For the record, I think Buffy season one is exponentially better than Firefly, Dollhouse, and most of Angel--production values aren't everything, and Whedon's gifts don't seem to benefit from larger budgets. And it so happens I was watching Buffy from the very first episode, which I bet is more than most of his feeble fanfreaks can say.
quote:
It's all about perspective. I haven't enjoyed every episode of Dollhouse, but nor have I enjoyed every episode of Buffy/Angel/Firefly, and especially not in their respective Season 1's.
Isn't it a bit silly to talk about Firefly's Season 1, since it didn't even get to the end of Season 1?
quote:
I never said there would be any Whedon fanbase without Buffy, nor do I think any percentage of the fanbase would choose Dollhouse over Buffy.
BUT WHY DO YOU THINK THAT IS?
Could it be that for this particular 'televisionary', lightning is only going to strike once?
quote:
Merely demonstrating that negative comments about a Whedon show, even on the Whedonesque boards, does not a Whedon show sink.
No indeed--100% of them could be willing to trade the lives of their firstborn children to save it, and it would still go down bloody. Because a handful of online kool-aid drinkers don't tell the rest of us what to watch.
There are many MANY better shows out there--most of them on cable, to be sure. And Mr. Whedon is free to try his luck there--but the truth of the matter is, he's too damn square.
I agree on the production values thing, which is why I'm eager to see Dollhouse's 13th coda episode, shot for apparently a fraction of a regular episode's budget. That Dollhouse episode might turn out to be one of the very best.
That you saw Buffy from the very first episode is interesting, but does not make your opinions of Dollhouse any more valid than, say, mine or any other "online kool-aid-drinking" Whedon fan.
You talk about Whedon's televisionary status only striking once, with Buffy. I assume you mean commercially, to which you'd be correct. (Angel was successful commercially but only because it was a spinoff of Buffy, thus I don't count it.) I do think, however, that his critical reputation has continued in Angel, many episodes of Firefly, Serenity (almost universally acclaimed), Dr. Horrible (ditto), and some episodes of Dollhouse already aired (Man on the Street being an example). Most critics revisiting Dollhouse's latter episodes have commented on how the show has turned around creatively. I don't like everything Joss does, but I certainly can't deny the man his critical accolades. He was also just quoted recently indicating that he might take his next show to cable, so I'm sure he will thank you for giving him permission to try his luck there.
Why does FOX only do 2 hours of programming? I understand The CW's reasoning behind it, but FOX have some of the top rated shows, including the number 1 so what's their reasoning behind no 10PM hour?
I agree on the production values thing, which is why I'm eager to see Dollhouse's 13th coda episode, shot for apparently a fraction of a regular episode's budget. That Dollhouse episode might turn out to be one of the very best.
It very well might, but from what I've heard, it's going to bear little relation to the show's premise, and Whedon was just indulging himself.
quote:
That you saw Buffy from the very first episode is interesting, but does not make your opinions of Dollhouse any more valid than, say, mine or any other "online kool-aid-drinking" Whedon fan.
I just wanted to make it clear that I'm more than capable of appreciating what he and his collaborators had to offer--I'd never heard of Joss Whedon (though I'd seen the original Buffy feature in a theater), but I could still recognize good TV when I saw it. And by the same token, once the creative decline of the series had set in (starting in season four), I could see that too. It was a show about high school, and had no business graduating.
quote:
You talk about Whedon's televisionary status only striking once, with Buffy.
Frankly, I dislike the term 'televisionary' no matter who it's applied to. I think the auteur theory works badly when applied to most films, and not at all when applied to a collective medium like TV, where there are many writers, directors, and producers. One reason Whedon's work is less impressive now is that his best collaborators are working elsewhere now. I'm not always convinced he was the best writer on Buffy, and he was never the best writer on Angel, IMO.
quote:
I assume you mean commercially, to which you'd be correct.
You assume incorrectly, and I'm still correct. Commercially AND creatively, the first three seasons of Buffy are the only thing of genuine importance he's done in this or any other medium. But at least I think they were genuinely important, which is more than most people would say. I give credit where it's due.
