Whedonesque : Comments on 15942 : (SPOILER) James Marsters talks Torchwood, Spike and Dollhouse.

YES! No James Marsters on DOLLHOUSE......for now. :)

I'm sorry. I think he's nice and a good actor, but he was so annoying during the last seasons of "Buffy" and "Angel". :(

Donnie | April 01, 14:35 CET

I'm happy, too. Now I won't have to watch it.

iowagirl | April 01, 14:40 CET

YES! No James Marsters on DOLLHOUSE......for now. :)

I'm sorry. I think he's nice and a good actor, but he was so annoying during the last seasons of "Buffy" and "Angel". :(

Donnie | April 01, 11:35 CET

Were you 'annoyed' by Marsters personally, his Spike character, the bleached hair, or the actual acting talent on display? In any event, looks like he's a bit too busy right now to play in the Dollhouse.

baxter | April 01, 14:48 CET

I'm in no hurry to see James on Dollhouse either, but not because I find him annoying. He's one of my favourite actors and I think he would be great in the show. I just don't want another case of "John and Aeryn in Stargate" happening.

I have no problem accepting actors in different roles. They do a series and, hopefully, then go on to do another equally interesting show that I'm going to want to watch. Normally they are in an entirely different cast, which helps to break them away from their last role. The problem is when you get two actors back together in lead roles, as was the case with Ben Browder and Claudia Black moving to Stargate after starring together on Farscape. It was just that little bit too familiar, for me anyway. I really loved the characters of Cam and Vala, but they were always just that shade away from slipping back into the Farscape world for my liking.

Having Eliza and James together in Dollhouse would just be that little bit too close to the Spike and Faith series that I always wanted to happen but without the vampires and slayers. A little like being tortured with the possibility on a weekly basis, but never getting it.

Love the idea James had for the Spike movie project. Also that he is still willing to consider the possibility of it happening. I'm all for being careful with the aging aspect of immortal characters. As my username suggests, I've seen a good example of an actor returning to a role that is no longer suitable for their age. Loved Endgame in so many ways but Connor looked about as close to being 18 as my dad does. James, from what I've seen in Torchwood, is still more than capable of looking the part of Spike. In the age of straight-to-DVD movies and webisode series being giving televised runs, you never know when a project can suddenly appear out of the blue. I'm not even too bothered about Joss writing it or being that closely involved. Maybe Brian Lynch could take over the writing, with Joss' oversight. That would work for me.

Highlander | April 01, 14:58 CET

"Dragonball is all about muscles and I can't be doing the press tour for it without muscles. I gotta pump my pecs. Girls like boobs too, you know."

(hee hee.) Obviously the lessons on what to say and not to say to the press have really taken hold. ;-)

I would love to see him as a recurring character on Dollhouse. It would be interesting to see him play a well written character that was dynamic and interesting but not evil. So far all the really interesting roles he has gotten have been evil...or started out that way. ;-) The one on Without a Trace looked like it had the potential to fit the bill, there was a lot of non-evil layering going on there, but the strike and JM's other commitments seem to have kept them from bringing his character back for further exploration. It would be interesting to see JM do another Joss character that was very different from Spike.

newcj | April 01, 15:03 CET

Were you 'annoyed' by Marsters personally, his Spike character, the bleached hair, or the actual acting talent on display? In any event, looks like he's a bit too busy right now to play in the Dollhouse.

I could not have been annoyed by Marster personally, since I don't know him (and since from what I've seen of him, he really seems like a nice and grounded guy), neither was I annoyed by his acting which I found quite good.

His character was what annoyed me the most and the fact that Marsters seemed to take over the show(s), while other characters were pushed into the background, because Marsters and Spike became so popular with fans and writers.

Also, I'm one of the few people who would rather see new people or less known people from the Buffyverse on DOLLHOUSE than major stars of the Buffyverse.

Donnie | April 01, 15:14 CET

OK Donnie. And why would that logic would carry over to a totally new character on a new show (Dollhouse)? I agree that Marsters is pretty special, and would personally prefer to see a new slate of actors in Dollhouse, but I think his 'threat' of show-stealing shouldn't stand against his ever appearing in another Whedon project. However, I notice that he is pretty busy at the moment so perhaps others see the value-added to their projects.

baxter | April 01, 15:47 CET

I'm kind of with Donnie on this one. I don't want to see Marsters on Dollhouse because his fandom seems to have an enormous amount of power, and it's just too hard for a studio exec to resist the allure of pushing him to the forefront of the show in order to draw on those fans, regardless of where his character appropriately fits in the story.

At least, that's what I always assumed happened on Buffy and Angel. I've read some boards where Joss gets assigned the credit and/or blame for Spike's prevalence in the later seasons of both shows because he loved the character of Spike so much and/or more than the story he was telling, but JM's comments here suggest that maybe this decision was a "friendly" suggestion from someone on high.

ShimShamSam | April 01, 16:25 CET

I'm amused by the apparent fearfulness of James being in a show and *gasp* doing his job well. How dare he. ;0)

It's like when people complained that Spike was taking over Btvs and Spike would ruin Angel and Spike was responsible for all that they found wrong with the shows. It was almost as if Spike was breaking into the writer's room and replacing the scripts. All very funny.

Anyway, I'm relieved he'd not heard of it and hasn't been approached. It means I wont have to sit through one episode of this show. I don't like the sound of it at all and Eliza is good, but not a draw for me.

