in my head. And he’s rockin’ the drama. Patton. I call him that.
2) TERMINATOR gets a full season. It’s not just Summer – it’s not NOT Summer, but… this is my favorite drama on Tele-vee. Opinions are mixed, but I think they balance the human drama with the homage to my seminal cheesy eighties movie mythology with Battlestaresque panache. (On a similar note, yay to the two-season pick-up for DEXTER. Ms. Benz is among my very favorite actresses -- to work with or watch.)
3) STRIKE TV goes up. This was started by a bunch of people who talked about creating web content outside the studio system, and unlike most people, they followed through. For a time I had planned to house Dr. Horrible there, until it morphed into a separate entity, but these peeps are getting it done, and you all should check the site out. The internet is still prairie, and the cattlemen have yet to throw up their fences. Support your local farmer! (All shows on Strike TV are organically written.)
4) APOCALYPSE HOW, by Rob Kutner. This book was either much funnier or much less funny eight years ago, depending on whether “It’s funny because it’s true” applies to “The human race is doomed”. But it’s my kind of (hilariously) bleak.
5) Obama. Seriously. I know this isn’t a political forum, but this isn’t a political issue. This is an issue of making Rob Kutner’s book not come true.
6) DRUNK HISTORY part one, with Michael Cera. It’s on Funny or die, and it’s funny very much in part because it’s true.
7) HANDS HELD HIGH, off Minutes to Midnight by Linkin Park. I’m about two years behind on this one, but I’m not wrong. And it’s (sadly) not dated. Crazy power.
8) THE OFFICE. Is that show actually getting even better? What up?
9) Truffles. Food of the Gods. They’re just hypnotic. Not chocolate – the real ones.
10) HARD DAY'S NIGHT. Wow, does that movie a) invent the music video, the (watchable) reality show, modern media irony and a whole lot more and b) show that John Lennon was a ROCK STAR, and was, even in the innocent froth of early bubble-gum success, already John Lennon. Ridiculous.

Ten seems like a good number. None was probably a wiser one, but the gauntlet has been thrown, and now we can’t find the gauntlet. It’s probably in the hedges. Bye-ee! -joss.

http://whedonesque.com/?comments=17968
Reply
post #55 of 1734
10/29/08 at 9:25pm
Patton! I love him.
Reply
post #56 of 1734
11/5/08 at 7:57pm
New Dollhouse trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WwPpfyPUC8
http://www.fox.com/futurefox/blogs/i...mbed-the-doll/

Direct link to download:

http://brightcove.vo.llnwd.net/d6/un...ngsoon-400.flv
Reply
post #57 of 1734
11/5/08 at 8:50pm
Looks decent, but I don't hang any hopes on seeing more than five episodes of this.
Reply
post #58 of 1734
11/5/08 at 11:24pm
"Nothing is what it appears to be"
"The season's most original series"
A lot of non-descript shots and Eliza reigniting my doubts over whether she can actually act.

I seriously want to like this, but the ad campaigns/news seem hellbent on making me not do so. And I'm a Buffy/Angel/Firefly fan.
Reply
post #59 of 1734
11/6/08 at 12:35am
This lasts 10 episodes if it's unimaginably lucky. Anyone getting their hopes up is going to be crushed.
Reply
post #60 of 1734
11/6/08 at 11:21pm
Show just got hit with the Friday night death slot (With Terminator)...It's done.

I love ya Joss but please stay away from Fox!

I'm calling 4 episodes and it's out.
Reply
post #61 of 1734
11/6/08 at 11:27pm
Oh, okay. Patton Oswalt plus Whedon gets me excited.
Reply
post #62 of 1734
11/7/08 at 12:00am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey9775 View Post
Show just got hit with the Friday night death slot (With Terminator)...It's done.