But if you're curious, try reading Nancy Collins' Sonja Blue novels, and see where he got quite a few of his ideas for the 'Buffyverse'. Whedon is a skillful and energetic TV producer at his best--but he was never terribly original as a writer. He's also extremely formulaic, even for a TV writer, which is one thing that's working against him with Dollhouse--it's not the kind of show that works as a formula-based episodic, but that's what it's designed to be, and that's really all he knows.
quote:
(Angel was successful commercially but only because it was a spinoff of Buffy, thus I don't count it.)
It had by far the better series finale, anyway. Angel didn't go out as a wretched parody of itself, the way Buffy did. I'd call it an extension of Buffy, more than a spinoff.
quote:
I do think, however, that his critical reputation has continued in Angel, many episodes of Firefly, Serenity (almost universally acclaimed), Dr. Horrible (ditto), and some episodes of Dollhouse already aired (Man on the Street being an example).
You're free to think that, but the opinions of most television critics don't have any bearing on my opinion.
quote:
Most critics revisiting Dollhouse's latter episodes have commented on how the show has turned around creatively.
They wrote the same things about Veronica Mars. But I think even those unqualified suck-ups have to admit now that Rob Thomas is no televisionary.
quote:
I don't like everything Joss does, but I certainly can't deny the man his critical accolades.
I'm not denying them. I'm just denying their validity, because the people writing them are ludicrously poor critics. And anyway, few of them would say Dollhouse was the best show on TV, or anywhere near it. Even they have to struggle to come up with good things to say about it. But because they've annointed Whedon a 'televisionary', they have to assume Dollhouse is good. They have to assume anything bad about it is due to the network's interference. They can't just say "Well, maybe this was just a bad idea, and the casting sucks, and there's no way in hell to fix it."
quote:
He was also just quoted recently indicating that he might take his next show to cable, so I'm sure he will thank you for giving him permission to try his luck there.
He can take it anywhere he pleases, but he's going to find a long line of bigger and more developed talents ahead of him at the cable nets.
At least he's not pretending he can be a movie director anymore.
Originally posted by Fifty: Why does FOX only do 2 hours of programming? I understand The CW's reasoning behind it, but FOX have some of the top rated shows, including the number 1 so what's their reasoning behind no 10PM hour?
I agree. The 10pm newscast. The affiliates didn't want to give it up. FOX programmed that hour (initially just 10:00-10:30) on Sundays from 1987-1993. It was a ratings disaster, they gave it back to the affiliates, and that was that.
-- "Better Off Ted," Wednesdays at some time or another at some point or another in the near future. Because we can't all live in mansions and not ever work like the people on "Modern Family."
Originally posted by Fifty: Why does FOX only do 2 hours of programming? I understand The CW's reasoning behind it, but FOX have some of the top rated shows, including the number 1 so what's their reasoning behind no 10PM hour?
I agree. The 10pm newscast. The affiliates didn't want to give it up. FOX programmed that hour (initially just 10:00-10:30) on Sundays from 1987-1993. It was a ratings disaster, they gave it back to the affiliates, and that was that.
They may be about set from 8 to 10 but adding 7 more hours to program would be a nightmare I think for them. Of course, it would likely just result in a 2 hour Idol performance every week and allow for Idol to anchor 2 nights more effectively. However, what do you do on Mondays, Thursdays, Fridays (a big hole), and Sundays (more cartoons?)? Fox would lose its season winning demo average over that sort of a deal.
I'm not denying them. I'm just denying their validity, because the people writing them are ludicrously poor critics. And anyway, few of them would say Dollhouse was the best show on TV, or anywhere near it. Even they have to struggle to come up with good things to say about it. But because they've annointed Whedon a 'televisionary', they have to assume Dollhouse is good. They have to assume anything bad about it is due to the network's interference. They can't just say "Well, maybe this was just a bad idea, and the casting sucks, and there's no way in hell to fix it."
quote:
He was also just quoted recently indicating that he might take his next show to cable, so I'm sure he will thank you for giving him permission to try his luck there.
He can take it anywhere he pleases, but he's going to find a long line of bigger and more developed talents ahead of him at the cable nets.
At least he's not pretending he can be a movie director anymore.
I think where we take issue here is the validity of Whedon's critics, and perhaps TV critics in general. I simply can't say that the heaps of critical accolades Whedon has received over the years for all of the works I cited above come from ludicrously poor critics. Surely not all of them can be "drinking the online-kool-aid," as you put it. And the reviews of Dollhouse, especially the recent ones commenting on the latter episodes' turnaround, have certainly not been harping on the network interference issue.