He's way too busy these days anyway. Probably couldn't get him.

JuliaL | April 01, 16:39 CET

This thread is getting wankier by the minute. So if we could all get back to what James says in the interview it would be greatly appreciated.

Simon | April 01, 16:39 CET

OK Donnie. And why would that logic would carry over to a totally new character on a new show (Dollhouse)? I agree that Marsters is pretty special, and would personally prefer to see a new slate of actors in Dollhouse, but I think his 'threat' of show-stealing shouldn't stand against his ever appearing in another Whedon project. However, I notice that he is pretty busy at the moment so perhaps others see the value-added to their projects.

You're right. It probably would be a different kind of character than he portrayed on "Buffy" and "Angel", but I still can not really get into the idea of having him possibly join DOLLHOUSE. You know, it's weird. I loved Spike when he first showed up on BUFFY, but when he got into the center of the show, I started to dislike him more and more. I really want DOLLHOUSE to be an ensemble show instead of a simple "Eliza Dushku and James Marsters-the guy who's loved by everyone and therefore appearing in every scene now"-show.

I can imagine James in a guest starring role for one episode in future seasons (if DOLLHOUSE gets that far), but especially now in the beginning I feel like Joss has to differentiate between DOLLHOUSE and his former shows and having such a popular and major actor from his former shows would not help DOLLHOUSE at all at establishing its own identity.

Donnie | April 01, 16:41 CET

Ahem.

Simon | April 01, 16:41 CET

DOLLHOUSE and his former shows and having such a popular and major actor from his former shows would not help DOLLHOUSE at all at establishing its own identity.

So why is Joss using Eliza then, if not to feed off some of her popularity as Faith? Is it just me, or am I sensing a double standard going on here with some comments? *g*

Maybe Joss should only use 'unknowns', and then at least the whole thing would stand or fall due to the strength in the concept/writing, rather then be a vehicle for one actor/actress.

Although in this day and age I know thats a highly unrealistic wish.

sueworld2003 | April 01, 17:13 CET

Err, Joss isn't "using" Eliza, it's her holding deal that led to him "accidentally" creating a show around her - if anything she's "using" him (though even that's not accurate).

Saje | April 01, 17:17 CET

I'm surprised that James seems to think that Joss wasn't crazy about the character of Spike - I've never heard that before.

missmuffet | April 01, 17:22 CET

Just want to point out that Eliza is in the show because she co-created it under her development deal with Fox. I think we are all being a bit silly declaring we will only watch Dollhouse if James is/isn't in it, so lets all back off it as Simon says.

zeitgeist | April 01, 17:26 CET

Nice to hear that he's so busy these days. I am curious how Dragon Ball is going to turn out. If they ever do make a Spike movie, for the love of god don't use James's story, James i love you man, but your "script" blows big time. Let Joss or the tv-writers handel the script.
And Spike was awesome the last two seasons.

Vergil | April 01, 17:35 CET

Just want to point out that Eliza is in the show because she co-created it under her development deal with Fox. I think we are all being a bit silly declaring we will only watch Dollhouse if James is/isn't in it, so lets all back off it as Simon says.

Oh I was aware it was her 'vehicle' and thats the only reason it's got made, but considering some folks attitude towards certain actors I'm surprised at some of the comments, thats all. *g*

I'm sure Dollhouse will stand or fall on it's own merits.

sueworld2003 | April 01, 17:48 CET

Hmm, but the point about Eliza being in it is that she wasn't picked by Joss so it's not germane to a charge of double standards.

Must confess, mainly hanging around here i've not come across many Buffy fans that aren't also general Joss fans (though most of us prefer one show over the others, whichever one it is) so it's a bit boggling to me that people wouldn't at least give it a chance just because it's he who puts the Whedon in the esque - I mean, I read somewhere that he can write a bit ;). Still, takes all sorts.

Is there actually as big a US backlash against 'Torchwood' and its "pan-sexuality" as he implies ? And has anyone watched a BBCA episode and a *cough* otherwise acquired *cough* version of the same episode to see how much was cut ?

Saje | April 01, 17:56 CET

I actually feel like James presence on Buffy and Angel is to strong for him to be on Dollhouse. Not that I don't feel he's a good enough actor to convince me of a new character, it's just that my brain will always go "SPIKE!"

I didn't always like Spike, but I always thought James acting was incredibly top notch. That said, I don't know how easy it would be to accept him as someone else in conjunction with Eliza Dushku and reading "Joss Whedon" at the bottom of the screen.

Love him or hate him, I think Spike was the "biggest" personality from either Buffyverse shows, which is great in the long run, but unfortunately makes me not wish to see him in another Joss show.

bknick | April 01, 17:57 CET

Well as long as he doesn't go around tongue kissing the male cast, he's welcome on Dollhouse *g*
(That's on camera, he can do what he likes off camera ;)

Pumps | April 01, 18:28 CET

Hmm, but the point about Eliza being in it is that she wasn't picked by Joss so it's not germane to a charge of double standards.

Oh I wasn't so much aiming that at Joss, as I know she was a 'given' but some folks idea of how they would be put off seeing yet another ex Buffy actor in a role, and how that would somehow detract from the show itself.

Faith wasn't exactly a 'low key' character was she? So I find it odd that if they take issue with some actors who have played well known characters, and not others.

