(no subject)
Jun. 1st, 2009 11:14 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakThe Remix/Redux 7 ficathon is open for signing up! It occurs to me that rebooting a franchise (whether it's BSG or Star Trek) basically operates on the same principle said ficathon does. Which is why I can't get worked up about the talk of the owners of the Buffy movie rights wanting to cash in on same by wanting a Joss Whedon-less, Scooby-less and Buffy-less reboot. I mean, I think the first utterances sound like a dumb idea because they manage to miss a lot of what made BTVS appealing. (There is a reason the show took off in a way ye olde movie did not, and it's not the lack of Rutger Hauer overacting.) It's not meant as straight horror, the post-modern banter and send-up was quintessential to the premise, and so were the friendships and the other characters. Also, it's far too soon - just a measly decade, with everyone's memories of the show and its characters very vivid. But you know, I really enjoyed Fray (aka Joss' story of a Slayer several hundred years in the future), so the idea of telling the story of a new Slayer, in a completely different surrounding, with new characters to relate to and fight against, in principle isn't something I'm opposed to.
This is as good a place as any to mention my position on the comics, because I've also seen the "the comics are such a travesty, so it's a good thing Joss isn't involved in any movie" argument. Basically, the BTVS comics didn't capture me so I don't read them, but neither do I feel a need to rail against them or generalize about J.W.'s post-Firefly work. It really depends on the item in question. I loved Fray, his first foray in comics; the BTVS comics left me indiffirent, which didn't really surprise be because after seven years of writing for a particular ensemble and a particular world, any writer is bound to have run out of ideas; by contrast, I absolutely adored his run of Astonishing X-Men, and again, didn't surprise me that Whedonian writing for characters he hadn't been writing for since years would feel much more captivating.
Dollhouse? I'm mostly withlikeadeuce in seeing it as both interesting and ultimately a failure, though this might change. My biggest problem with it wasn't actually the skeevy premise, because as opposed to many an indignant post I think the show does acknowledge it, and uses the word "rape" clearly and several times; it was the discovery that Eliza Dushku seems to be a one trick pony, acting wise, which is especially glaring because the actors playing the other regular dolls really pull off some amazing stuff here, which combined with the fact that so far, the writing hasn't managed to make Echo/Carolyn that compelling, either leaves you with a black hole as a main character. I think it's not coincidentally that the writing in the second half of the season, which really is quantum levels above the first, centers on everyone but Echo. Here's what I'd do if I were in charge of the second season, not that I think it will happen:
1) Get rid of the credits sequence. It's really inexcusable.
2) Decide whether you want Ballard to be a critical deconstruction of a male hero (which he was for most of the season except the finale) or a genuinenly heroic character, but most crucially
3) Swap leads, if you must have one at all. The actress for Sierra is ever so much better than Dushku, and Sierra herself, of all the dolls, has the strongest reasons to bring the dollhouse down.
What I'd do and what I think will actually happen: follow-up on the "what is the true purpose of the dollhouse / who uses the kind of power that allows complete identity destruction/construction and how do they use it on the large scale, if the dollhouse is just a deflection and a matter of income earning?" question. Which I do find interesting, but I'm not sure such a narrative emphasis will also mean the end of gratitituos episodes like Target, because that's what the network pays for.
Lastly, a personal heresy: I think Adelle DeWitt is more compelling than Lilah Morgan as a take on the noir villainness. I also find the difference in reception telling because it is directly connected with what makes the show both problematic and interesting (with so far the problematic outweighing the interesting, though not in the case of DeWitt): Lilah's brand of corporate evil was safely in the fantasy realm. Wolfram and Hart pimped girls to rich vampires in the very first episode of Angel (one reason why I was never as sympathetic to Lindsey getting scruples apropos of blind children was that he evidently did not get them apropos of teenage girls), but vampires don't live in the reality of the viewer. When Lilah sets up an abused girl to repeat her abuse experience so she can exploit her as an assassin, that abused girl is a telekinetic, and she's currently interacting with another vampire. When Lilah orders people killed, beheaded or mindwiped, or feeds a father the blood of his son, it's still all in a fantasy context; there is the safety net of the audience knowing it could never possibly happen to them. Whereas the dollhouse technology that allows complete identity changes might be sci fi, but barely so; so what Adelle DeWitt does to people hits much closer to home. Which, btw, is one of the reasons why I find her more interesting. The other is that on the one hand, she mostly, but not completely believes her own propaganda, and I find villains who consider themselves the heroes of the story always more intriguing (Adelle is so the "the Corps is mother, the Corps is father" type, if you allow me the B5 comparison) than villains like Lilah who do the proverbial moustache twirling, albeit in Lilah's case elegantly); but on the other hand the narrative (so far) manages to show her vulnerabilities without making them excuses. If I do continue watching in s2, it'll probably be mostly for Adelle DeWitt.
This is as good a place as any to mention my position on the comics, because I've also seen the "the comics are such a travesty, so it's a good thing Joss isn't involved in any movie" argument. Basically, the BTVS comics didn't capture me so I don't read them, but neither do I feel a need to rail against them or generalize about J.W.'s post-Firefly work. It really depends on the item in question. I loved Fray, his first foray in comics; the BTVS comics left me indiffirent, which didn't really surprise be because after seven years of writing for a particular ensemble and a particular world, any writer is bound to have run out of ideas; by contrast, I absolutely adored his run of Astonishing X-Men, and again, didn't surprise me that Whedonian writing for characters he hadn't been writing for since years would feel much more captivating.
