Only if we if we sign up to the principle of "Other people don't have to like what we like".

Simon | September 29, 14:55 CET

I think it's very unlikely for it to be canceled during it's first season, though. The way FOX is pushing it, they are going to keep it around for the full season, unless it's ratings are absolutely awful.

That said, I'm quite confident that the show will last well beyond that. The premise is his most accessible yet, the title isn't off-putting, and the show (based on the leaked "pilot" script) is just as intriguing and involving as any of his others.

Racoon Boy | September 29, 15:01 CET

As usual, Roush is spot-on. Thank G'd for Ausiello and him as the voices of intelligence and reason in a vast wasteland of both unnecessary panic and inflated adulation where this show- and Joss, much as I like him and his work- are concerned.

OzLady | September 29, 15:04 CET

For me it's the opposite. I think the premise is somewhat complicated and going to be a very hard sell but Fox will do their best to push it. I read a blog entry elsewhere which challenged people to sum up Dollhouse in two short sentences and there wasn't many people who could.

Simon | September 29, 15:08 CET

Joss achilles' heel is naming stuff. In my opinion his names are strange and off-putting.

The Buffy one is obvious. Angel, on at the same time as Touched by an Angel, sounded like a very different kind of show than what it was.
Firefly didn't remotely sound like a Sci fi show, it sounded like a folksy, woodsy, outdoorsy kind of show.
Serenity sounded like an adult diaper commercial, or a movie about Alcoholics Anonymous. Seriously, when the staff at Universal Studios was trying to help me find out when that special event before the movie was, we just got info about adult diapers on the computer.
Dollhouse sounds either Hefneresque as others have said, or like a spin off of America's Next Top Model.

He'd be better off with more generic names.
Buffy could have just been "The Vampire Slayer"
Dollhouse could be "The House"
Angel could have been "Vampire" or "Los Angeles Vampire" or something generic that would be less misleading. It's not that the titles don't give you information, they give you the wrong information.

JOss' shows are brilliant, but I accept that he could name things better. What would be the harm?

Xane | September 29, 15:15 CET

I thought Tuesday was Dollhouse Panic Day.

Sunfire | September 29, 15:15 CET

I think Joss did a fabulous job in naming "Buffy" and "Angel". Wouldn't want the shows called anything else myself.


Word Aimstomisbehave!

cheryl | September 29, 15:26 CET

I was not intending to suggest that the remark was elitist, just that its usage can have the unfortuante side-effect of suggesting elitism or arrogance ...

Yeah I get that alien lanes, your comment afterwards

"It's fodder for the detractors who point to Whedon's supposed arrogance. "

made it clear you didn't count yourself among that number (i'm assuming being on here means you're not a detractor ;). Sorry if it seemed like I was implying you were.

(could probably have missed off that sentence, it was just a preamble into why I don't think it should be read as elitist by the world at large)

In sum, I wonder if we shouldn't just back off a bit and let the people of America come to their own conclusions.

Well we don't have much choice there surely (we foreign Johnys especially ;) ? If a mainstream audience don't like it it'll get cancelled and there's not much we can do about that.

Re: the masses are idiots, well, that's clearly not gonna win any friends though it'll most definitely influence people. I think it stems from a natural reaction you see a fair bit in our fandom in that we love Whedon works so much that they must just be objectively better and so if you don't like them there's something wrong with you. It's basically a form of "argument from incredulity", like, "It's so good, how can you not like it ? What's up with you ?". And a lot of folk aren't happy with the idea that like/dislike is just a matter of opinion, they're happier with external vindication of their shows, some authority to tell them "It's OK that you like this show that a lot of people don't".

Only if we if we sign up to the principle of "Other people don't have to like what we like".

Well that'll never take off ;).

Saje | September 29, 15:29 CET

I'm going to have to disagree with you, Xane. I think it's evident that Joss puts a lot of thought into his names, and that all of them fit their respective shows very well. I admit that none of them really grab your interest, but honestly, what title does? The titles of Joss's shows do a great job of capturing the tone of the series they represent.

In response to Simon: You are right that the premise of Dollhouse isn't entirely simple, all I meant was that it has strong mainstream appeal. If someone were to hear about a show where "people enlist the services of a secretive company to fulfill needs/fantasies through the use of programmable humans", without getting to specific with details, they would likely be pretty interested. The basic premise of Dollhouse seems likely to appeal to viewers in the same way Alias, Lost and Heroes did, although maybe not to such a high degree as those.

I don't know, that's just what I think. Maybe I'm just trying to be optimistic.

Racoon Boy | September 29, 15:38 CET

Maybe the panic meter wouldn't be tripped if different titles were chosen for the articles posted too.

I haven't read most of the comments yet. (Allergy eyes.) But I have to say that I appreciate Matt Rousch more and more each day.

ETA: I think the name fits perfectly with the idea of the show.

[ edited by NYPinTA on 2008-09-29 15:45 ]

NYPinTA | September 29, 15:43 CET

Bottom line: Joss is less likely to sell-out than any other writer-producer, and even if we only get the 13-22 episodes of Dollhouse, like with Firefly, they'll be pretty awesome.

That said, I really want a good 100 episodes+ of a show that I can predict I'll really like.

Liam Mars | September 29, 15:46 CET

The beauty of Joss works starts with the name, the title of each project, which by themselves are already very complex.

Buffy, the Vampire Slayer is a 6-8 part statement, that sums up everything about the show, and the mish-mesh of styles that it is. A generic title would just seem pointless.

The same complexity can also be found in the one-worded titles, like Firefly (a certain scene from "Bushwacked", it's quite evocative into the matter), and Angel, as title and duality, comes even from the BtVS episode titled as such.

And I believe the same applies to Dollhouse.