But hey, I look forward to seeing who they'll finally cast in that and how the series will develop when it's on air.

Well as long as he doesn't go around tongue kissing the male cast, he's welcome on Dollhouse *g*

You say that as if it's a bad thing!! *snort*

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2008-04-01 15:33 ]

sueworld2003 | April 01, 18:31 CET

I wouldn't know exactly how much they've cut out of Torchwood, Saje, but I know they edit out the swearing (or at least now they do; early on someone was asleep at the censoring station). I switched to the "otherwise acquired" variety awhile back. I try to avoid putting up with US censoring if I can avoid it.

deepgirl187 | April 01, 18:35 CET

Is there actually as big a US backlash against 'Torchwood' and its "pan-sexuality" as he implies?

It was news to me.

sueworld2003, you said:

So why is Joss using Eliza then, if not to feed off some of her popularity as Faith?

So it seems more like you didn't realize.

zeitgeist | April 01, 18:41 CET

Yeah, should just add that if James actually did end up with a recurring role in Dollhouse, that would in no way stop me from watching. Anymore than having Ben and Claudia together in SG-1 stopped me watching that show. It creates that extra little bit of a problem in separating them from their previous roles in my head but it's not a deal breaker for me, one way or another. Just so long as it's right for the show.

I'd never heard about the Torchwood backlash either, but I'm not that heavily into the Doctor Who fandom so it may well be true. It's no secret that there are still parts of America where the general feeling towards homosexuality is, shall we say, a little uncomfortable. But then there are plenty of homophobes in the UK, as well. Brits are maybe just that little less vocal about it.

Highlander | April 01, 18:46 CET

So it seems more like you didn't realize.

Care to explain further?

sueworld2003 | April 01, 18:46 CET

I have seen James now in many other things and it's actually quite easy not to see Spike. And trust me, I'd love to see Spike again.

I think the Dollhouse concept sounds interesting, and I'll give it a try, though I only got through one Tru Calling episode so Eliza isn't enough to make it work for me.

I don't think Joss loved Spike as a character. I think he mostly tolerated him, tried to be interested in him, but just wasn't.
Joss is a female centered story teller. As much as Joss loves Fillion, Serenity was about River, not Mal.

So if there ever is a Spike movie/show, and I really hope there is, I too hope for someone else to run it. Lynch would be fine with me.

Xane | April 01, 18:51 CET

Your argument initially was that it was a double standard if Joss would choose to use Eliza, but not James. Then when it was mentioned that it was due to her co-creating and development being under her dev deal with Fox you said you weren't aiming it at Joss. However, your first statement said Joss specifically and people weren't arguing against using Eliza as a) they knew she was a) a part of the deal from the get go b) a lot of the argument was to not have two well known verse actors in it simultaneously c) that James would steal the show (you have to agree, he is a hugely charismatic presence). Whether Faith was as high profile as Spike is something we can certainly debate, but you keep saying that people should be against her being in Dollhouse if they are against James being in it and thats kind of like saying you should only want to see Buffy without the character of Buffy. Eliza comes with the package so being against her seems pretty much like tilting at windmills (and she can't steal the show from herself). Personally I just don't want to see the show filled with actors already associated with the verse. Happy to see them cameo/guest later on, though, and always happy to see James wherever I find him (except Smallville -- good for him, but I'm not watching it ;)).

Xane - I would suggest that that is Tru Calling's fault and not Eliza's :)

zeitgeist | April 01, 18:54 CET

moved to new location.

[ edited by Nebula1400 on 2008-04-01 20:24 ]

Nebula1400 | April 01, 18:57 CET

... happy to see James wherever I find him (except Smallville -- good for him, but I'm not watching it ;)
(my emph)

Well, as someone that does watch it, trust me when I say that's something to be happy about ;).

... there are plenty of homophobes in the UK, as well. Brits are maybe just that little less vocal about it.

Get out of it, every single one of us is a paragon of evolved enlightenment ;-).

Ah, cheers deepgirl187. It's weird that a show aimed at adults has swearing removed (and isn't BBCA a cable channel too ?) but it's cool if they leave in the seemingly obligatory weekly gay snog ;).

(I have to say, it sometimes seems gratuitous to me BUT I can't bring myself to begrudge them it - after so long not really being able to show gay kisses - and not chaste pecks either, full on face-sucking ;) - it's not surprising if the creators play with that particular toy every chance they get. It's sort of Jack's trademark, like "Bond, James Bond" ;)

Saje | April 01, 18:58 CET

Whether Faith was as high profile as Spike is something we can certainly debate, but you keep saying that people should be against her being in Dollhouse if they are against James being in it and thats kind of like saying you should only want to see Buffy without the character of Buffy.

I'm not saying that they should be, just I'm confused how folks can 'cherry pick' who they have this problem with, but hey, maybe thats just me not 'getting it again'. *g*

I'm sure Eliza will be marvelous.

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2008-04-01 16:08 ]

sueworld2003 | April 01, 19:05 CET

They don't get the chance to cherry pick -- Eliza is in the show whether they like it or not and the question being addressed was whether they would want to see James in it as well. Its entirely possible that I don't get it :) Just trying to tell you how your argument is coming across - to me, at least.

zeitgeist | April 01, 19:15 CET

I'm so glad it's actually a non-issue about him being in the show, if people get so excited about the possibility. :0)

Sue Is your meaning that if people can't see past Spike to see James as a new character, you wonder why they can see past Faith to see Eliza as a new character. I see your point, if that's what you mean. Faith was as bold a creation as Spike was. So why is it easier to look past her, but not him. BTW, I didn't read into your comments that people should be against her. Rather that you wondered why people appeared to be against James and yet the same criteria applys to Eliza.