I love ya Joss but please stay away from Fox!
Maybe I'm just getting crusty in my old age, but I think my reservoir of fanboy concern has dried up. The show's not going up against CSI; the Friday night network schedule is utterly bereft of watchable programming. If you can't make a show that is sufficiently compelling as to draw a sustainable audience from the hundreds of millions of Americans that are not being served by scintillating fare like Supernanny or America's Next Top Model, you just might not deserve to be making shows.
Reply
post #63 of 1734
11/7/08 at 12:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joss Whedon

Three: Eliza. Watching her on the monitors at two o'clock this morning I was reminded forcibly how much I wished I were in bed – but also how strong, radiant and unmistakable her presence is. She's someone who could coast on talent and never ever does. I love to watch her work. In fact, I think I got myself into this mess for that very reason, and though I have this fall occasionally sworn never to eat lunch with an actor I like again, I’m pretty pleased and crazy proud.
He can't really believe this, can he?
Reply
post #64 of 1734
11/7/08 at 2:45am
Dude, did you not see her Oscar-level work in THE NEW GUY?
Reply
post #65 of 1734
11/7/08 at 3:19am
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainZahn View Post
He can't really believe this, can he?
Well, she does have a talent for playing one-note, really tough, possibly lesbian characters. So if he was referring to that, I agree with him. But anything outside of that? No.
Reply
post #66 of 1734
11/7/08 at 2:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joey9775
Show just got hit with the Friday night death slot (With Terminator)...It's done.
Holy shit! You're right, I just checked: Friday, February 13th. Fox sure picked a lucky date. The pairing with 24 would have at least given it a chance. Fuck!

http://www.thrfeed.com/2008/11/fox-announces-m.html
http://www.fox.com/futurefox/blogs/i...remiere-dates/
http://sepinwall.blogspot.com/2008/1...dollhouse.html
http://blog.zap2it.com/frominsidethe...is-foxs-j.html
http://tv.ign.com/articles/927/927844p1.html
http://tunedin.blogs.time.com/2008/1...wrong-to-hope/
http://www.aintitcool.com/node/39002
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/watc...s_whedons.html
http://twitter.com/FoxBroadcasting/status/994101699
Reply
post #67 of 1734
11/7/08 at 2:52pm
Four years to the day that Angel was cancelled. Somebody at Fox has a sick sense of humour.
Reply
post #68 of 1734
11/7/08 at 3:37pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Napoleon Rodriguez View Post
Maybe I'm just getting crusty in my old age, but I think my reservoir of fanboy concern has dried up. The show's not going up against CSI; the Friday night network schedule is utterly bereft of watchable programming. If you can't make a show that is sufficiently compelling as to draw a sustainable audience from the hundreds of millions of Americans that are not being served by scintillating fare like Supernanny or America's Next Top Model, you just might not deserve to be making shows.
Didn't Firefly air on Fridays? I can't remember.

Also, it's not so much that it's competing against popular shows; it's that it's competing against its demographic's social lives, most of whom don't even watch TV that isn't posted on YouTube.

But I do agree your sentiment in spirit, if for a different reason: Why in God's name would Whedon ink this deal with Fox when he is a known commodity? If fucking Eric Schaeffer can get a deal with F/X for Starved, why can't Joss get with a cable channel looking for some prestige? (Yes, I know F/X is owned by Fox and Starved didn't last a season, but the point stands.)
Reply
post #69 of 1734
11/7/08 at 4:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bendrix
Why in God's name would Whedon ink this deal with Fox when he is a known commodity?
Eliza Dushku, the inspiration for the show. If Whedon wanted to work with her he had to work with Fox because she has a exclusive contract with them (as does Tim Minear).
Reply
post #70 of 1734
11/7/08 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry Woodward View Post
Eliza Dushku, the inspiration for the show. If Whedon wanted to work with her he had to work with Fox because she has a exclusive contract with them.
I didn't realize that. Still, I wish I could say the timeslot was surprising.
Reply
post #71 of 1734
11/7/08 at 5:28pm
Friday? Fuck Fox. So much for giving the show a chance to succeed. Go to FX already Whedon.
Reply
post #72 of 1734
11/7/08 at 5:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bendrix View Post
Also, it's not so much that it's competing against popular shows; it's that it's competing against its demographic's social lives, most of whom don't even watch TV that isn't posted on YouTube.
That just becomes an argument for heavier weighting of alternative viewing methods, an argument which Fox is almost certainly aware of; the numbers for most of their dramas jump by 25-35% when DVR viewing is factored in.
Reply
post #73 of 1734
11/7/08 at 9:36pm
Okay, I'll agree that Friday isn't exactly the best time slot, but folks have to remember, "Firefly" didn't exist in an age of Hulu, iTunes, Xbox Live, DVR, etc. The question isn't whether or not it will find an audience (of course, I'm presuming like Whedon's last three shows, "Dollhouse" will be great); the question is whether or not Fox will look at anything other than the Nielsens.
Reply
post #74 of 1734
11/7/08 at 9:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg View Post
Okay, I'll agree that Friday isn't exactly the best time slot, but folks have to remember, "Firefly" didn't exist in an age of Hulu, iTunes, Xbox Live, DVR, etc. The question isn't whether or not it will find an audience (of course, I'm presuming like Whedon's last three shows, "Dollhouse" will be great); the question is whether or not Fox will look at anything other than the Nielsens.
The point I was trying to make, but, hey, Fox has DVR in mind, so it'll do gangbusters if it's good.