As far as movie directing, he is currently shooting Cabin in the Woods with Drew Goddard, due to come out next year.
What did everybody think about the 'Streisand: Live on Tour' special on CBS last night?
I adored every single minute of it (even the ads), but a true highlight was Miss Streisand harmonizing "Evergreen" with Il Divo. What a lovely moment that was.
After watching the special, my only wish was that it could have been two hours. That would have allowed Miss Streisands full repertoire to be included, as well as the many Il Divo moments that occurred throughout her concert.
Perhaps when the Nielsen reports come in, if the special rated high enough, CBS might be interested in taking on a two-hour encore?
And wouldn't it be nice to see Miss Streisand return to producing an in-studio special or two (like her critically acclaimed '60s/'70s specials) for CBS to use in the Sweep next season.
Miss Barbra Streisand sings with Il Divo in her special last night on CBS
I think where we take issue here is the validity of Whedon's critics, and perhaps TV critics in general.
They are glorified bloggers, most of them. They represent neither the audience nor any kind of qualified body of opinion. And they play favorites to an extent rare even among critics. Basically, they will pull their punches when they think it might lead to one of their pet showrunners getting canceled.
quote:
I simply can't say that the heaps of critical accolades Whedon has received over the years for all of the works I cited above come from ludicrously poor critics.
I know. I'm saying that. If you said that, I'd have to consider suing you for plagiarism.
quote:
Surely not all of them can be "drinking the online-kool-aid," as you put it.
I think they are. And don't call me Shirley.
quote:
And the reviews of Dollhouse, especially the recent ones commenting on the latter episodes' turnaround, have certainly not been harping on the network interference issue.
That doesn't mean they aren't thinking it--bear in mind, they have to suck up to the network brass too.
quote:
As far as movie directing, he is currently shooting Cabin in the Woods with Drew Goddard, due to come out next year.
He's not directing that movie, so why would you put it that way? Mind you, one of the reasons Dollhouse is a failure--and that is is, whether FOX keeps it on life support for a while longer or not--is that he couldn't focus on it. He let his attention get diverted by a whole lot of other projects. His whole focus should have been on the scripts, but he was directing a bunch of episodes--self indulgence, pure and simple. He's not a bad director, but it's not what he needed to be doing, and it clearly hurt the show at a critical juncture when it was coming together creatively. And apparently he didn't care. He wanted the directing creds. And he fell for the auteur b.s. a long time ago, much to the detriment of his own work.
Buffy is the best thing he's ever done, at least in part because for the first few years, it was the only thing he was doing.
In any event, "Cabin in the Woods" (oh good title, Joss) sounds like a typical formulaic slasher film--one of the very overworked genres he was sending up with Buffy at first.
And when that flops too, he's going to be fresh out of excuses.
Ironically, the most success he's had in recent years has been with Dr. Horrible. So let him stick to that--making home movies for his adoring fans to wildly overrate. He can afford it. And they apparently have nothing better to do.
Originally posted by Fifty: Why does FOX only do 2 hours of programming? I understand The CW's reasoning behind it, but FOX have some of the top rated shows, including the number 1 so what's their reasoning behind no 10PM hour?
I agree. The 10pm newscast. The affiliates didn't want to give it up. FOX programmed that hour (initially just 10:00-10:30) on Sundays from 1987-1993. It was a ratings disaster, they gave it back to the affiliates, and that was that.
Originally FOX was restricted by FCC regulations. I believe it was under the Prime Time Access Rule. If they broadcast more than fifteen hours a week in prime time they would have been considered a network and be forced to deal with some programming requirements. By broadcasting only 15 hours week they were freed from these restrictions. Since those rules were withdrawn they theoretically could expand into the third hour, but by the time they were able to do so the affiliates had entrenched their news at 10 and gained an advantage in their markets because of it.