Screeching back on topic as Simon requested....more TW??? Niiice. ;0)

JuliaL | April 01, 19:20 CET

They don't get the chance to cherry pick -- Eliza is in the show whether they like it or not and the question being addressed was whether they would want to see James in it as well. Its entirely possible that I don't get it :) Just trying to tell you how your argument is coming across - to me, at least.

*sigh* I'm obviously not doing a very good job of expressing myself today. I was aiming that remark at the other comments on here. Not Joss.

Sue Is your meaning that if people can't see past Spike to see James as a new character, you wonder why they can see past Faith to see Eliza as a new character. I see your point, if that's what you mean. Faith was as bold a creation as Spike was. So why is it easier to look past her, but not him. BTW, I didn't read into your comments that people should be against her. Rather that you wondered why people appeared to be against James and yet the same criteria applys to Eliza.

Bingo! Got it in one love! Glad to see at least somebody got what I was trying to say here. *g*

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2008-04-01 16:29 ]

sueworld2003 | April 01, 19:24 CET

I'm surprised that James seems to think that Joss wasn't crazy about the character of Spike - I've never heard that before.

I have, he's said it a couple of times. It's probably partially true, and partially James being his self-depricating....self. I mean Spike was pretty much a wild card in Buffy, and sort of a paradox because he was a vampire with soul, even when he was soulless. He didn't want to destroy the worlk, just smoke, party and ....well kill people, but mostly just be with dru.

dulce_serenidad | April 01, 19:29 CET

Sue Is your meaning that if people can't see past Spike to see James as a new character, you wonder why they can see past Faith to see Eliza as a new character.

and

Bingo !

Yes, but the point is sueworld2003, maybe they can't - however, it's completely irrelevant because she's in it, it's not a point for debate, it's not a valid reason for her not to be in it because there are no valid reasons for her not to be in it - cos she is, yeah ? Whereas since JM isn't in it and it was mentioned in this interview, it is a (possible) point against for him.

(it seemed clear to me you weren't "targetting" Joss BTW, it was upthread too ;)

[ edited by Saje on 2008-04-01 16:32 ]

Saje | April 01, 19:31 CET

[ edited by MysticSlug on 2008-04-01 17:24 ]

MysticSlug | April 01, 19:35 CET

I got the other point you were making about people seeing past the character, as to the other part, Saje says what I was trying to say better/more succinctly. Quoting your bit about Joss using Eliza was just to underscore that there is no choice there, she is in it, whether we like it or not.

zeitgeist | April 01, 19:36 CET

I'm happy to watch "Dollhouse" even if we find out the big twist is that Eliza's Echo, with Joss Whedon writing/showrunning, is the only human on a planet populated by sock puppets (because her memory keeps getting wiped, she's never sure if this is weird or not) -- based on the casting spoilers, I gather this isn't the case (unless Tahmoh Penikett et al have been hired for their hitherto-unpublicized puppeteering skills). :) If Whedon wants to cast people we've seen before, great; if he wants to cast people who are new to the Whedonverse, also great -- one of the many strokes of true genius running through all of Joss Whedon's shows is the casting. I trust his writing and I trust his decisions on who's right for a role.

I really, truly do not believe Joss Whedon was pressured by anything other than his own notion that it would be fun/interesting to make Spike a regular on "Buffy"/give him more screen time. All of the writers and directors on "Buffy" who've offered an opinion seem to genuinely enjoy working with James Marsters (Whedon is never anything other than enthusiastically complimentary and I remember the David Fury commentary on "Lies My Parents Told Me" as particularly expressive on this subject). Why is it so hard to believe that creative behind-the-scenes people would want to work with an actor who did his (extremely good) best to service their creative ideas? It may just be that JM's ideas of how Whedon's "interest" in Spike as a character did not translate into the character going in a direction that JM felt would have expressed that interest; I think it's clear from the amount of screen time Spike received that Joss Whedon and company didn't find him personally uninteresting :)

Shapenew | April 01, 19:40 CET

Quoting your bit about Joss using Eliza was just to underscore that there is no choice there, she is in it, whether we like it or not.

So you keep on telling me love. *g* I'm sure folks will adore her on it too.

sueworld2003 | April 01, 19:44 CET

Just wanted to make sure we had clarity :) Good on us. Sounds like some will be avoiding it because of Tru Calling, however. Oh, well... I'm very excited to see James back for the Torchwood season ender :) He slips into the part of Captain John like a second skin!

zeitgeist | April 01, 19:54 CET

Joss is a female centered story teller. As much as Joss loves Fillion, Serenity was about River, not Mal.

No, it was about both of them. (I'm not going to threadjack to debate the point, but I couldn't let this one pass.)

theonetruebix | April 01, 19:56 CET

Yep, two sides maybe but one coin.

(the throughline of 'Firefly' was surely "broken people try to become whole" ?)

Saje | April 01, 20:01 CET

Is there actually as big a US backlash against 'Torchwood' and its "pan-sexuality" as he implies ?