The sad part is the average viewer don't get it, why watch Dollhouse, when a show like Ghost Whisperer or CSI or Law & Order or ER is so much easier to get.

Numfar PTB | September 29, 15:46 CET

"I'm going to have to disagree with you, Xane. I think it's evident that Joss puts a lot of thought into his names, and that all of them fit their respective shows very well. I admit that none of them really grab your interest, but honestly, what title does? The titles of Joss's shows do a great job of capturing the tone of the series they represent."

But see it isn't about capturing the tone of the series. I absolutely agree that they do that. It's about getting people to watch.
Think of Alias, Heroes, Lost. Those three titles tell you nothing really about the series, set no kind of tone, don't really mean anything. But they don't give anyone the wrong idea either. What if Heroes was called Human Evolution, or Lost was called Island Mysteries. They tell you more about the shows, but they also can be misinterpreted by the general audience.
Buffy is a brilliant, brilliant show. I recently got five twenty-year-old guys totally sucked in and addicted. They are getting together to watch several episodes a night and are up to Season Four. The name put them off.

Xane | September 29, 15:51 CET

Xane, I understand what you mean, but I think the only title that could give someone the "wrong" idea, is Firefly.

Numfar PTB did a much better job than me of explaining why Joss's titles are great.

Racoon Boy | September 29, 15:56 CET

I am not attempting to start an argument, or even play devils’ advocate, or whatever, but why?

Are we saying that the likes of Bryan Fuller, Aaron Sorkin, Barbara Black, Glen Gordon Caron, Marti Noxon, or whoever we each happen to have an individual interest in, are a bunch of sell-outs, or just waiting for the chance to sell-out in pursuit of success?

I cannot buy that. I honestly believe Joss Whedon is fully aware of the reality of the business he is in – and quite capable of dealing as the need arises.

alien lanes | September 29, 16:11 CET

I think the basic premise of Dollhouse is fairly straightforward and accessible: it's about an organization that wipes clean and reprograms the identities of people ("dolls") and hires them out to other people. That's not too complicated for the average viewer to understand.

As for the title, I think it strikes a pretty good balance of evocative and descriptive. Sure there are more descriptive titles out there ("Boston Legal" or "Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles" or "Desperate Housewives" spring to mind), but there are a lot of opaque ones, or ones that don't really tell you anything about the show ("House" or "Lost" or "Fringe"). "Dollhouse" seems like a nice compromise.

Septimus | September 29, 16:24 CET

Controversy! Yay!

I see your point, BAFler. It's just that the word "elitist" gets tossed around a lot, and I think of being elite as a good thing. Smart shows, shows that are actually hard to watch, don't do well. Joss's stuff isn't even the best example of this ("The Wire" probably is). It isn't just tv, it's everything; Gene Wolfe has never won a Hugo; how many people knew about the Velvet Underground when they were still around? I could go on.

I can't speak for the rest of the fandom (duh), so I'd be horrified if a non-fan took my comments as representative. Most Joss Whedon fans are nicer and smarter than me. But it sure looks to me like Joss's stuff hasn't done well ratings-wise because most television viewers don't get it, don't want to take the time, want simpler stories and characters and answers. Which does sound arrogant. But I think it's true.

And I do love me some argument from incredulity. Which, I'd point out, has a grand history. Blood-spattered, yes, but grand. The problem is that very few people will engage on why they don't like something. And I do think that there's a place for "you're just wrong" (dare I say "Because it's WRONG"?). Fandom probably isn't that place. But I do have a sneaking, probably irrational conviction that there are objective aesthetic standards by which all art should be considered. No, I can't back that up. Nonetheless. Grand history, remember?

aimstomisbehave | September 29, 16:26 CET

I think there is a certain degree of Schaudenfreude involved in the negative comments we have seen. Joss has a great deal of cultural cred, and for all that has also had shows fail, notab;ley firefly. So I think some people, as is so common in our culture, look to see someone up high get brought down. Imean, whedonesque gets lots of call-outs, for example, and this is a way for others to cast doubt on Joss and on his supporters. But then a comment such as shey's that well granted, your "average" TV fan is not going to get that, and those of us who do get it, are most likely fans of joss's work already. can also be seen as a kind of arrogance on our part- hey, we get it, but hey, you don't, does not help either. I think it is a given that each director, creator, producer is sincerely trying to do the best they can, and put on a quality show that makes money and is successful; that they sometimes do not is an indication that (1) they are human, (2) people's tastes change, (3) the zeitgeist changes, or (4) they just did not develop the right show this time.

(PS. I bought the first Velvet Underground record just 2 weeks after it was first released- and that was way back in the 1960's... and I still have the LP today).

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2008-09-29 16:28 ]

Dana5140 | September 29, 16:26 CET

Saje, I agree with your assessment re: the masses are idiots, but I think there's an added element making us "worse" than other fandoms. Just taking the parts of fandom I know and in no way using actual statistics ;), I think our fandom has a fairly high degree of well-educated, intelligent people who may be used to being misunderstood and "knowing better" than others. What's more, I think quite a few of us are either used to critiquing works of fiction, professionally or as a hobby, or we get educated in the art of critique in some shape or form when we enter the fandom. (I know being a whedon fan and being in contact with other whedon fans has greatly helped me in writing movie reviews later on. Many of the techniques on what makes up good fiction, and certainly a much bigger understanding of what makes fiction "tick", so to speak, come from this fandom).