Whichever way. We'll see. I have my fingers crossed.
Reply
post #75 of 1734
11/7/08 at 11:09pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Matt Goldberg View Post
Okay, I'll agree that Friday isn't exactly the best time slot, but folks have to remember, "Firefly" didn't exist in an age of Hulu, iTunes, Xbox Live, DVR, etc. The question isn't whether or not it will find an audience (of course, I'm presuming like Whedon's last three shows, "Dollhouse" will be great); the question is whether or not Fox will look at anything other than the Nielsens.
This. I think that the hardline fans, even if this turns out not to be great (and honestly, I don't think it will), will mobilize and do something where they're watching it, DVR'ing it, and downloading it off iTunes. The Dr. Horrible numbers /response is something that fans should be looking at/considering before getting all "Fuck Fox"-y. Also, Kevin Reilly. I don't mean to fellate the guy but still.

And oh yeah, this show was totally born out of Whedon's little thing for Dushku. Obviously.
Reply
post #76 of 1734
11/7/08 at 11:31pm
Whedon hasn't shown any ability (or desire) to appeal to people outside his niche. FOX clearly doesn't see DOLLHOUSE as being his first true mainstream success. But before people jump on FOX, they should remember that FOX gave him a multi-episode commitment w/o a pilot. It could just as easily be asked why FOX would want to be back in business with Whedon...
Reply
post #77 of 1734
11/7/08 at 11:41pm
I said this in David's thread in the main forum, but I think Whedon likes the echo chamber the fanbase provides a little too much.
Reply
post #78 of 1734
11/7/08 at 11:51pm
I would definitely say that his fan-fellating is one of his greatest weaknesses as a writer. He cares way too much what his fans think.
Reply
post #79 of 1734
11/9/08 at 4:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
I would definitely say that his fan-fellating is one of his greatest weaknesses as a writer. He cares way too much what his fans think.
Or too little what non-fans think.

The problem seems to be that Whedon doesn't write to appeal to new viewers, he writes under the assumption that you're in for the long haul. This was especially noticable with FIREFLY, a show that had no hook. The title was a blank, the cast was unknowns, the show defied a synopsis, and the pilot (either of em) played like a 3rd-season episode (tons of characters and very little introduction)... and fans wondered why FOX didn't know what the hell to do with it?

Then Whedon gets SERENITY, and proves he learned nothing from FIREFLY, as the film lacked any hook, had a worse title, and practically shooed away new viewers.

Now, DOLLHOUSE... well, the title's better.

BUFFY aired in an era when a show could survive a poor pilot, but those days are over. I can't recall the last time a show with a poor pilot went on to major success. Maybe Whedon should hire someone like JJ Abrams to write his pilot for him.
Reply
post #80 of 1734
11/9/08 at 6:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
The problem seems to be that Whedon doesn't write to appeal to new viewers, he writes under the assumption that you're in for the long haul.

Not defending Whedon, but I had no idea who he was and had never watched an entire episode of Buffy, yet Serenity appealed to me the first time I saw it.
Reply
post #81 of 1734
11/9/08 at 7:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Not defending Whedon, but I had no idea who he was and had never watched an entire episode of Buffy, yet Serenity appealed to me the first time I saw it.
There are a handful of people that can probably say the same thing.