I feel quite confident in saying that 99.99% of the US population has never heard of Torchwood.

jlp | April 01, 20:22 CET

Yeah, I think Joss mentioned at one stage (the DVD commentary perhaps) that Serenity is River's story told from Mal's perspective. It focuses on River's secret being exposed and how she recovers from what has happened to her. But at the same time, Mal is a huge part of enabling that to happen and seeing justice being done, rising to the challenge of helping River and rediscovering part of his own humanity. So I think it's very much focused on those two characters.

I think in Buffy you could definitely argue the point that it was based around a female perspective, and it was hard to find a strong identifiable male perspective (perhaps Xander is one of the few possible candidates) whereas there were so many female figures. With Angel I felt it was very much the opposite, with the focus strongly on Angel himself for most of the series. With Firefly I felt Joss was finally achieving a satisfactory balance of representing the voices of both genders and their relationships, without focusing too much on one side.

Anyway, back to the article, I'm a little confused about some of James' comments about Spike considering that he become such a huge part of the show. And I disagree completely with him about the ethos of the show, that vampires were there to be killed rather that liked. The whole point of Buffy to begin with was about subverting the norm and challenging people's expectations, hence not too long into the show Angel was revealed as a vampire, the first of many examples of moral ambiguity. It seems only natural that Joss would have continued to make his villains occasionally likeable and sympathetic and his heroes villainous, so I don't feel like Spike wasn't an organic part of that universe.

I think it's also strange that he says, "first he had Angel to contend with, which was not his idea". Was Joss forced to make Angel a vampire with a soul because of some other pressure? I always thought it was a part of the story he had developed personally.

Razor | April 01, 20:29 CET

(*shrug*) Whedonfan = me. Looking forward to anything, anytime, and very glad to have something to look forward to.

m'cookies actual | April 01, 20:32 CET

What jlp said. There is no US Torchwood backlash because there are only ten of us who watch BBCAmerica.

TamaraC | April 01, 20:43 CET

C'mon, there are literally DOZENS of us ;) I mean, I watch the BBC airings of Torchwood not the BBCA airings, but I know several people who watch it on BBCA!

zeitgeist | April 01, 20:45 CET

There are endless repetative threads on the Doctor Who Formum about Russell T Davies and his " Gay agenda" and every Omnisexual scene that gets shown generates another "It just felt shoehorned in/did we really need to see that?/I'm not a homophobe but...." type debate .

So yeah, the show is pissing off some people but most seem to enjoy it just the way it is.

ETA

I'll give Dollhouse a go but if anyone wants to see whether they can watch James and not see Spike I suggest his cameo in Green River Killer . He did WAY too good a job of it and I don't think I'll ever feel quite clean again * shudders*.

[ edited by debw on 2008-04-01 17:51 ]

debw | April 01, 20:49 CET

I think it's also strange that he says, "first he had Angel to contend with, which was not his idea". Was Joss forced to make Angel a vampire with a soul because of some other pressure? I always thought it was a part of the story he had developed personally.

In the lovely letter that came with my collector's edition (or whatever) of Angel, Joss said that he thought about having Buffy fall for a vampire with a soul, then thought it was a silly idea, then didn't come up with anything better, so he just went with it. Then he talks with quite a bit of glee about how it all worked out. So maybe that sort of thing is what JM is referring to(?).

At any rate, it makes me very happy that JM asked if he could be on Doctor Who. Because if I were an actor, that's exactly what I would have done.

Lirazel | April 01, 21:41 CET

April 1, looking for tricks. What's up Simon? One comment, post a comment, 4 comments, 49 comments!? Joss posted or it's another argument about....yup.

cmbackshane | April 01, 21:47 CET

As the megalomaniac, pansexual Time Agent Captain John Harper

Um. Wha? It's Captain John Hart! Who's this "Captain John Harper" dude?

Torchwood is too far away! What is it like, April 4 and today is foolsday? I saw the preview on YouTube and I can't wait! James was yummy all pouty, childish and a little huggable. I think the last point is my fault not his. ;)

I love James, he's the reason that I tuned into Buffy and thus became a Whedon fan. But if he were to step into the House of Dolls I want it to be a gradual thing as a guest star, recurring character, to slowly establish a new character and be accepted by the people who only picture him as Spike.

I keep hearing about how amazing JM was in "The Capture of the Green River Killer", and I've not seen it! *whines and crosses fingers for a YouTube JM blessing*

[ edited by Mirage on 2008-04-01 18:52 ]

Mirage | April 01, 21:51 CET

I am always hearing about all the sexuality that is on Torchwood. All I can say is "Where?" What do you mean weekly snog? There is very little in the show. Just how much is being cut out? I watched all of season one on BBCA and was excited to rent the DVDs thinking that I would finally see what everyone is talking about, but there wasn't that much differnce. There is some implyed stuff between Ianto and Jack, but they never show anything. I love the show, but I think the pan-sexual hype is just that, hype. Have to say I love JM on there, the role was made for him.