I've never been very active in other fandoms and have just navigated the fringes of a few others from time to time, but on the whole, critical and in-depth analasys of Joss' works (and a few others) seem an integral part of this fandom. Of course, we also have the character studies, personal likes/dislikes (including various 'shipper groups), and story speculation that are a major part of every fandom, but in my personal experience the accent is laid slightly differently here than it is elsewhere. (This - by the way - might not go for all fandoms. Sometimes I wonder if there are fandoms out there similar to ours in make up and "vibe". The closest one I've ever found was the - generally slightly younger - 'His Dark Materials' fandom and I suspect a similar build-up and attitude in current BSG fandom, for instance, though I've never experienced that fandom from the inside, as I'm just a casual watcher of that show)

Most of us like Joss' works for a number of personal elements, just like any other fan of anything, but apart from what attracts us in the first place, most of us also feel that his shows are "objectively" good, as far as it is possible to make such an assessment. Maybe we - as a group, not singling out any individual - are more "elitist" because of that. But that doesn't mean we're wrong.

I'm also part of a "general" music fandom that listens to obscure, melancholy, mostly male, singer/songwriters. As a group I'm pretty sure we're elitist. We're big old music snobs, just like us whedon fans might just be television snobs. But there's nothing fundamentally wrong with being elitist or a snob. It just means that what we really like in that particular fandom, we also think is really good (and that - as a fandom - we're more critical about the object(s) of our affection than usual). This, of course, is just a random coincidence. There are shows I love that I don't think are particularly good in the same way I think Buffy/Angel/Firefly are (hello there, Stargate ;)) or shows I think are good, but I don't particularly love (hey Farscape, nice of you to pop up in this discussion ;)).

So, getting back to our Whedon fandom: I think the fact that other people might not like Buffy, Angel or Firefly, is no problem to most of us (some people like some elements in their shows, others like different things), although we - as a group - do tend to have evangelical-like tendencies in trying to get people who have pre-judged the show to give it a fair try. But the fact that other people feel our favorite shows are examples of bad television, is what gets us riled up and is usually cause for a debate in any part of this fandom.

So is that bad? Nah, not necessarily, and it's something I'd like to add to the observations BAFfler made upthread. There's nothing wrong with a bit of elitism when it comes to art, or given the example given in BAFfler's post, food. There is with being an ass about it, like fictional 'DUDLEY' there, which I think is an unrepresentative example of the way Whedon fans operate (some exceptions to the rule, of course, exist) even when I ignore the completely different set of circumstances - like the social group coherence that's at work in a group of co-workers that is not present in the 'television audience' at large and the fact that watching a "good" television show is not mutually exclusive with also watching some enjoyable fluff with - let's say - one's friends or coworkers ;). Again there's nothing wrong with being slightly "elitist" as a fandom or even with sounding slightly elitist. Seperating between quality television and fluff, or recognising and liking good food, are all fine. Opinions on what seperates good and bad may differ and they'd be cause for a nice discussion, but thinking about fiction in more ways than just WYSIWYG is not a bad thing. And when you really like some of that fiction which you feel is very good, there's bound to be an element or air of elitism in the fandom. Again, all fine with me. On the other hand: I, myself, am not a food-snob, although I certainly like to cook, but my tastes in food are nothing if not mainstream. And there's nothing wrong with that either. And if someone told me that I was eating the wrong foods and would probably enjoy a meal prepared with more thought and care for ingrediënts, I'd probably give it a try to see if I liked it, but I would still also enjoy my regular diet.

So in closing: liking and recognising quality is not something to be ashamed of. Any resulting 'we're better than others' attitude, though, is and while there'll always be small elements of that in any fandom, I don't think it is representative for "us" as a whole. There is I think a defensiveness in our fandom - which may be what BAFfler was pointing towards in his post (which, although that may not be clear from what I wrote above, I largely agree with) - which stems from the fact that the mainstream media do not give our favorite shows the credit we think it deserves (just take a look at our frustration over Emmy snubs) and which leads to an overreaction on the subject because - unlike, for instance, the music fandom I'm a part of - we actually do want the relatively 'obscure' shows we love to get mainstream recognition and respect. In that sense, we're not elitist at all, but it may be the root of the problem. In fact, I'd imagine a more accurate 'DUDLEY' - again ignoring the parts where the analogy doesn't work - would probably answer summing up the things that make his restaurant superiour to that of his co-workers and then try to convince them to go with him, maybe only once at first, and give this different lunch environment a fair chance.

ETA: heh, parts of aimstomisbehave and Dana5140's comments have made this longer and less efficient post slightly redundant now ;)

[ edited by GVH on 2008-09-29 16:46 ]

GVH | September 29, 16:42 CET

I just can't get anxious/emotionally invested in the Dollhouse threads until November 5th, right now I already have enough to keep me up at night!

However I just want to put in my two cents: I agree, in general, that most people don't pay much attention to TV and prefer light undemanding shows. BUT in the last couple of years we've seen 24, Lost, and Heroes come through as big hits in spite of demanding that the viewer not only pay attention but also not miss any episodes. I think the current landscape of TV shows is one where Dollhouse will fit right in, and the smart, funny and sexy writing should be involving to viewers.

embers | September 29, 17:19 CET

If I were looking in from the outside (which, I must admit, I sometimes I think I am), I could interrupt, wrongly I would hope, some of the comments here to be suggesting that Joss Whedon’s fanbase is intellectually superior to all others. I do not think high standards of education is something reserved for Joss Whedon fans – and, in fact, I could not personally claim to be either well educated or especially intelligent, although maybe that explains why I query the suggestion.

The “Whedon fanbase” is judged by other similar fanbases, not by television viewers in general, who have no idea such things exist, and even less interest. It seems to me to be a competition of the likeminded.

alien lanes | September 29, 17:21 CET

There's nothing wrong with a bit of elitism when it comes to art, or given the example given in BAFfler's post, food. There is with being an ass about it ...