Dollhouse? I'm mostly with
likeadeuce in seeing it as both interesting and ultimately a failure, though this might change. My biggest problem with it wasn't actually the skeevy premise, because as opposed to many an indignant post I think the show does acknowledge it, and uses the word "rape" clearly and several times; it was the discovery that Eliza Dushku seems to be a one trick pony, acting wise, which is especially glaring because the actors playing the other regular dolls really pull off some amazing stuff here, which combined with the fact that so far, the writing hasn't managed to make Echo/Carolyn that compelling, either leaves you with a black hole as a main character. I think it's not coincidentally that the writing in the second half of the season, which really is quantum levels above the first, centers on everyone but Echo. Here's what I'd do if I were in charge of the second season, not that I think it will happen:1) Get rid of the credits sequence. It's really inexcusable.
2) Decide whether you want Ballard to be a critical deconstruction of a male hero (which he was for most of the season except the finale) or a genuinenly heroic character, but most crucially
3) Swap leads, if you must have one at all. The actress for Sierra is ever so much better than Dushku, and Sierra herself, of all the dolls, has the strongest reasons to bring the dollhouse down.
What I'd do and what I think will actually happen: follow-up on the "what is the true purpose of the dollhouse / who uses the kind of power that allows complete identity destruction/construction and how do they use it on the large scale, if the dollhouse is just a deflection and a matter of income earning?" question. Which I do find interesting, but I'm not sure such a narrative emphasis will also mean the end of gratitituos episodes like Target, because that's what the network pays for.
Lastly, a personal heresy: I think Adelle DeWitt is more compelling than Lilah Morgan as a take on the noir villainness. I also find the difference in reception telling because it is directly connected with what makes the show both problematic and interesting (with so far the problematic outweighing the interesting, though not in the case of DeWitt): Lilah's brand of corporate evil was safely in the fantasy realm. Wolfram and Hart pimped girls to rich vampires in the very first episode of Angel (one reason why I was never as sympathetic to Lindsey getting scruples apropos of blind children was that he evidently did not get them apropos of teenage girls), but vampires don't live in the reality of the viewer. When Lilah sets up an abused girl to repeat her abuse experience so she can exploit her as an assassin, that abused girl is a telekinetic, and she's currently interacting with another vampire. When Lilah orders people killed, beheaded or mindwiped, or feeds a father the blood of his son, it's still all in a fantasy context; there is the safety net of the audience knowing it could never possibly happen to them. Whereas the dollhouse technology that allows complete identity changes might be sci fi, but barely so; so what Adelle DeWitt does to people hits much closer to home. Which, btw, is one of the reasons why I find her more interesting. The other is that on the one hand, she mostly, but not completely believes her own propaganda, and I find villains who consider themselves the heroes of the story always more intriguing (Adelle is so the "the Corps is mother, the Corps is father" type, if you allow me the B5 comparison) than villains like Lilah who do the proverbial moustache twirling, albeit in Lilah's case elegantly); but on the other hand the narrative (so far) manages to show her vulnerabilities without making them excuses. If I do continue watching in s2, it'll probably be mostly for Adelle DeWitt.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-01 01:10 pm (UTC)Both Dichen Lachman and the actor who portrays Victor are much better suited (although I'd much favour a stronger ensemble approach, anyway).
no subject
Date: 2009-06-01 03:09 pm (UTC)Of course, the problem is that between Eliza Dushku as a co-producer and, if the interviews are anything to go by, virtually co-author of the premise, there is realistically no way he can write her out, even if he realizes that she doesn't work as a central character. Otoh, maybe the second half of the season with its different focus means that this is how he intends to handle the problem; Echo/Caroline is still nominally the main character, but not the main focus anymore.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-01 05:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 06:54 pm (UTC)Caroline and Adelle: we're still due more backstory on how they met and why Adelle recruited her to begin with (can't have been just about the looks), or why it is so important to Caroline to keep her contract, so presumably there'll be more.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-02 07:42 pm (UTC)It's so ironic, given that the genesis of the show was Eliza complaining to Joss that she plays the same role over and over! Dollhouse was supposed to be a showcase for her, but quickly we saw that the show was better when they played to Eliza's strengths... which is playing the character she's been playing for years. It makes me feel bad for Dushku, actually.
(I don't actually think it's bad for an actor to play a certain "type," but it is, like you say, really glaring in Dollhouse where Dichen Lachmann (sp?) and Enver are able to play so many different types so well, especially Dichen.
It's refreshing to hear a feminist fan (I assume you identify that way? You always seem pretty feminist to me!) talk about how they didn't have problems with the premise; I felt really alone on my flist. And often if I don't agree with the opinion of my fellow lefties, I generally assume the issue is me and that I'm Not Getting It (since that seems to be how it generally goes in various flamewars when I'm on the other side). I definitely see where people are coming from on it, but, yeah, it's nice to not be totally alone.
no subject
Date: 2009-06-03 06:51 pm (UTC)Oh, me too. As you say, there is nothing wrong with actors who have one particular persona the audience loves them in - John Wayne made a career out of it - but if you want to be the type of actor who is infinitely variable instead, well, then it has to hurt.
Feminist: yes, I identify myself this way, and good to know it comes across.*g*