Thanks for the compliment, though I do have my bad days and I don’t think that I’m alone in my way of thinking. Perhaps you have been hanging out around the wrong websites and meeting the wrong Whedon fans?

Honestly though, it can sometimes be hard to attempt an in-depth and mature conversation on a lot of sites, especially with so many people yelling “_______” Sux! “You fools all deserve to see your show canceled” and so on. When I see other people posting and replying maturely, then I try to reply in kind.

As for our current conversation, I do agree that it seems best that we agree to disagree, at least until/unless new information comes along. As far as the “blank slate” idea goes, what sticks most in my mind was a conversation with Joss in which he explicitly stated that Echo is not Caroline. I don’t have the interview handy, but I believe that he even said that as Echo finds out more about Caroline, then there are certain aspects of her that she very much does not like. In the same way, the Dr Saunders character as played by Amy Acker believes herself to be different from whomever she had been before she became Whiskey and doesn’t want to be “restored” to her pre-Whiskey self.

I think that the show would actually have been more accessible and compelling if the reality is what you believe it to be. Where no matter how much the technology tries to erase a person’s soul, or uniqueness, then slowly their true self were to reassert itself naturally. For now at least, that doesn’t seem to me where Joss wants to take the idea. Perhaps what he has in mind is better, or maybe he made a major error in not taking the story down that route, we shall see.

As far as my take on Victor and Sierra goes, at least for now I believe that they are either given or possess “some” intelligence. There seems to be enough for them to have language and be able to paint and take showers and hold utensils, but I don’t know if that is any different from an animal trained to respond to verbal commands or use a litter box. And many animals do show affection for each other and even in unlikely scenarios where we sometimes hear of a mother cat adopting a puppy or a dog adopting a kitty and things like that. It would be nice to believe that what Victor and Sierra have is more than that, but again I don’t want to assume with this show if I can help it.

That’s an interesting example that you use at the end, I’ll give it some additional thought. (Though personally I would still object to the brainwashing more than anything else. But that’s just me).

Why can’t all Whedon fans be like you? Polite. Not combative or defensive or condescending. Thank you.

We can definitely agree to disagree on the rape issue, especially because I think you make a very good point re: what constitutes a Doll’s personhood or lack of it. On the one hand the show seems to be saying we are just information that can be erased or transferred, but on the other hand the whole theme of the show seems to be the idea that we all have a basic spark that is uniquely ours and which can never be erased–Echo said it herself in the first episode, in the “blank slate” line that has been quoted before: “Ever try to clean a slate? You always see what was there before.” I think Whedon doesn’t believe in souls but ironically I think through Echo he is making the point, intentionally or not, that we do have souls. Or maybe some people do and some don’t–maybe a soul has to be earned by our behavior, and Echo is earning one?

At the end of the day though, the Dollhouse tech is such a leap of faith type contrivance and the actual effect of it is intentionally contradictory–Echo retains some of herself, other Dolls don’t, Victor and Sierra seem to have feelings for each other even in their blank state–that I just don’t know for certain whether or not a wiped Doll really is just a piece of meat with no identity whatsoever, or whether they are still the person they were, just without an awareness of themselves. So I just go the simplest route and decide that they are all still the people they were regardless of how much of them has been wiped away. To me, Echo is Caroline–she has Caroline’s essence, soul, whatever you want to call it inside her, just not her memories or any aspect of her personality that is dependent specifically on those memories. So, yes, I believe Caroline is being repeatedly raped, as are the others.

Whedon hasn’t asserted that the Dollhouse tech completely wipes away a person’s identity, the show is in fact about the idea that maybe that assertion is incorrect. Keeping that in mind, I think my decision to see the Dolls as their true selves, with parts of them taken away but an indestructible core remaining, makes sense. And I also think that, if you were to posit this happening in the real world and you asked the average person on the street about it, they would most likely agree with me. If you said to a person, “If someone erased your mind, implanted a new set of memories and a new identity in your head and then sent you off to be a prostitute, would you say you had been raped?” I think in most cases they would answer yes.