I think there's a difference between enjoying quality on one hand and elitism or snobbery on the other. Snobbery is when you're condescending to people that like what you perceive to be a lower quality product. It is, by definition, "being an ass about it" (and at its worst it often involves pre-judging something on the basis that the "superior intellect" somehow already knows it's going to be rubbish, often because a lot of people like it).

I've covered my issues with the "objective metric" before but suffice it to say, proponents usually struggle to provide one when asked, often saying "I know it when I see it". Well, a better description of subjective opinion i'd struggle to come up with ;).

Above all what bothers me about it is, it amounts to telling people they're wrong (even if only by implication) because they enjoy or are even moved by something that's supposedly of inferior quality. Well, who are any of us to say that ? A genuine response to a work of art is a genuine response, it's not somehow less true or resonant for that individual because the prose isn't stylish (in our opinion) or because the use of light is naive (in our opinion) or because the show doesn't have interwoven subtexts (in our ... you get the idea ;).

Saje | September 29, 17:29 CET

Ah, the should've-named-the-show theories that would have brought in more viewers. Here's some "could have beens":

Buffy the Vampire Slayer --> Sulky Sexy Slayer Chick
Angel --> Hot Vampire P.I.
Firefly --> Watch This!

As for Dollhouse, how 'bout this title:

"Reprogrammable Fantasy Hotties"

That ought to reel in the unwashed masses and kick up the ratings! Of course after watching the show folks will notice it has brains... and some viewers will be lost when they find they need to pay attention, and think(!). But do the math: 'Big Initial Flood of the Curious' minus 'have to think factor' equals 'still a lot of people'.

It... could... work!

11thHour | September 29, 17:32 CET

11thHour makes me laugh.

Racoon Boy | September 29, 17:45 CET

My login isn't working to get into the Whedon Panic Update Server, so I think I'm one color level behind. Can someone email me the latest patch? Thanks.

The One True b!X | September 29, 17:55 CET

As a member of the unwashed masses, I object. We are as capable of thinking as anyone else.

alien lanes | September 29, 18:01 CET

Just wanted to chime in about the naming...

I absolutely love the names Joss gives to his shows. It would be a small tragedy if Buffy wasn't named Buffy. The only naming decision I was unsure about was Serenity, in that it didn't make the Firefly-connection readily apparent, but I suppose that was the point (wanting to get people into the cinema who hadn't seen Firefly).

I applaud Joss' resolve to do what he wants to do. He has shown he's prepared to make sacrifices for the sake of commercialism, but he's also shown that he'll only go so far with that. In the short term not compromising your creative vision will be tough, might mean your show gets cancelled, but in the long term it'll also mean your show gets remembered.

As for the "sum up Dollhouse in two sentences" competition, how about:



(let the sci-fi get explained after they've started watching)

MattK | September 29, 18:05 CET

Here's a difference between Buffy The Vampire Slayer and Dollhouse:

With Buffy, it was about growing up. It was told via the means of vampires, and demons and such - but that wasn't the point of the show.

Dollhouse is about identity and society, and how we're all expected to be something we're not, and what happens when we fail to do that. The premise is the story.

I won't speculate on how difficult a sell that's gonna be, 'cause I haven't seen much publicity material yet (I doubt they have much) (although I have seen a short FOX TV spot they've done for it).

Fact is, nobody really knows how the public will take to it until the Nielsen's come in. I believe Joss dislikes the knee jerk world we live in, but the reality is that if it starts very poorly, it won't stick. Most TV shows don't. If FOX launch it right - and they can do, see also last years TERMINATOR launch - it'll be fine for a while, by which point it becomes Joss Whedon and co-workers responsibility, not FOX's.

There's no reason for us, as fans, to care about any of this. It's all outside of our control. But we shall. Because we're fans.

gossi | September 29, 18:20 CET

Saje, certainly by that definition of 'snob' or 'elitist' (i.e.: "being an ass about it"), I would agree that it would be wrong to be one. But what, then, would you call people who - like I do - think that the television they love (like Buffy/Angel/Firefly) are - in fact - in the highest category, quality wise, or who feel the music they like is 'better' than a lot of mainstream music, or who prefer quality food with fresh ingredients to your avarage fare, etcetera. In my mind, these people would be 'elitist' (and I'd jokingly call them or myself 'snobs'), but they would not necessarily be an ass about it and judge what other people like. Unless these other people love Charmed, then they're more than justified in their mockery ;).

Anyway: I'd agree that there is no objective metric to objectifying fiction, but (like I've also said before when this particular subject came up :)) there is, I feel, an as-objective-as-possible approach to an inherently subjective subject and there are objective things one can say about fiction. In general, I'd say television is better if it is more layered, if it has more complex characters who have more complex motivations for the actions they take, if it is emotionally real, if substories resonate with the main story around a single theme, if it is original or uses clichés in interesting ways, if the acting is above cut, and if it has intelligent dialogue (and I could probably think of a few more).

Obviously, there's no a priori reason why these things would be 'better' than - let's say an 'WYSIWYG'-plot, stilted dialogue or charicatural characters. In fact, there may be instances where clichéd charicatures work better than everything else, so when judging parts, we should also always look at a whole. But I'm quite sure that we are able to state that, let's say, Shakespeare, Hemmingway or Dickens write better fiction than your avarage pulp novelist, even if you prefer the latter because of personal preferences.

So, what constitutes the quality of fiction? There is certainly no defining checklist we can run through, even though there are things that are 'generally', by concensus, considered as elements of good fiction (like the things I've mentioned above). All we can do is look at the whole and make a subjective judgement call, so all these assumptions and conclusions are open to debate and in the end, cultural impact and timeless appeal make certain things cultural 'canon' which places their worth as art almost beyond debate (like Shakespeare is today), but even that is not objective.