He's not directing that movie, so why would you put it that way? Mind you, one of the reasons Dollhouse is a failure--and that is is, whether FOX keeps it on life support for a while longer or not--is that he couldn't focus on it. He let his attention get diverted by a whole lot of other projects. His whole focus should have been on the scripts, but he was directing a bunch of episodes--self indulgence, pure and simple. He's not a bad director, but it's not what he needed to be doing, and it clearly hurt the show at a critical juncture when it was coming together creatively. And apparently he didn't care. He wanted the directing creds. And he fell for the auteur b.s. a long time ago, much to the detriment of his own work.
Buffy is the best thing he's ever done, at least in part because for the first few years, it was the only thing he was doing.
In any event, "Cabin in the Woods" (oh good title, Joss) sounds like a typical formulaic slasher film--one of the very overworked genres he was sending up with Buffy at first.
And when that flops too, he's going to be fresh out of excuses.
Ironically, the most success he's had in recent years has been with Dr. Horrible. So let him stick to that--making home movies for his adoring fans to wildly overrate. He can afford it. And they apparently have nothing better to do.
I still don't understand your vitriol and/or distrust toward TV critics. I don't see how they are any different from movie/theater/music/etc critics. Sucking up to the network brass is definitely not endemic to TV critics. Look at the constant whoring of Twilight that Entertainment Weekly perpetrated on a near-daily basis. Reason: Same parent companies. But I think we can agree to disagree on this point. And I don't think the TV critics were THAT biased toward Dollhouse at the beginning. I recall the initial reviews of Dollhouse's pilot weren't singing the show's praises to the high heavens. The reviews were solid B/B+ range, and most stated that they saw great potential and were willing to stick with the show given Whedon's past reputation and the other slow first season starts to his shows. I think the reviews have been fairly even-handed in general, with nary a punch pulled.
Whedon isn't directing Cabin in the Woods per se, but he is currently on the set with Drew Goddard and his imprimatur will be all over the thing as writer/producer. I don't believe it's going to end up being a formulaic slasher movie, based on reports to this point, but we shouldn't speculate over a movie that has yet to be released.
Also, I was trying to have a healthy debate with you and don't appreciate the "they have nothing better to do" remark, or the other dismissive/degrading remarks you have made about fans of Whedon's work. You have many valid points both in this thread and others you have posted, but it doesn't help your credibility or technique by tossing out low blow cheap shots.
I still don't understand your vitriol and/or distrust toward TV critics.
I think they get paid to do something a million bloggers do for free, and often do better.
quote:
I don't see how they are any different from movie/theater/music/etc critics.
Those other critics are generally expected to know something about what they're critiquing.
quote:
Sucking up to the network brass is definitely not endemic to TV critics. Look at the constant whoring of Twilight that Entertainment Weekly perpetrated on a near-daily basis. Reason: Same parent companies. But I think we can agree to disagree on this point.
Sure. But what the critics think of Dollhouse doesn't matter. They have said far more glowing things of shows nobody will remember in a few year's time.
quote:
And I don't think the TV critics were THAT biased toward Dollhouse at the beginning.
They're biased, but face it--Dollhouse isn't one of their real faves. You're going to be disappointed at the way they react when it's canceled.
quote:
I recall the initial reviews of Dollhouse's pilot weren't singing the show's praises to the high heavens.
Do you really think 'singing praises to high heavens' REALLY describes what the mainstream TV critics are writing about Dollhouse now? I think you're the one who's 'cherry picking' here, polter.
quote:
The reviews were solid B/B+ range,
Well, considering the pilot deserved an F minus....
quote:
Whedon isn't directing Cabin in the Woods per se, but he is currently on the set with Drew Goddard and his imprimatur will be all over the thing as writer/producer.
You're so happy you got to use the word 'imprimatur' in a sentence, aren't you?
quote:
I don't believe it's going to end up being a formulaic slasher movie, based on reports to this point, but we shouldn't speculate over a movie that has yet to be released.
Hey, there's no reason for us to discuss movies here at ALL--you brought it up.
quote:
Also, I was trying to have a healthy debate with you and don't appreciate the "they have nothing better to do" remark, or the other dismissive/degrading remarks you have made about fans of Whedon's work.
I want you to think about this for a moment.
Would any sane person remotely think those remarks were meant to be appreciated by Joss Whedon fans?
I think you're halfway sane. Take it as a compliment if you wish.
They're biased, but face it--Dollhouse isn't one of their real faves. You're going to be disappointed at the way they react when it's canceled.
quote:
I recall the initial reviews of Dollhouse's pilot weren't singing the show's praises to the high heavens.