The previous post was meant to reply to mark. Sorry for forgetting that.

I tried to explain my thinking in my last two paragraphs, but essentially what I’m saying is that I have serious doubts whether a Doll equals a person. If a Doll does not have higher brain functions, and could not be called a person, then is that still rape? In a way, is having sex with a Doll akin to having sex with someone who is dead? In this case the body is still warm, but is anyone home? I think that this was very much in question in Season 1. In S2 it seems like Echo is special, different from the others, and that she has greater cognitive functioning then they do, but we still don’t know to what extent. And even if there IS an Echo that is intelligent and aware enough to be considered human, then is Echo actually a person? Or is “she” an amalgamation of personalities that mimics humanity, in the same way that an advanced computer would?

And if after questioning all this then we determine that she is a person, with a soul, then where did her soul come from? Or alternatively, is it possible to be human but not have a soul? Do souls even exist?

I think that these are all very important questions and at least most are necessary prerequisites to ask and answer before assuming that there is rape going on. Sex is certainly happening, but imo sex does not equal rape, especially with these many unknowns that are not yet answered.

“And as for the argument that the people signing up for the Dollhouse understood they would be used for sex when they signed the “contract”–well, even if you want to use that argument, we know Caroline was coerced into signing up and Sierra was outright kidnapped”.

It appears very possible that Caroline was coerced and that is indeed quite troubling. But I’ve learned never to assume, especially with a show by Joss. And my recollection, which could be flawed, is that in the first Episode that showed Caroline’s past (‘Echoes’) then it seemed very much like she was coerced, but then I recall a later Episode in which she seemed much less combative then if that was actually the case. Regarding Caroline’s deal with the DH, then I am waiting for more information. That may lead you to label me as dumb, naive, or something similar, but that is honestly my position.

The woman who would be turned into Sierra certainly seems like she entered into the Dollhouse very much against her will. And that is even more troubling. We will hopefully know for sure with the next Episode.

But in both cases, whoever the women were before they went through the process and their personalities were extracted and their bodies were made into Dolls, their minds do not seem to be there now. How can you say that you care about those women when you don’t seem at all interested in THEM, only with what is going on with their shells?

“Rape is a taboo that crosses a psychological line in most cultures”.

You make some good points in that paragraph where you last responded to me, but again, the problem for me is that I’m not sold on the idea that the Dolls are actually people, with the ability to give or deny consent. Based on that, then I seriously question whether any of them can be raped.

“We would rather see someone murdered on film than raped. Don’t ask me why, that’s just how it is for most people”.

You’re right on that and it’s a good point. It boggles my mind that anyone would honestly believe that it’s better to be murdered than raped, but for at least some people then that would be their preference.

“As to the larger point of just focusing on sex in the Dollhouse, there are plenty of kinds of rape and in my opinion all the Dolls have been raped, even the ones who aren’t sent out to be whores”.

Okay. As information about what truly constitutes a Doll comes out, then I might agree with you, but for now I have serious reservations and don’t feel that we know enough to say.

“And I think the critics focus on rape so much beause the writers refuse to acknowledge that these acts are rape. There is, to me, a hint of intellectual cowardice in that, on the part of the writers. I think the critics just want the writers to own up to what they’re portraying here. The software designer, instead of being presented to us as a rapist, was presented as a guy we should feel sympathy for–even Echo felt sympathy for him, so much so that she returned to him so he could complete his rape of her. Ballard called him a predator I believe but he never once used the word RAPE–the writers never use that word to decribe the Dolls’ sex missions. Because they’re afraid to use the word, I think”.

Thanks for explaining your thinking to me. I can understand that for people who honestly believe that it is rape, then the way that the show addresses these issues could indeed be very frustrating.

So, I am not so much rooting for one model to win out, but for some identifiable trends to emerge so that we might make a new model. Frankly, I am pretty convinced that the position you take in 2a is correct, that folks cherry pick numbers and try to retroactively justify their decisions.