But I'd say we don't have to strive to be completely objective, as it's an unatainable goal in art appreciation. We can, like I said, strive towards as-objective-as-possible. I know objective/subjective is a dichotomy in theory, but there's also a continuous sliding scale there, I think, which is what makes this a difficult subject. So in the end, we're basing the whole thing on subjective concensus and assumptions, but the end result is something that does have worth and tells us something about the more-or-less objective quality of the work of fiction.



Well, alien lanes, I do have the feeling that we have more intelligent/well-educated people here. But then again, point-in-fact, you also come across as better-educated and more intelligent than avarage just by the way you write, but if you're not as you say, I might be wrong on all counts ;). Again, I don't know if this is different in other fandoms, but that is the sense I get from this one, possibly explaining why we - as a group - may have a tendency to analyse our fiction more than is usual. But this is based on a whole lot of assumptions on my part and not much in the way of actual facts or statistics and I'm kind of regretting I mentioned it right now, because it's impossible for me to back it up with anything else than "that's the impression I get", so... Can. Open. Worms, all over.

GVH | September 29, 18:33 CET

Let's have realistic expectations about the marketing for Dollhouse. TSCC got the media it did and the launch it did partly because Fox didn't have 24 to spend money on. This year I am guessing that a substantial amount of Fox's marketing budget will be spent on re-launching that HUGE property for Fox that will have been off the air for nearly two years.

TamaraC | September 29, 18:33 CET

Saje, certainly by that definition of 'snob' or 'elitist' (i.e.: "being an ass about it"), I would agree that it would be wrong to be one.

Well, that definition is the definition:
so I guess that's just what a snob is GVH - albeit, as with all definitions, only by consensus (elitist is less loaded, i'll admit - sometimes I do want people to be in an elite, it's not always a bad thing). They seem exclusive basically, they seem to be saying "I know with certainty and you don't" and since i've never known anyone that wasn't wrong about something (very often the people that seem most certain too ;) I find that fairly hard to accept.

But what, then, would you call people who - like I do - think that the television they love (like Buffy/Angel/Firefly) are - in fact - in the highest category.

I wouldn't call them anything, i'd just ask them to prove it ;).

In general, I'd say television is better if it is more layered, if it has more complex characters who have more complex motivations for the actions they take, if it is emotionally real, if substories resonate with the main story around a single theme, if it is original or uses clichés in interesting ways, if the acting is above cut, and if it has intelligent dialogue (and I could probably think of a few more).

I personally agree in general. But that totally depends on what you want from TV. Many, maybe even most, people just want something to relax in front of after a hard day at work. They want to "veg out". For them your description of a show wouldn't be "better", it'd be less effective for their purposes. You're effectively saying to them "You're not using it right, here let me tell you what TV is really for".

Saje | September 29, 18:50 CET

Just my thoughts on the "quality of fiction" argument above... I've always viewed art, in whatever medium (TV/literature/music) can be judged in two independent ways.

Either you enjoy it, or you don't -- that's very much a personal matter, depending on your taste and your own experiences.

Either it's good or it's not -- that is an absolute. Just how good or bad something is, is of course arguable, as are its relative merits when compared to other works. But I think it's pretty clear if something's good or not.

I suppose I'm just reiterating the subjectivity vs. objectivity argument here, but that's just how I see things anyway. Hence I can very much enjoy things I know aren't particularly good, and I can also dislike things I know are absolutely wonderful technically or artistically. They're just separate issues, and this is where the so-called "elitism" comes in. I think that elitists, or a superior audience, are people who can recognise that whether or not they personally enjoy something is a separate matter to whether or not something's good, whereas a common audience includes people who would label something as bad just because they don't like it themselves.

MattK | September 29, 19:02 CET

GVH, I don’t doubt for one moment or intend to dispute that the people posting at Whedonesque, or Joss Whedon fans in general, are intelligent and/or well educated. Quite clearly, they are. I just don’t think it is something peculiar to his fanbase – or that it is necessary to be possessed of a sort of intellectual superiority as a pre-requisite to be able to enjoy and appreciate his work.

I also don’t think it is absolutely necessary to be able to dissect his work or want to do that to be able to enjoy it. As I see it, his work can be appreciated in that microscopic detail, but can also simply be enjoyed as high quality entertainment.

alien lanes | September 29, 19:08 CET

Won't ratings be down across the board cause of the digital switchover?

Simon | September 29, 19:13 CET

I think there's some confusion between elite (high-quality) with elitist (snob).

And I completely agree with this:
his work can be appreciated in that microscopic detail, but can also simply be enjoyed as high quality entertainment

That's the great thing about Joss. All the fun of guilty pleasure without any of the guilt.

Of course, it sounds like Saje is saying we don't have to feel guilty about any of our TV viewing pleasures. But I'm not sure I'm well-adjusted enough for that. :)

jcs | September 29, 19:18 CET

Or maybe, Saje they are just saying, "Sure, it's good background noise, but if you'll just pay a little more attention for a moment or two to get started, tv can offer a whole lot more. You can really lose yourself in something special. Don't miss out on (Buffy, Angel, whatever)."

toast | September 29, 19:21 CET

Simon - yep. The switchover, BitTorrent (which took 1 million downloads for Heroes in 24 hours, which is a record which skipped everybody by) (Heroes also posted record low Nielsen numbers), legal download services, the continued proliferation of cable and the writers strike effect will dent numbers across the board.

gossi | September 29, 19:27 CET

oops

[ edited by catherine on 2008-09-29 19:31 ]

catherine | September 29, 19:30 CET

I don't think I have the energy or the smarts to get into a discussion re. the objective value of art, but if I accept the distinction MattK makes above (and I'm inclined to), I would say Buffy, for example, falls into the first category rather than the second. It's my favorite show ever, I love it passionately, and it does certain things supremely well: mainly wonderful and deeply lovable characters, wit / humor, and the emotional hook. But then there is the often-sloppy plotting and the sometimes maudlin, painful cheesiness. While I love it far more than, say, The Sopranos, I don't think it's as flawlessly, brilliantly crafted in every respect as that show. I'd say The Sopranos is A Better Show, I just don't love it as much.