For anyone who complains JM takes over any show, he seems to do that even if he only has minutes of screen time. He has a huge personality and great talent and it comes through bigger than life. His cameo appearance as Bundy far outshown the leading man even though he was only on screen for about 3 minutes. Personally, I am happy to see him in anything. I didn't like the Faith character and I didn't like Tru Calling, so I don't have high hopes for Dollhouse, unless James guest stars, but I know that would cause a lot of fans claiming that he is taking over the show, so maybe it's best if he doesn't.

luvspike | April 01, 22:10 CET

I'm not sure I understand objections to James taking another role because they think they'll look at James, with his curly brown hair, American accent and ability to stand in the sun, and only see Spike. Yet I haven't heard that complaint about other actors, who (mostly) look and sound exactly like their former characters. It's just odd. Is James never supposed to get another acting role again?

Or, James shouldn't get another role because Spike was annoying the last years of BtVS and AtS, and took over those shows. Didn't James just read the lines he was given? Well, it was because his mob of fans FORCED Joss against his will to make Spike the focus, while the actual majority of fans hated the way he "took over." Well, if Joss (or Fox or the networks) is supposedly that willing to bend to fan pressure from one group, then, if the Spike haters are supposedly so numerous, why didn't he bend to THEIR pressure? Couldn't it just be that Joss and the other writers saw story potential in the character and went with it, without putting the "blame" on any actor, fictional character, or group of fans?

That being said, I think Joss should probably avoid casting actors from BtVS, AtS, or even Firefly in regular roles on Dollhouse, unless they're playing characters so completely different from their previous roles as to be unrecognizable.

And as for Torchwood, I searched on a couple of the ultra-conservative Family organizations that protest and boycott other shows, and I can't find any mention of Torchwood. It just doesn't seem to be on their radar, at least not yet.

deanna b | April 01, 22:17 CET

Just had a thought about that. Perhaps it's not a viewer backlash, but an tv people thing. *shrugs*

JuliaL | April 01, 22:42 CET

Many folks have brought up in the previous threads that they would prefer to by and large see new folks cast and sidestep any associations with Bufy/Angel/Firefly (myself included). You can find these comments under previous Dollhouse threads in the archives. As far as the Marsters-bashing and the cries of "Marsters Über Alles", we've had enough of both of those in this thread, so lets leave that be.

zeitgeist | April 01, 22:42 CET

What does Über Alles mean?

JuliaL | April 01, 22:44 CET

Above Everything/Over All.

And if anyone would like to discuss further, email is a great way to do that.

zeitgeist | April 01, 22:47 CET

Actually, I'm tickled pink with the cast Joss has chosen so far! IMHO, I just want the show to be a success because we so miss Joss TV!

After all, new topics we can discuss which would be wonderful.

Madhatter | April 01, 22:53 CET

I'm glad James is busy. I like to see good actors get work. I've enjoyed him in Torchwood. I don't see a backlash for sexuality reasons but for quality reasons. The episodes don't keep a rhythm. There's three awesome episodes and seven eh episodes. At least that's what I see on the boards and blogs.

I don't watch BBCA. I watch the unedited version.

thatweirdgirl | April 01, 23:03 CET

Oh, right, ta. Actually, I've become quite partial to Julian Barratt recently so....he gives good moustache.

JuliaL | April 01, 23:04 CET

Yeah, the quality can be really uneven sometimes. I've really enjoyed series two but they lingered too long on Owen's erm predicament and there just haven't been great standout eps this season -- for really stinking or really being great, IMO. Enjoyable, though :) Very much looking forward to the return of Captain John, he was the harbinger of humor in this show and it needs more of it. Seems to have tapered off again with regards to the funny.

zeitgeist | April 01, 23:14 CET

Someone mentioned above that it was weird for James to say that Spike never felt like a character Joss wanted to deal with. I second the weirdness.

If Joss didn't like dealing with Spike, uh...why did he add him to the cast for four seasons of Buffy and then--after killing him--resurrect him on Angel? And continue to write comic books featuring him with Brian Lynch?

UnpluggedCrazy | April 01, 23:24 CET

I could see James guest starring in "Dollhouse" in a fantasy about being on "Buffy" (or maybe a "Faith" series). He could be a guy who wishes he was Spike - or maybe even Angel. ;-)

Nebula1400 | April 01, 23:25 CET

BTW, how are you folks seeing the interview with James? I've been clicking on the link above on and off all day and all I get is a blank page. Maybe it's an "at work block-y" issue, perhaps?

m'cookies actual | April 01, 23:35 CET

It must be a blocking thing- check your email :)

zeitgeist | April 01, 23:44 CET

I weighed in earlier to say that James can snog any character he likes in any show. That scene from Torchwood was absolutely brilliant - well written and excellentely played. I especially love the part where he says, "But I was a good wife." Gives me the giggles just thinking about it. Good for him for going full out with it.

Good for Torchwood if it's irritating all the right people. I've never seen the American version, but I imagine it's a bit like drinking soda without the fizzy part. All of the conservatism about sexuality is one of the things I don't miss since I misplaced myself. The idea of pan-sexuality intrigues me, and in the world of Torchwood, it makes perfect sense. It's science fiction. You have to be willing to take things to a logical place, and it just isn't logical to assume that aliens think, or act like humans, nor is it logical that humans might not give aliens a whirl. I'm just sayin'.

As for Joss and the character of Spike, are we forgetting that Joss said he had found the prefect couple in Angel and Spike? He loved their energy. Go here.

[ edited by MysticSlug on 2008-04-01 21:44 ]

MysticSlug | April 02, 00:29 CET

:) Its all good, here's how:

Go <A HREF="http://whedonesque.com/comments/9323#106460">here</A>.