Not only that, but look at what we’ve been shown: Caroline snuck into a Rossum lab with her boyfriend and took some video. That was the extent of her “crime”. In retaliation, the security guard *shot her boyfriend dead* and then Rossum kidnapped Caroline and held her against her will. She signed a contract to get out of prosecution for…what? Breaking and entering? If anyone should have been arrested it was the guard for murdering her unarmed boyfriend with no just cause. Based on what has actually been shown so far (and yes, maybe there are more blanks yet to be filled in but we can only go on what we have seen thus far), Caroline committed no actual crime other than a misdemeanor breaking and entering and no actual legal authorities were involved. She was simply kidnapped by Rossum using the lab incident as a pretext, and then Adelle, our woman of conscience whom we’re supposed to believe isn’t a murdering whoremonger, gave Caroline the ultimatum to sign away her identity for slavery in the Dollhouse (while drinking tea, because she’s a classy murdering whoremonger.) On the surface it looks not quite as coerced as Sierra simply because Caroline was given the illusion of a choice rather than just being brutally taken. But in the end they are both slaves, and Adelle enslaved them. Which is all well and good–I think the Sopranos is awesome and I have no problem with bad guys being the focus of a drama. But the Dollhouse writers should have the courage to call a spade a spade, and every episode they don’t just has me–and I suspect lots and lots of other people–squirming in my chair and feeling annoyed and vaguely angry at the show.

Here’s something to think about for all those people talking about how “voluntary” the Dollhouse is for the Dolls: if it’s all voluntary, if they really did all “consent”, why is Echo so adamant about freeing the Dolls? Echo doesn’t only want to free herself, or herself and Victor and Sierra: she wants to free *all* of the Dolls. Because she knows that what’s happening there is wrong: in fact that’s what the entire show is *about*. The fact that this is wrong. The protagonist of the freaking show knows it’s wrong and is trying to stop it.

From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_phenomenon

[QUOTE]
One study gave women what appeared to be painful electric shocks while working on a difficult memory problem. Other women of broadly the same age and social group who observed the experiment appeared to blame the victim for her fate, praised the experiment, and rated her as being less physically attractive than did those who had seen her but not the experiment. [1]

In another study, female and male subjects were told two versions of a story about an interaction between a woman and a man. Both variations were exactly the same, except at the very end the man raped the woman in one and in the other he proposed marriage. In both conditions, both female and male subjects viewed the woman’s (identical) actions as inevitably leading to the (very different) results
[/QUOTE]

This article goes into more detail on the first of these experiments:

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/09/a-just-world.html

Again, this is something that makes the different circumstances behind the different Doll’s internment into the Dollhouse all the more interesting.

That is not how the real world works. I’m sure there are many men (and people in general) out there, and here, who like to imagine that every single hooker they hired fully consented to living the live he or she is living. (I’m sure a lot of people also like to think that about porn.) It does take the edge of the guilt.

It’s certainly consent as we know it, but that doesn’t make it right. Caroline certainly could have chosen to face the “consequences” for her “actions” (DeWitt’s quotes from Ep 1), and in some ways it’s a little like a prosecutor promising to drop the charges against someone if they sleep with him, which is similarly despicable but an action for which the word “rape” is inappropriate. What about a prostitute who needs the money to feed her heroin addiction? Is her john “raping” her, or is it another kind of crime altogether?

Like I said above, the fixation on the word “rape” and the fact people insist on using it is not helping much. The degree, actually, to which different dolls had control over the circumstances that lead to them working in the Dollhouse raises lots of questions by itself.

Caroline went there because they offered her a pretty good deal, and the consequences of saying no was apparently deserved punishment for something that she’d done. Madeline went there because they offered her, again, a pretty good deal, but she too was in a real sense under duress, with the death of her child likely clouding her judgment. Are these situations equal? Would Madeline regret her decision given her pre-Dollhouse mind coupled with some kind of memory of the roles she had been given? Is she likely to be angry at the Dollhouse or herself in hindsight?