And having said that, I really don't think Joss's shows are for everybody. I've recommended them to friends who share my tastes, but there are people I would never encourage to watch them, (ie. my parents) because I know that while they might find it occasionally amusing, they'd mostly think it lame and wouldn't be into the characters or the story-lines, and that's fine. Taste is just taste. Some people just want to veg in front of something mindless. Some people would find Buffy trite and shallow. I think it's almost certainly a mistake to think we're a particularly clever bunch just because we like Joss Whedon.

Or, also, "what Saje said." Cuz nobody's done that today yet, have they?

To me, Dollhouse sounds like Joss's first real potential mainstream hit, but we'll see, won't we?

catherine | September 29, 19:30 CET

No, what I'm saying is what is a better show, artistically. That this is not the same as "a show everyone should want to watch", is pretty much a given, since people's goals for watching television differ wildly, as you justly state Saje :). Certainly I myself - like I mentioned upthread - don't like every good show and like more than a few shows I would not necessarily think of as "objectively" good. Like MattK says, enjoyment and quality are not the same thing. And while it's difficult to define quality in measurable, objective terms, we can certainly try to do it as objectively as possible and in practice, that quite often works. The really good and really bad works of fiction often have almost completely favorable or unfavorable reviews. Everything in between is usually more difficult, but some form of concensus mostly does end up evolving.

alien lanes: I'm not saying that it's not possible to enjoy Joss' work without dissecting it. In fact, that's what most of us do in the first place: simply enjoy television. The analysis, for the most part, comes afterwards. I also wasn't saying that everyone in the fandom even wants to dissect it, but I do think that our fandom has a bigger number of people interested in doing that than usual, it defines "us" more than other fandoms. But this may be a conclusion I draw because in the last few years I've mostly frequented whedonesque, and we're probably not representative of this fandom as a whole and I also have only very limited experience in other fandoms, so my conclusion is open to massive debate :).

GVH | September 29, 19:31 CET

I want pictures, trailers and photoshoots, not this crap. Talk about serious stuff. (I am not talking about Whedonesque, of course.)

Rikardo | September 29, 19:38 CET

Simon, the switch to all digital TV happens in the middle of February. We should have at least 4 weeks of Dollhouse before that happens. I'm not sure the demo that Fox wants will be impacted much by the drop.

TamaraC | September 29, 19:44 CET

Okay, I love this French progressive rock band Magma. I have listened to them for close to 40 years, have read everything there is to read about them, interviewed the leader back in 1988 and published an article about them, and know pretty much all there is to know about them. I love the complexity of the music ie, http://www.dailymotion.com/related/x1icu8_magma-kohntarkosz_music/video/x2bxah_magma-kohntarkosz-final_music?from=rss), the fact the leader, Christian Vander, writes in a language he made up, is an astonishing drummer, etc. This band is great, and I can find people on message boards who agree with me, like on progressiveears.com. But I know there is no one here on whedonesque who knows about them at all, no one who, if they did, really likes them, etc. I can talk intelligently about the band, their creation of a new genre of music called Zeuhl, etc. But here is the thing. They are great. But so what? I can try to argue I am more knowledgable than you are about them, as if that somehow gives them greater credence. So what if Buffy is great? What does that mean, really? Who defines what is great? Mattk said
Either it's good or it's not -- that is an absolute. Just how good or bad something is, is of course arguable, as are its relative merits when compared to other works. But I think it's pretty clear if something's good or not. And I wonder, how do we know that it is good or not? I know people who think Buffy is terrible, including a couple of my kids. What absolute exists that we are using here to judge "goodness?" I know most of you would not find Magma "good." Not a band that sings in a mde up language, with heavy rhythm and percussion, and long compositions that combine Stravinsky with Coltrane and Mahavishnu, mutated into an otherworldly cacophany. So where is this absolute that exists outside "relative merits." Which seems contradictory...

[ edited by Dana5140 on 2008-09-29 20:06 ]

Dana5140 | September 29, 19:52 CET

Are we doing this yet again? People, please calm down and allow it to happen first. Please.

Madhatter | September 29, 19:53 CET

But I know there is no one here on whedonesque who knows about them at all, no one who, if they did, really likes them, etc.

Why do you assume that?

alien lanes | September 29, 20:00 CET

The switchover interests me and I'm trying to find out more about how the networks/advertisers are going to cope. Especially in this economic climate.

Simon | September 29, 20:03 CET

It's funny because when I listen to Joss' DVD commentaries, I always think he's too hard on himself. His remarks about shooting the party badly in the first episode of Angel, how Spikes transformation never really worked in OMWF, and when he mentions that it was season four of Buffy when they went off track (think that was the season wrap-up and not a commentary) all come to mind. I always felt that Joss was his biggest critic. He might ham it up in a few interviews, but it's always obvious (at least to me) that that's what he's doing.

As for Dollhouse, all this "is it going to be canceled. Is it going to be over peoples heads? Is Fox going to frak with it? Could it have a better name?" Is really starting to fatigue me.

As a someone who has come late to the Whedonverse (Dr. Horrible was the first new thing I saw, and I loved it,) I just want to see the damn show, and then make up my mind. This is really starting to remind me of a dog chasing its tail, or a snake eating itself. Three months in not that long to wait!