Do you really think 'singing praises to high heavens' REALLY describes what the mainstream TV critics are writing about Dollhouse now? I think you're the one who's 'cherry picking' here, polter.
I want you to think about this for a moment.
Would any sane person remotely think those remarks were meant to be appreciated by Joss Whedon fans?
I think you're halfway sane. Take it as a compliment if you wish.
I suppose that's the best concession I'll get out of you in THIS argument :P
I didn't state critics were singing Dollhouse's praises to the high heavens now (although most have remarked on the show's creative turnaround). You indicated critics were biased/pulling punches/sucking up to network brass in reviews of Dollhouse, especially at the beginning. I meant to state, in a sarcastic tone, that "uh, they weren't exactly singing the praises of the show to the high heavens." I still think the reviews were fairly even-handed....look at Metacritic's consolidated average. It's only 57. I think the TV critics were fair at the beginning, and they continue to be fair now in their belief that the show has turned around creatively.
This is what I'd describe as a 'fair review' of Dollhouse--more than fair. Its ambitions are admirable, but it just doesn't have the dramatic torque to get there. And when you get right down to it, the one thing Whedon most needed to do in order to fix the show was the one thing he could never do--fire Eliza Dushku, or at least demote her. The fact is, the show doesn't need to 'turn around'--it needs a complete and total overhaul. But that isn't possible.
Of course, there wouldn't have been a show without Dushku--it was his conversation with her that led to the show. He needed an 'in' with the network--she had a development contract with FOX. She, quite understandably, was tired of being "The hot tough girl who runs in tight clothing." She was looking for a way to expand her role opportunities. It was an opportunistic partnership--on both sides.
But neither of them could live up to his or her side of the bargain. Dushku just doesn't have the acting chops to pull off a role where she's a different person every week. Never mind whether it's fair, it's reality.
And Whedon really isn't that versatile a writer. He wants to be Master of All Genres, but in fact he really only excels at a kind of fantasy/horror/superhero spoof, where he can make up the rules as he goes along, and nothing has to be taken so seriously that he can't have his characters break the mood with his patented snarky asides--and I'm hardly faulting him for that, but as a fairly accomplished snarker in mine own right, I'm not exactly in awe of his abilities in that arena. He's good, but I've seen better.
You can't do that 'make it up as you go along' thing with other genres, which is why he can't write them very effectively.
I also really doubt he'll be able to come up with a good horror movie--c'mon, was anybody ever REALLY scared watching Buffy or Angel?
He's free to prove me wrong, but speaking as somebody who became increasingly disenchanted with him after he blamed everyone but himself for the well-deserved failure of Firefly and Serenity, and watched him humiliate and destroy the character that gave him his shot at being something more than a script doctor (you know whom of I speak), he's been doing the opposite of proving me wrong, for pretty much the entire first decade of this century.
Um .8 loss in the demo is hardly the worst. Shall we talk about "Lie To Me" who has lost nearly 50% of its demo???
Going from 2.0 to a 1.2 demo is quite a big drop when you start out low. Sure Lie to Me dropped, but going after American Idol to before American had an affect on it. Dollhouse wont be back.
I think you're missing the point. If Lie To Me was a good show then it should have no problem to retain all of its 4.0+ demo that it gets when it's after American Idol. However it's not, so it loses half of the demo that it would get behind American Idol. Dollhouse has almost always outperformed its leadin audience and an erosion of only 0.8 is not that bad, regardless of what you say.
Spring tryout “Lie to Me” started strong but has faded since losing its post-”American Idol” perch. Still, there’s a good shot it will be back next season. A longer shot at returning: “Dollhouse,” which has posted predictably low ratings on Friday. But Fox executives are holding out a glimmer of hope for the show, noting its loyal core and its strong DVR numbers. The April 19 premiere of animated comedy “Sit Down, Shut Up” was less impressive, though it’s too soon to talk about that show’s future.
Glimmers notwithstanding, if even LTM isn't a sure thing, Dollhouse has no longterm survival prospects at all. Even if FOX gives it another chance. Which it has no earthly reason to do. But hey, that was true of T:SCC as well. Which you'll note isn't mentioned in the article at all.