Good, I hope it is, because I certainly can’t be bothered to read any more of it. There is nothing in anything I said, even the part you quoted, that can remotely be characterized as “people who don’t adore Joss just aren’t intelligent enough to understand him.”

That’s my major problem. I post what I think of the show, and I get responses like yours: People uninterested in what I’ve said so much as that I’ve suggested a show they don’t like might be good, who then strike out with inanely ridiculous accusations about what I’ve written, such as several people who have argued that I just love rape because I like Dollhouse (WTF?), to the “You dared say Dollhouse has some depth to it, therefore you’re a condescending elitist” stuff you’ve been posting.

How ironic that you should respond to the one sentence in my show that points out how tired I am of these kind of knee-jerk responses… by doing just that.

I’ve posted before about the tendency of some Whedon fans to dismiss those who disagree with them in such a condescending fashion. (The old “people who don’t adore Joss just aren’t intelligent enough to understand him” tactic.)It does harm to the reputation of your fandom and makes you look like a tedious bully. If you’re going to resort to that sort of tired tactic then this will be my very last response to you.

Your argument is by no means “obvious”. There is, obviously, ample room for debate on this topic. I’m not the only person who believes the Dolls are being raped. I don’t think you “love rapists”; please don’t lower the tone of this discussion with trite rejoinders. But I do think the definition of rape is sex wthout consent and I don’t believe any of the Dolls could be said to have legitimately consented to their treatment regardless of the “contract” (a ridiculous contrivance, as there can be no vaid contract to enslave youself) they may or may not have been coerced into signing. The evidence of the episodes shows that Sierra was forced into the Dollhouse and that Echo was, at the very least, an unwilling participant who saw no other options. That’s hardly consent, but that wasn’t really what I was primarily referring to. You can’t erase a person’s mind and then claim they have consented after the fact to subsequent treatment of their body. There is no justified way to “consent” to be a slave; coersion is implied.

At the end of the day, my problems with Dollhouse are twofold: philosophical and structural. Philosophicaly I disagree with Whedon’s apparent ideas about the self, and about slavery and free will and consent, and I find the show, oftentimes, simply repugnant because of that. But I grit my teeth through that stuff and continue watching. Structurally is where the real problems arise and it’s where I suspect you’ll find the low ratings culprit. The show seems not fully thought through, the technology is an embarrassment of convenience and contrivance that enables the writers to do whatever they want but makes it difficult at times to suspend disbelief, the cast has only very small pockets of interpersonal chemistry because the premise keeps the Dolls from relating to each other on anything but a perfunctory level, and not all the casting choices have been inspired–Tahmoh Penikett is simply plodding as Ballard. The lead character is by turns unengaging (Echo) or a risibly naive twit (Caroline) who I think audiences have a hard time connecting with or feelingsympathy for. The missions have been at times simply uninteresting and that’s a problem because they’re a big part of the structure of the show. Dushku, while she can act, isn’t the ideal choice as lead. There are times I thought her performance was great and other times I thought she was just playing “Standard Eliza Tough Girl” but the real problem just might be that she just isn’t enough of a draw on her own. This is her vehicle and people just don’t want to watch. Every episode, the stories and characters all seem to hit the exact same notes: Something Goes Wrong because the Dollhouse inexplicably has the worst security and quality control on Earth. Topher congratulates himself for being awesome, then explains in a frenzy about how the latest malfunction isn’t his fault because he’s awesome. Adelle serves tea to a client and acts the assertive, placating Britishly dry madame, while at the same time making veiled threats/snide rejoinders to Ballard/Topher/Langton. Echo goes on a mission, looks sexy, recovers a little piece of herself and makes a speech about how she wants to save everyone, the end. It just isn’t really hitting on all cylinders for me and it seems most other TV viewers agree. At the end of the day what I’m seeing is a show about Eliza Dushku as a sexy empty shell being abused every week with a smile on her face, and often being raped, with a cast of characters around her who barely have any chemistry to speak of, with not a single person to root for or even like in the entire bunch, all acting out stories that are essentially reheated Lifetime movies with plenty of plotholes thrown in. (The rich uncle just *walks out* of the Dollouse with a Doll last week? Really? The power blackout just magically turned Victor into the serial killer?) If they’re going to be giving us these missions of the week as the backone of the episodes they need to make them engaging on their own and they often aren’t. Add in the basic premise of erasing people and I can see why the show has struggled.