Would be a link to http://whedonesque.com/comments/9323#106460 using the word here as the link as below:

Go here.

zeitgeist | April 02, 00:37 CET

Now I'm all giggly! Thanks, zeitgeist.

[ edited by MysticSlug on 2008-04-01 21:46 ]

MysticSlug | April 02, 00:40 CET

Corrected the example.

zeitgeist | April 02, 00:43 CET

sueworld2003:

"You say that as if it's a bad thing!! *snort*"

well it is for some of us - we'd buy a porn dvd if we want that.

Saje:

"Is there actually as big a US backlash against 'Torchwood' and its "pan-sexuality" as he implies?"

We'll I've seen in newsgroups some people being annoyed at what the see as a gay agenda of constant gay comments and kissing and fondling and innuendo (instead of clever dialog or good story) etc. But I don't know if Marsters reads the newsgroups a lot *g*

zeitgeist:

"Quoting your bit about Joss using Eliza was just to underscore that there is no choice there, she is in it, whether we like it or not."

Its television, things happen. There was a sitcom about 20 years ago, the name escapes me but it was named after the lead - we could call it "Eliza" - after two years the producers got tired of the lead and fired her, and the focus of the show was then on the family. Next year they changed the name of the show to that of the family and went on for years *g*

Pumps | April 02, 00:46 CET

Hadn't the original plan been for Spike to die midway through season 2, but Joss liked Marsters' take on him so much that he kept him going? That's the story I heard.

And actually I'm interested in the comment that came up on an earlier thread that Joss had planned to leave Angel dead after the end of BtVS season 2, but brought him back because the spin-off was green-lit. Anyone know the truth of that?

And is it true that Morgan Freeman was never scheduled to not die in BtVS or AtS?

barboo | April 02, 00:54 CET

Its television, things happen. There was a sitcom about 20 years ago, the name escapes me but it was named after the lead - we could call it "Eliza" - after two years the producers got tired of the lead and fired her, and the focus of the show was then on the family. Next year they changed the name of the show to that of the family and went on for years *g*

Cute, but this is an Eliza vehicle and Eliza is effectively the producers :) *cough* Valerie's Family *cough* Plus, do you see any show lasting that long on network TV these days? And, yay, we got Jason Bateman out of that show!

barboo - that's always the story that I've heard as well, I believe its even in a featurette or commentary track or several, though I may be wrong.

zeitgeist | April 02, 01:03 CET

Morgan Freeman's in a commentary ?

Figures, no commentary would be the same without Morgan Freeman.

Saje | April 02, 01:04 CET

That sounds like the stupidest idea for a movie ever. I'm hoping this is an April Fool's joke.

Bruce | April 02, 01:08 CET

Morgan Freeman? I don't remember Morgan Freeman being in either show. I am very confused here. Saje, care to explain?

Zeitgeist, am I doing something that requires editing? My posts keep coming up with "edit" at the bottom.

[ edited by MysticSlug on 2008-04-01 22:14 ]

MysticSlug | April 02, 01:10 CET

well it is for some of us - we'd buy a porn dvd if we want that.

Would you have that attitude if it was directed towards a female though?

We'll I've seen in newsgroups some people being annoyed at what the see as a gay agenda of constant gay comments and kissing and fondling and innuendo (instead of clever dialog or good story) etc. But I don't know if Marsters reads the newsgroups a lot *g*

'Gay agenda' eh? That old 'song again'....

[ edited by sueworld2003 on 2008-04-01 22:18 ]

sueworld2003 | April 02, 01:13 CET

Morgan Freeman's in a commentary ?

Morgan Freeman is in EVERY commentary, its just whether you notice him or not.

Bruce, there is probably a way to say what you just said that wouldn't lead to someone taking offense and then to a back and forth where someone gets put on timeout (and someone gets the funny syphilis, wait, wrong thread). And, yes, its in all likelihood a joke. However, lets try to be a little less, ahem, provocative. Same goes for Donnie up at the top of the thread.

Zeitgeist, am I doing something that requires editing? My posts keep coming up with "edit" at the bottom.

Nope, you just jave the ability to edit your own posts now.

zeitgeist | April 02, 01:16 CET

Bruce, I think he was having a bit of fun. James has a wicked sense of humour. Check out his monthly Q&A. :)

MysticSlug | April 02, 01:17 CET

Oh woops. He sounded serious, though. My bad. :(

Bruce | April 02, 02:00 CET

Hard to tell with printed words some times :)

zeitgeist | April 02, 02:11 CET

Heh. Those had better be some awesome shoes.

Technically, most DVDs have a silent commentary track provided by Morgan Freeman. He's just that good. That way, it doesn't matter whether his character is even in the show to begin with, much less killed off.

Sunfire | April 02, 02:53 CET

Well as long as he doesn't go around tongue kissing the male cast, he's welcome on Dollhouse *g*

"You say that as if it's a bad thing!! *snort*"

well it is for some of us - we'd buy a porn dvd if we want that.

Tongue kissing = porn?? Wow, imagine how many shows and movies would become X-Rated if having one character French kiss another character counted as porn. Glad Buffy pointed out that there was no tongue in her kiss with Angel, or else the Buffy finale would have been banned, and we'd have to buy it in a paper sack from an adult video store.