But the key is that those people also hear the term "Space Western" and know, on a shearly conceptual level, what that means. The general hears "Space Western" and goes "What the fuck does that mean?"
Reply
post #82 of 1734
11/9/08 at 7:26pm
True. And I am a huge space dork.
Reply
post #83 of 1734
11/9/08 at 10:18pm
I saw Serenity before Firefly too. I had a general idea what it was, as I have friends who are Whedon acolytes. But I'd never particularly cared for Buffy.
Reply
post #84 of 1734
11/9/08 at 10:41pm
In related news, the banner ad the site is running for the Serenity comic calls it a prequel to the "blockbuster film". I'm currently running a search to find out precisely which block that film busted. No luck yet.
Reply
post #85 of 1734
11/10/08 at 4:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
In related news, the banner ad the site is running for the Serenity comic calls it a prequel to the "blockbuster film". I'm currently running a search to find out precisely which block that film busted. No luck yet.
Well, ads for that film called it a movie based on the hit series, so it's consistent. Insane, but consistently so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer
Not defending Whedon, but I had no idea who he was and had never watched an entire episode of Buffy, yet Serenity appealed to me the first time I saw it.
My point wasn't that his stuff is too complex for people to follow (it clearly isn't), it's that he gives people no reason to want to see it in the first place. I enjoyed FIREFLY (less so SERENITY), but I watched it only because of Whedon. Fans complained that FOX botched the marketing for FIREFLY and that the studio botched the marketing for SERENITY, but the truth is that Whedon delivered an unmarketable product.

LOST seems like a perfect example of how to launch the kind of show Whedon makes (big cast, genre show, ongoing plots). LOST followed the basic rules of storytelling: it had a hook (the plane crash), and it could be boiled down into one line (people stranded on a mysterious island). It has a massive cast, but stuck mainly to a few characters at first. It had the best pilot I've ever seen, and it remains one of their best episodes.

Whedon seems to find all of that set-up work to be boring. He wants to skip the appetizer and get to the meat. If LOST had tried to skip to season 3 from the start, it'd still be a good show, but hardly anyone would be watching.
Reply
post #86 of 1734
11/10/08 at 4:00pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
My point wasn't that his stuff is too complex for people to follow (it clearly isn't), it's that he gives people no reason to want to see it in the first place. I enjoyed FIREFLY (less so SERENITY), but I watched it only because of Whedon. Fans complained that FOX botched the marketing for FIREFLY and that the studio botched the marketing for SERENITY, but the truth is that Whedon delivered an unmarketable product.
If only FOX weren’t such an easy target, the fans would probably have a more measured response to all of this. I love everything about Angel, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Dr Horrible’s Sing-Along Blog, Firefly and Serenity, and even I can’t see what’s so special about Dollhouse, besides Joss’ involvement. And yet, choosing between the channel that cancelled Arrested Development, Firefly and Wonderfalls, and Joss, for most, isn’t much of a choice at all.
Reply
post #87 of 1734
11/10/08 at 4:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
Well, ads for that film called it a movie based on the hit series, so it's consistent. Insane, but consistently so.
Firefly was a legitimate hit on DVD, and I think they were hoping to parlay that into box office. Obviously didn't work out, but hey.
Reply
post #88 of 1734
11/10/08 at 4:19pm
Don't blame Fox for botching the release of Serenity. That was Universal's gamble.
Reply
post #89 of 1734
11/10/08 at 9:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
I can't recall the last time a show with a poor pilot went on to major success.
Heroes.
Reply
post #90 of 1734
11/10/08 at 9:39pm
I've long since stopped trying to figure out what makes some TV shows resonate and others not. With movies I feel I at least have a vague sense of what will appeal to people, though it matters less, but TV? No fucking clue anymore. You can talk about how Whedon's shows are too conceptually quirky for a mass audience, and you have a point; but much weirder and more difficult stuff than that has found an audience. Twin Fucking Peaks was a success for at least a season. And it's not like Whedon's shows are hugely intellectually challenging, just a little unconventional--and even then, they tend to rely on sexy people, action, and Sf crap. Farsight's not completely off-base about Lost, but surely we can agree it's not hard to imagine that show sinking out of sight and being mourned by a cult audience just like Whedon's shows. Even the show's creators seemed sure they were toast, from what I've read. And then there's the aforementioned Heroes, which took several episodes to get to what could dubiously be called "the good stuff", yet somehow it clicked almost right from the start.