Cue arrogant responses of the “Well, most TV viewers just aren’t smart enough to understand Whedon’s genius then” variety in 3… 2… 1…

Regardless of whether the word applies though, it’s very difficult for me to understand why anyone out there thinks that the show in some way condones rape, or more importantly condones what the Dollhouse does. I understand people not liking the fact that DeWitt doesn’t randomly shoot underlings who have failed her, constantly pounding the table with her fists as she barks orders with a halting germanic-like accent, though I find it hard to understand why people assume that because DeWitt is a sympathetic character (and she is) that this also implies that Dollhouse’s writers are condoning what she does. Likewise Topher, who seems to be an exploration of everything Whedon finds discomforting about himself.

Even if DeWitt is sympathetic, the Dollhouse’s owners and operators, Rossum Corporation, are portrayed as a stereotypically evil corporation. So even an argument “DeWitt is a human being, and she shouldn’t be, even though human beings were also responsible for Treblinka and Auschwitz” doesn’t hold in the wider view.

Whatever. I’ve said all this before. Cue idiotic responses of the “I don’t understand what you say so you love rapists” responses in 3… 2… 1… (That’s what I generally get for pointing out the obvious.)

I never expected so much opposition to putting the Milgram Experiment on TV. Perhaps the problem is the message, the conclusion of the Milgram experiment. Those people who do these things, who when instructed, even voluntarily, to do evil things, go ahead and do them, they’re just like you.

As I said, the only occurrence of rape I saw was with Hearn and Sierra (“Do you want to play the game?” – “No.”)

And as for the argument that the people signing up for the Dollhouse understood they would be used for sex when they signed the “contract”–well, even if you want to use that argument, we know Caroline was coerced into signing up and Sierra was outright kidnapped.
Priya, not Sierra. And therein lies the point: Caroline and Priya aren’t there when the dolls are sent out on their romantic engagements. Caroline and Priya and Madeline are stored on their respective hard-drives, while Rebbecca, Mellie, etc. are sent out on engagements.

Ballard called him a predator I believe but he never once used the word RAPE–the writers never use that word to decribe the Dolls’ sex missions. Because they’re afraid to use the word, I think.
Or, because they, like me, don’t see it as rape.

Rape is a taboo that crosses a psychological line in most cultures. For instance–there are plenty of slasher film series out there that people go to see for fun–in these movies people get murdered inventively and for some viewers the experience is thrilling, maybe even carthartic. Freddy Kreuger, Jason, the Saw movies, Final Destination, etc. Murder after murder after murder and lots of people go to see them because to a degree they’re acceptable escapist fantasy. No one feels guilty for seeing them, even people who don’t care for the content wouldn’t feel guilty if they caught, say, Friday the Thirteenth Part Five on Showtime. But you notice that there aren’t any “rapist film series.” There are no Freddy Kreuger characters who, instead of murdering a half dozen teenagers, rape a half-dozen teenagers instead. Because that crosses a line for just about everyone. We would rather see someone murdered on film than raped. Don’t ask me why, that’s just how it is for most people.