Wait, maybe I'm remembering that scene wrong, but didn't Willow and Kennedy do some "tongue kissing"? Oh no! Porn!! *runs away screaming*

deanna b | April 02, 02:54 CET

I think James Marsters may be thinking of the fact that you're not going to see two men kissing and fondling for the duration of the Capt. Jack/Capt. John kiss/fondle on American network television. Whether or not a significant percentage of the audience would object, the networks act as though it's not okay. So to that extent, he's right. (If anyone has an example of an American network same-sex smooch comparable to the one in "Torchwood," I hereby rescind the comment.)

[ edited by Shapenew on 2008-04-01 23:58 ]

Shapenew | April 02, 02:57 CET

Love to hear how busy he is. I'm interested to see what they did with Dragonball since it normally wouldn't be something I'm interested in...casting-wise though, I'll have to check it out!

Joss does seem to be more interested in his female characters...but I think James' ego (or lack thereof) is colouring his judgement on Joss' amount of interest in Spike in particular. Always interesting to see everyone's different views on the same ideas though...I'd be interested to hear Joss speak to that point!

blond_bear | April 02, 03:21 CET

Wow, I take a two-day break to get some work in, and I miss all of this. *sighs*

Well, let me just add my two cents in being "weirded out" that James has that impression on Joss' view of the Spike character. And, if (big IF, in another dimension IF) the lack of enthusiasm is why Spike was never green lit, I believe the fans of Marsters & Whedon could be quite happy to see something with James as the presence of the show, be it a webvid, movie, miniseries, or TV show.

Marsters DEFINATELY dominates the screen... but how is that a bad thing? Let's use it to our advantage and give that man a roll worthy of domination (with him as the lead).

Perhaps Whedon isn't the man to write Spike, but maybe he's got something else in his noggin that Marsters would be suited for. Maybe not. What writer do you think would give Marsters the presence that he demands on screen? In other words... who would be the best writer for James Marsters?

korkster | April 02, 03:40 CET

MysticSlug,
Morgan Freeman's nonappearance is a running joke ever since he was cast as Wonder Women in Joss' version of the movie, which sadly was then dropped due to "creative differences" over whether a black man could really fill that invisible glass robo-plane. (Hopefully U.S. voters will make a better choice next fall). This was great heartbreak to the fandom as we all thought Morgan would look just amazing in a tiara.

barboo | April 02, 03:40 CET

deanna b, it's to late to run. The eye-gouging MUST commence!

korkster | April 02, 03:42 CET

Good for Torchwood if it's irritating all the right people. I've never seen the American version, but I imagine it's a bit like drinking soda without the fizzy part.

Oh, I've watched it on BBCA and wondered why it seemed flat. I didn't know it was edited differently.

GrrrlRomeo | April 02, 03:59 CET

Joss is a female centered story teller. As much as Joss loves Fillion, Serenity was about River, not Mal.

No, it was about both of them. (I'm not going to threadjack to debate the point, but I couldn't let this one pass.)

Yeah, Joss said that Serenity is "Mal's story as told by River". I had the same thought as you, b!X, when I read that statement.

And...back on topic: I've never completely agreed with Marsters' perspective on Spike, and I definitely think he's got Joss' perspective on Spike completely wrong. But it's nice he would still love for them to work together again.

I'm still kind of thrown that James revealed the plot of the hypothetical Spike movie. In the entertainment business, aren't you supposed to keep that stuff close to the vest even if it's a longshot? Not that it's likely to be consquential, but it amuses me that James still can't keep his mouth shut. Heh.

ETA: Or perhaps Serenity is River's story as told by Mal. Hmm. Now I'm confused and can't remember.

[ edited by electricspacegirl on 2008-04-02 01:45 ]

electricspacegirl | April 02, 04:37 CET

Ah but he follows the example of others involved with ME. I mean Fury outed the whole 'ghost Spike' idea to the media once the Faith spin off collapsed.

helcat | April 02, 04:51 CET

So you're saying James Marsters is really Morgan Freeman?

narnia | April 02, 05:27 CET

And don't forget Amy Acker telling us that Gunn was gonna be a Vampire.
That would have been a shocker!
If, you know, it had been a suprise.

Xane | April 02, 05:56 CET

Laughing my ass off to discover that I'm one of the sane JM fans. ;-)

OK, Torchwood BBC vs. BBCA: I have the DVD set and very little is actually cut/censored in the BBCA version. Mainly language, none of the gay/bi snoggage, which would IMO be no cause for comment in the first place, if it were hetro.

I think what James is referring to, being very politically aware and well known (in the U.S.) to be radically liberal, is the general tone of attempted repression of anything overtly gay, by the present U.S. ~~senior partners,~~ government.

And if Googling around indicates that the equal opportunity sexiness of Torchwood is flying under the U.S. censors' radar, here's hoping it stays that way.

Shey | April 02, 11:12 CET

barboo, thanks for clearing that up for me. Now I've got a mental picture of Morgan Freeman wearing a gold tiara and tight little, flag embossed body suit, complete with chicken fillets, tottering around in high-heeled, golden boots. How will I ever get through the day?

Seems a bit unfair to Mr. Freeman though.

MysticSlug | April 02, 12:05 CET

It would be nice to see him on Dollhouse as a completely different character from Spike.

Astoria_Potter | July 04, 03:14 CET

April 01 2008