Yes, I know the Internet runs off rumors and speculation, but come on!

[ edited by EvilElecBlanket on 2008-09-29 20:20 ]

Eric_Curtis | September 29, 20:14 CET

I'm trying to remember what it was like with Firefly. I think the fans at the time were far more concerned with Buffy and Angel than taking notice of Joss' new show that was on the horizon. To be honest I think he was less of a draw for fans back then. Which does beg the question "when did the "Joss" fandom come into play?" I think it began in earnest after Firefly got cancelled but that's just my own personal opinion.

Simon | September 29, 20:20 CET

It is a great mystery, but 60% of all homes have cable and shouldn't be affected.

Here are some findings from a recent Nielsen report:


Some highlights of our findings, as of April 30, 2008, include:
• 9.4% of U.S. households are Completely Unready for
the DTV Transition.
• 12.6% of U.S. households are Partially Unready for
the DTV Transition.
• Daily tuning within a Completely Unready household is 6.9
hours on average. This represents fewer tuning hours than
that of a Completely Ready household, which is 8.7 hours
on average.
• Viewing to Unready Sets currently accounts for 7.5%
of all television usage during the total day.
• Viewing to Unready Sets currently accounts for 8.1% of all
television usage during primetime.

TamaraC | September 29, 20:22 CET

I get ya, EvilElecBlanket but I think some people like chasing their tails or eating themse... no, never mind. Those among us who aren't into it don't need to read the thread, right? Though I guess part of the charm of these threads is the chorus of CALM DOWNs mingling with the EEEKs. Oh Whedonesque!

catherine | September 29, 20:22 CET

Saje, a) I do agree with this and b) you sound just like this guy:

"Listen, junior. And learn. Want to know what the theater is? A flea circus. Also opera. Also rodeos, carnivals, ballets, Indian tribal dances, Punch and Judy, a one-man band - all theater. Wherever there's magic and make-believe and an audience - there's theater. Donald Duck, Ibsen, and the Lone Ranger. Sarah Bernhardt and Poodles Hanneford, Lunt and Fontanne, Betty Grable, Rex the Wild Horse, Eleanora Duse - they're all theater. You don't understand them, you don't like them all - why should you? The theater's for everybody - you included, but not exclusively - so don't approve or disapprove. It may not be your theater, but it's theater for somebody, somewhere..." - BILL SAMPSON, All About Eve, Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1952

And moi? I just can't get my knickers all in a twist about this show 'til it airs - that's all. I am all agog - greatly - about seeing it, but all the rest just leaves me unmoved.

However, I do look forward to getting my knickers in a twist about it after it airs - and that's a promise.

(Saje, don't you have a lil' birthday or something right 'bout now?)

QuoterGal | September 29, 20:25 CET

You know, I've got to stand by my opinion about this naming thing. I think it's crucial. Buffy is a brilliant show which with a better name might have been a huge hit, with emmys, and numerous spin-offs that actually happened, and a big screen movie.

Gossi describes:
"Dollhouse is about identity and society, and how we're all expected to be something we're not, and what happens when we fail to do that. The premise is the story."
So how about a name like "Identity!"
Says something, but not too much.
Except I suppose people might make a lot of jokes about "Identitties" Hmmmm. Have to rethink that one. ;)

Xane | September 29, 20:39 CET

Simon ~ I seem to recall that a significant percentage of Buffy fans actively resented Firefly in the beginning. For those Joss fans who kept up with all the various behind-the-scenes goings on (i.e. most Joss fans), they were aware that Joss became much less "hands on" with Buffy as he ramped up Firefly. Many fans who were unhappy with the plot arcs of Buffy S6 blamed it on Firefly.

Not saying that all fans felt that way (and perhaps I sympathize a bit), but it was happening and may have had an impact on Firefly not getting the full support of Joss fans. Kind of like jealous siblings when dad starts paying more attention to the new kid.

People also theorized that had Firefly begun the next year (after Buffy ended), then Joss fans would have been more open to embracing Firefly.

11thHour | September 29, 20:40 CET

(Saje, don't you have a lil' birthday or something right 'bout now?)

Uncanny QG - tomorrow in fact, good memory ;).

And yeah, that "All About Eve" quote pretty much sums it up. Come one, come all ;).

No, what I'm saying is what is a better show, artistically.

Yes, but what does "artistically better" mean GVH ? As Dana5140 says, what scale are we measuring the worth of art on ? To claim something's better artistically supposes that you have the precise definition of art (ETA: and that there's only one valid definition, applying to everyone) and that the more closely something conforms, the more artistically successful it is. But what is this benchmark that art (and by extension good art even moreso) must conform to ? Who decides and on what basis ? Show me the working ;).

(but the rest of your post about - as I read it - approaching what you seem to be agreeing are subjective opinions with as much rigour as they'll bear, I basically agree with. All opinions are subjectively valid but they're not all of equal worth to other people. A well justified opinion is clearly, to me, more worthwhile than "Because I just do" would be - even if only to understand more precisely why you disagree with it)

Or maybe, Saje they are just saying, "Sure, it's good background noise, but if you'll just pay a little more attention for a moment or two to get started, tv can offer a whole lot more. You can really lose yourself in something special. Don't miss out on (Buffy, Angel, whatever)."

Fair enough toast but the snobbery comes in when the "veg outs" turn around and say "No thanks, that's not what I want to get out of TV" (maybe they read Chekhov for that sort of thing) and "we" still think they're measurably, objectively wrong (or somehow lesser) to think that.