As to the larger point of just focusing on sex in the Dollhouse, there are plenty of kinds of rape and in my opinion all the Dolls have been raped, even the ones who aren’t sent out to be whores. And I think the critics focus on rape so much beause the writers refuse to acknowledge that these acts are rape. There is, to me, a hint of intellectual cowardice in that, on the part of the writers. I think the critics just want the writers to own up to what they’re portraying here. The software designer, instead of being presented to us as a rapist, was presented as a guy we should feel sympathy for–even Echo felt sympathy for him, so much so that she returned to him so he could complete his rape of her. Ballard called him a predator I believe but he never once used the word RAPE–the writers never use that word to decribe the Dolls’ sex missions. Because they’re afraid to use the word, I think.

No offense, but I don’t get why so many people don’t get it. A Doll can’t consent. A Doll has no free will. It’s rape. There are no shades of gray here. Sex without consent is rape. The software designer didn’t jump out of tne bushes but that doesn’t mean it’s not rape. And as for the argument that the people signing up for the Dollhouse understood they would be used for sex when they signed the “contract”–well, even if you want to use that argument, we know Caroline was coerced into signing up and Sierra was outright kidnapped.

Yeah, I too am often surprised by the degree to which many of the critics focus on rape.

We’re talking about a technology and a procedure that seem to take away people’s souls and leave them as completely malleable slaves. Compared to that, is what happens to their bodies REALLY the major concern? Especially for those people who became dolls willingly. Did they really not guess that sex was a possibility when they signed their contracts?

Would those who focus so much on the sex aspect be fine with the premise if they were still turned into mindless slaves, but there was a prohibition on sex?

I will accept a lot of the criticism of the show… but the rape angle I just don’t get. I saw only one occurrence of rape in the show – Hearn abusing Sierra. Ok, next episode might bring more, when we learn about how Priya became Sierra. The Priya situation is really quite dodgy, so I’m very interested to see how that story will play out.

I think one of Dollhouse’s central problems is the fact that the writers want us to see the people running the Dollhouse as “morally gray” rather than outright villains; they want to humanize them. The problem is, those characters are pimps, rapists, and murderers and some viewers find it offensive that the episodes don’t address that simple fact head-on. You can’t humanize a villain until you at least admit that, yes, they are villains: they have done reprehensible things. And I get the sense from Dollhouse that the writers don’t see it as reprehensible. (In fact the idea of Rossum as villains was mandated by Fox; Whedon’s original intention was that the Dollhouses were funding beneficial research–the ends justifying the means essentially.) The episode “Man on the Street” ended with Echo desiring to return to the software designer who rents out a Doll every year on his dead wife’s birthday; the writers wanted us to see this as touching, somehow, as if part of Echo felt that man’s deep pain and wanted to heal it by finishing the engagement to be his wife for a day. I saw it as a brainwashed slave returning meekly to her rapist. The fact that the writers try to force us to see the Dollhouse clients in a sympathetic light is one of the things that diatsances me from the show. That software deigner was, to me, a rapist, nothing more, and the ending of the episode offended me frankly. As for Adelle, she has been shown in various episodes talking about doing charitable work, talking about the positive benefits of the Dollhouse tech, desiring to help people (the woman who investigated her own death) feeling that a serial killer is reprehensible and wishing he were dead, and taking a moral stand against the permanent taking of actives’ bodies in Epitaph One. Which is all well and good–people change, people, even bad ones, examine their moral choices. But Adelle is a pimp and a rapist and a murderer: she pimps out the Dolls, she raped Victor repatedly, she murdered Lawrence Dominic. And those facts are never even brought up for debate by the writers, they aren’t even acknowledged. Instead the writers want us to see the positive aspects of the Dollhouse, instead we have episodes showing how Adelle is lonely and therefore “loves” Victor, we have episodes showing Adelle getting high and acting goofy with Topher, we have episodes where Adelle points out Ballad’s moral hypocrisy. But her own hyocrisy–her outright evil–is never a subject for debate; it’s never even really brought up. I would like Dollhouse a hell of a lot better if Caroline, during one of the instances in which she has momentarily returned to self-awareness, confronted Adelle with a simple “You pimped me out. Made me a whore. Would have killed me without a second thought if you found out I was becoming self-aware.” One moment like that would go a long way for me. Instead, Adelle is this show’s Spike–the villain we’re supposed to sympathize with, and I simply can’t.