The moral seems to be that brain-dead pandering gets instant success, except when it doesn't, and smart and unconventional gets you cancelled, except when it doesn't.
Reply
post #91 of 1734
11/10/08 at 11:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
Heroes.
HEROES had a very strong pilot - other than the episode that focused on the cheerleader's dad, it's probably the best episode they've made. They had a spectacular hook (NY getting nuked) and presented an interesting premise well (normal people gaining superpowers). That the show turned out to be a disappointment just emphasizes how much promise that pilot showed.

Quote:
Twin Fucking Peaks was a success for at least a season.
TWIN PEAKS had a solid hook (the murder of the all-american girl) and an interesting premise (a small town with dark secrets).

Quote:
With movies I feel I at least have a vague sense of what will appeal to people, though it matters less, but TV? No fucking clue anymore.
The medium doesn't matter; the guidelines are still the same. You have to get people to give your story a shot before they can like it.

DOLLHOUSE has no hook (we don't even have a clue what the first ep will be about). DOLLHOUSE has a murky premise (she can be anyone... but why? What's the conflict?). I don't think FOX is wrong to be leery - it certainly appears that Whedon himself doesn't have an answer to those questions. At least not one that's not a 500-word run-on sentence.
Reply
post #92 of 1734
11/11/08 at 1:13am
From TVWeek.com:
Quote:
Having all but abandoned scripted programming on Friday nights of late, Fox is jumping back onto the night in a very big (and expensive) way. Starting in February, the network will pair Joss Whedon’s lush new drama “Dollhouse” with the network’s big-budget action hour “Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles.”

While “Dollhouse” has been plagued by production shutdowns and rumors that Fox executives are uncertain about its commercial appeal, Mr. Beckman said scheduling the show on Friday is simply a byproduct of trying to design the strongest possible schedule for the network.

Mr. Beckman doesn’t pretend that “Dollhouse” and “Terminator” have an easy path ahead of them. But, particularly in the case of “Dollhouse,” Mr. Beckman thinks the less competitive Friday night will give the show a better chance to build an audience than a more high-profile night.

“If we put it on Monday and it didn’t do well, we might have to yank it,” he said. But because Fox’s winter lineup should be solid on Saturday through Thursday nights, “We can afford to let these shows run their course. We can give them 12 or 13 weeks to find an audience.”

Overall, Mr. Beckman said his goal coming out of the 2008-09 season is “to have four tentpoles for next year, and if we surprise ourselves, a Friday night,” he said. “If these moves work, it sets us up nicely for next fall. And with a little luck from our development, I think that for the first time we can put together a schedule that could actually let us be No. 1 in the fall.”

http://www.tvweek.com/news/2008/11/f...a_longterm.php
Reply
post #93 of 1734
11/11/08 at 1:15am
What was the last successful show to air on Friday night? X-Files? And even that moved to Sundays.
Reply
post #94 of 1734
11/11/08 at 2:38am
How did Sci-Fi's Friday night lineup do in comparison, even taking into account that it's cable? I mean, it had like five (or ten) seasons of Stargate, five of Stargate Atlantis, and will have four seasons of BSG. It seems like Friday isn't necessarily the slot of death. Or did cable fees really help that much?
Reply
post #95 of 1734
11/11/08 at 2:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by neoolong View Post
How did Sci-Fi's Friday night lineup do in comparison, even taking into account that it's cable? I mean, it had like five (or ten) seasons of Stargate, five of Stargate Atlantis, and will have four seasons of BSG. It seems like Friday isn't necessarily the slot of death. Or did cable fees really help that much?
It's all about demographics. The vast majority of Sci-Fi viewers would be sitting home, alone, on a Friday night. And it's not a very big audience, Stargate episodes are relatively cheap and they re-run them to take up time. BSG is their most expensive show, but they get a lot of views off DVR and their website during the week, and additional DVD sales, to justify the price. Dollhouse probably has a bigger price tag then BSG.
Reply
post #96 of 1734
11/11/08 at 12:38pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
HEROES had a very strong pilot - other than the episode that focused on the cheerleader's dad, it's probably the best episode they've made. They had a spectacular hook (NY getting nuked) and presented an interesting premise well (normal people gaining superpowers). That the show turned out to be a disappointment just emphasizes how much promise that pilot showed.
I thought the pilot really, really blew, even by that show's standards. And New York didn't get nuked until the second ep. It took until around episode 3 for the show to gain any momentum at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Farsight View Post
TWIN PEAKS had a solid hook (the murder of the all-american girl) and an interesting premise (a small town with dark secrets).