In fact down the road Fox’s leniency toward DH could, hypothetically, be used as defense against anti-Fox proponents.

This is actually a pretty nice thing of Fox to do. But I think this is a VERY clear message saying that the show is done, especially when they go out of their way to say the ratings AREN’T good instead of just saying the show will at least air the remaining episodes.

with tribute to JBF

Here’s a headline for you, sure draw a comment or two after DH gets the S2 back 9…

“Dollhouse Surpases TSCC in Number of Aired Episodes”

~Lanie~

When has the show said that she’s a “flawed person of conscience?” I haven’t gotten that message from the show AT ALL. Are you making the mistake of taking her dialogue justifying the Dollhouse’s existence at face value, as a message from the producers? I see her as one of the scariest kinds of evil characters: A smooth talker seemingly effortlessly seeking to make you sympathize with her and accept her moral relativism.

As someone else here pointed out, the show lets you make your own judgments. Nobody in the show is necessarily “likable,” as far as I’m concerned.

Anyway, this is a fairly intriguing thread. I agree with a lot of Mark’s comments in his second and third paragraphs (6:43 above) and also AO’s response.

As for the potential future air schedule, doesn’t Fox usually air a movie on the day after Thanksgiving? If so, I’d imagine Nov. 27 is out. OTOH, the networks don’t seem to take sweeps so seriously anymore (fewer pre-emptions, fewer stunts, fewer major guest stars in recent years) so maybe we might still get an episode on the 30th, as currently scheduled, instead of it being yanked.

Unfortunately the “contract” (it isn’t an actual legal contract) doesn’t mention the fact that if you begin to annoy the Dollhouse you will be permanently erased and sent to the Attic as a mindless, empty vegetable. I’m thinking anyone who signs up to be a Doll and honestly expects the “contract” to be honored is actually pretty brain-dead already. Which is why I dislike Caroline, and one of the reasons the premise of the show is wobbly. And the Dolls are all being raped–even Victor was raped. Adelle (whom we’re supposed to root for as some sort of flawed person of conscience) raped him repeatedly.

1) In a neoclassical economic model, market mechanisms can lead to suboptimal provision of goods that have externalities. I’ll ignore Dollhouse for this argument, but a show like, “Reading Rainbow” we might want to see provided even if it doesn’t float by itself on advertiser revenue.

2) A corporate lurkers interest in “rational economic decisions” is perhaps less intense than their interest in “profit-maximizing” economic decisions. Even irrational behavior leads to increased profits, then let’s all go for it.

2.a) In truth, corporate lurkers are probably more invested in personal profit-maximizing economic decisions. So they care less if FOX makes money, then if they do. The people who renewed Dollhouse is therefore more likely looking for justification that the renewal decision was correct (so that he/she can say to his/her boss that he made the right decision) and the people who decided on its likely cancellation would look for justification that this current decision is correct (so that he/she can say …).

3) Simply because not everyone studies cultural studies doesn’t mean that market needs to function in order to study Dollhouse from an economic perspective. There is no logical connection.

3.a) Furthermore, on a philosophy of science standpoint — arguing that real life’s failure to fit an economic model as a failure of real life is one of the main flaws of neoclassical economics. Isn’t it more appropriate to say the model is wrong?

4) Even if we proscribe to market mechanisms, the market (and choice-based models) tends to be done without emotion. There should be no cheering either way — people are expected to make choices that maximize their personal benefit, but we make no (moral-based) judgments on their choices. So even if we believe purely in economic reasoning, there is no reason to “cheer” on a decision to correct an error.

I appreciate that you would like to take an academic perspective on this, but I always cringe at the misapplication of principles. Ironically, I am much more amenable to people’s opinions (which are generally unassailable, since one’s opinion is always one’s own) than an incomplete attempt at objective rigor.