DOLLHOUSE has no hook (we don't even have a clue what the first ep will be about). DOLLHOUSE has a murky premise (she can be anyone... but why? What's the conflict?).
But that's because we don't know anything about Dollhouse yet. And if Twin Peaks had a solid hook, then everything does. It was a slow-moving, bizarre show that was doggedly unconventional and spent its entire pilot introducing the characters. And it was great, but it shouldn't have been a success by standard logic.
Reply
post #97 of 1734
11/11/08 at 12:53pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster View Post
But that's because we don't know anything about Dollhouse yet. And if Twin Peaks had a solid hook, then everything does. It was a slow-moving, bizarre show that was doggedly unconventional and spent its entire pilot introducing the characters. And it was great, but it shouldn't have been a success by standard logic.
At the time, it made sense as a (modest, at least) success, but I don't think the murder or even the plot of the show was the real hook. It had a huge promotional push from the network, a style that was unlike anything we'd seen before on TV, and a huge cast of semi-known actors and good-looking young talent. Also, despite there being few resolutions early on, it had plenty of soap opera-level melodrama, creepiness, and mystery.

Other shows have capitalized on the quirkiness that Twin Peaks practically invented, but you have to remember that, at one point, the sheer novelty of visual and general stylistic innovation was selling point enough.

Minus Whedon's participation, Dollhouse just looks like another sci-fi action show. As such (and as with most shows these days), the hook is the concept for the plot rather than stylistic experimentation.
Reply
post #98 of 1734
11/11/08 at 1:58pm
If "Who killed Laura Palmer?" isn't a hook, what is?

I'll probably give DOLLHOUSE a shot, but I see a ton of pitfalls to the concept. The biggest one being "Why should I care about a central character who's a blank slate?" Combine that with questions about Dushku's talent and the thought that Whedon needs to come up with stories that don't revolve around "women with exceptional abilities must discover who she really is" which he mined in ALIEN RESURRECTION, BUFFY, and FIREFLY.
Reply
post #99 of 1734
11/11/08 at 3:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Prankster
And New York didn't get nuked until the second ep.
I'm pretty sure it was a 2-hour pilot. Regardless, the nuking was part of the promotional work for the show, which is all that matters.

Quote:
And if Twin Peaks had a solid hook, then everything does.
I'm not sure we're talking about the same thing. The first image the network showed you told you what the show's major conflict was (the murder). Many people instantly wanted to know why this beautiful girl washed up that on that beach.

Quote:
But that's because we don't know anything about Dollhouse yet.
EXACTLY.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveB
Minus Whedon's participation, Dollhouse just looks like another sci-fi action show.
I'm not sure it even looks like sci-fi at this point. There are a couple of vaguely sci-fi images, a couple ALIAS-y images, and a bunch of TRU CALLING-y images.

Quote:
Originally Posted by EvilTwin
If "Who killed Laura Palmer?" isn't a hook, what is?
I even still remember those ads, vaguely.

Even people who want to root for DOLLHOUSE can't describe what the show is or why anyone should watch it, beyond Whedon's involvement. Hence so much discussion over FOX's handling of it. I couldn't say whether the network heads really know the basics of writing, but I suspect we're seeing the results of their subconcious understanding that Whedon's trying to skip act one... and page one, and sentence one.

It's fascinating to me to see a talented person fail on such a fundamental level. But I'd prefer to see him write a successful show.
Reply
post #100 of 1734
11/11/08 at 3:55pm
I guess you could call "Who killed Laura Palmer?" the hook, but you're pretty mistaken if you think that people tuned in just to find out who killed some character they'd never heard of before. If the ads had shown Twin Peaks to look like some 80s detective show or cop procedural and retained that tagline, it wouldn't have had much of an impact.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Television
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPORTS, GAMES & LEISURE › Television › Joss Whedon's Dollhouse