That said — on a broad note — the reason I love the tvbythenumbers board is that it is one of the least affected by pure fanboy swagger. Sadly, this is probably the only board I’ve seen people say: “I think X— show is great, but the ratings don’t justify renewal” or similar comments.

I can only speak for myself, since not everyone enjoys watching shows die. I, however, do. I couldn’t care less about American Dance or So You Think You’re an Idol, but I enjoy watching TV shows get “voted off”. It’s my version of reality programming.

And for the record, no, I don’t whine when MY faves get cancelled. I’m still mourning Journeyman and TSCC, but I don’t think they got axed because Americans are stupid or because networks are evil. My taste in shows is often in the minority, so it often sucks to be me.

But you know what’s great entertainment? Watching shows plow into the turf, and watching their fans run around with torches and pitchforks blaming everything EXCEPT the reason almost every show fails: because it wasn’t good enough to capture a reasonable share of the market.

lol. they’re willing. they sign a contract saying ‘ya ill be a doll.’

(and you’re gonna LOVE next weeks episode, lolol.)

I guess the announcement was made to put an end to the speculation about the show’s future, for now at least. But I’ll be afraid again if it slips to a 0.8 demo rating next week.

There sure is a lot of vitriole about this show (on both sides). Ideally we’d have a moderator to delete it as soon as it appears, but I suspect that’s would be just a little too much to ask. Fortunately it can be spotted instantly and easily skipped, like spam. (“Cheap viagra”, “Earn $$$ by surfing”, “Dollhouse sux!”)

Tru Calling ran 26 episodes. Fewer even than Dollhouse.

I know you were joking, but let’s face it. The problem is the showrunner and the star. And there wouldn’t have been a show without both of them. So it was doomed no matter what they did.

I’m just waiting for the whole mess to be shut down forever. Glau doesn’t interest anyone but obsessive online fanfreaks.

Sample cop cases that will enthrall the Friday night viewing audience:
* An aging business mogul is being blackmailed, his family held hostage by a young, up and coming competitor.
* An elderly woman is the key to solving a series of murders… but she has Alzheimer’s!
* An old man is murdered. WHO DUNNIT?
* An elderly couple has lost their healthcare just when they need it most. Where did it go? Only JLH can solve this case, by talking to even older dead people who also lost their health care. Guest appearances by Senator McCain will boost this episodes ratings during sweeps!
* Old people.
* Old people.
* Old people.

Otherwise, Friday’s will always have low numbers. They should design a show around a DVR audience. Make the commercials slooooooowwww images that when fastforwarded, still get their message across.

Sure, if the ratings go up a lot, they might renew.

But they won’t. Dollhouse runs ten more eps, then fades from TV history forever. The End.

I suspect Dollhouse probably has to climb up to a 1.5 (without DVR help) or higher by the end of the season, based upon what Nick C has said about Fox’s “expectations”.

As for fears about no finality, this is from TFA:

[QUOTE]

Reached by phone, Joss Whedon (who has a terrible-sounding cold — feel better!) said he’s writing the 13th hour to give fans a degree of closure.

“We’ll definitely have closure, but will leave some doors open,” said Whedon, who’s currently shooting the eighth episode. “When we got our first numbers, which were bad, the first thing [Fox president of entertainment] Kevin Reilly said was, ‘You’ll have all 13,’ which was great. They’re not going to pull the rug out from under us.”

[/QUOTE]

Of course, Epitaph One also does the finality thing, but…

However, I think Whedon’s comment in the THR article about closure speaks volumes. Most showrunners don’t say such things if they think the show is coming back, right?

So, I must say that FOX needs to give to Dollhouse a wonderful ending.

As the folks in Iowa are learning, governmental financing of productions is a tricky business, and in roughly 40 states is the norm. Frankly, there are plenty of good reasons for folks to read these articles and comment sections without making a personal affront to anyone.

they could learn a lot from Sanctuary for ways to lower their budget.