[ edited by Saje on 2008-09-29 20:56 ]

Saje | September 29, 20:52 CET

Dana1540


What I was trying to say is that there are things (films, books, whatever) that are definitely good, and ones that are definitely bad. There's a spectrum of quality, with some around the middle, where it's difficult to say either way. But likewise, there are some things (be it Mozart, the Mona Lisa, or whatever) that are undeniably good. How good they are is open to debate -- is Bach better than Mozart? Are they even comparable? But I'd take it as a fact that Mozart is, indeed, "good". Now, whether or not you like Mozart -- I take that to be a completely independent question.

That's the only point I was trying to make, so I hope that clarifies things.

ETA: I suppose I'm just not comfortable with the sort of postmodernist viewpoint that nothing has an intrinsic value. Art, in whatever form, isn't something you can score out of a 100, but that doesn't mean that all opinions are created equally -- some are right, some are wrong (imo*).

*the irony isn't lost on me

[ edited by MattK on 2008-09-29 21:11 ]

MattK | September 29, 20:54 CET

I have friends with whom I can discuss Joss Whedon's work. I also have friends who don't like anything he does. I still call them friends. I even have progeny whom I like to think of as extremely intelligent. One likes JW, one doesn't. I love them both. To get to the point: I applaud those fans who understand that what one reads and views is often a matter of taste and not intelligence, and that we are all members of the unwashed masses as far as programmers are concerned. Passions can be interpreted as prejudice and prejudices of fans can turn others off if they seem narrowminded. As exposure is important to gain viewers, I hope that this program is given the exposure it deserves. It's a sure thing that other deserving shows haven't been so lucky.

cmbackshane | September 29, 21:05 CET

I think Joss fandom as it currently exists - rabidly talking about production shutdowns, trailers etc - started after Firefly went off the air, and was largely fueled by the build up to Serenity.

I'm looking forward to Dollhouse airing.

gossi | September 29, 21:13 CET

I think at the time, they weren't necessarily less diehard now but they were more *Buffy/Angel* fans than *Joss* fans. I agree with 11thHour, during that period, B/A fans were more worried about Joss spreading himself too thin by running 3 shows at the same time.

Also for some of us 'newer' TV fans who became bigger fans of TV shows because of Joss, we hadn't experienced the cancellations of our favorite TV shows as much so there wasn't as much panic and fear about it. I know 'cancellation' didn't even cross my mind when I watched the first couple of episodes of Firefly. Only did the rumblings of a cancellation during the subsequent episodes did I then start to worry. As bad as Firefly's cancellation was, what made me into a bitter, paranoid fan were all the following cancellations of other good Fox shows like Wonderfalls, The Inside, Drive, etc. So I would think my paranoia doesn't necessarily come from being a Whedon fan but just a genre-watching TV fan.

spiralout9 | September 29, 21:15 CET

Same here. I actually went online (after a Sci-fi UK weekend marathon) to find out when the second series of 'Firefly' was airing. That was a fun afternoon, I can tell you ;).

(my first really painful experience in that regard was probably 'Farscape' though - before that TV shows had just gone and not come back)

... is Bach better than Mozart? Are they even comparable? But I'd take it as a fact that Mozart is, indeed, "good". Now, whether or not you like Mozart -- I take that to be a completely independent question.

If you have a spectrum then where you draw the line marked "good" is surely arbitrary though, it'll vary for different people. To me MattK your point is the same as "Most people agree that Mozart's music is good". Well, to be blunt, so what ? That's just a lot of subjective opinions that happen to agree with each other, there's still no absolute benchmark the music is being judged against (and if majority opinion is to hold sway then clearly Joss' stuff is crap).

Say there was a book over which opinion was exactly evenly split (I know but gimme some leeway, it's a thought experiment ;). Does that mean that that book actually isn't good or bad, but something in between ? Or does it just mean that 50% of readers think it's good and 50% don't ?

ETA:

ETA: I suppose I'm just not comfortable with the sort of postmodernist viewpoint that nothing has an intrinsic value.

I'm most certainly NOT claiming nothing has intrinsic value, i'm claiming art doesn't. Things that are objective, that can be checked and measured are as they are - it doesn't matter what we think about it, gravity's there for instance. But anyway, what's so special about being intrinsic ? In human affairs it's not the be all end all (there's nothing intrinsic about most laws, they're still a pretty good idea IMO).

[ edited by Saje on 2008-09-29 21:31 ]

Saje | September 29, 21:20 CET

I can do one better; Good Vs. Evil. Aired for maybe half a season and was promptly dumped by Sci-Fi. As a result, I ended up not watching the first season of Invisible Man in protest (why, exactly, I can't fathom now). Sci-Fi was probably the single force that made me paranoid in regards to getting attached to a TV show.

You know, it's probably just me, but sometimes when I hear about the fandom before Firefly was cancelled, I almost feel like apologizing. Initially, I know I leaned towards the manically obsessive type of fan (I'm better now, really ;).

Regarding Dollhouse, I have noticed that when I see a headline pop up, I'm more inclined to ignore it these days. I am excited and all, but in order to maintain that excitement, I think I have to keep myself from reading ever single post about production and the like. I think I'm of the opinion that if Dollhouse is meant to strike it big, it'll happen. My world will not crumble around me if it doesn't. And whereas once I would've called that high treason, I think it's okay for me (and all of us) to be able to take a step back and relax. And besides, like embers said, I'm not gonna sweat anything until after November 5th (well, that and the various due dates for all my essays this semester ;).

deepgirl187 | September 29, 21:45 CET

I think MattK is probably right, though of course it's hell to "prove" it and I am certainly not up for the task. If we want to take Mozart as an example, then the fact that a huge number of people are moved by his music is part of what we take as evidence for his being objectively "good" but, as Saje pointed out (happy day-before-your-birthday, BTW!), a bunch of subjective opinions don't simply add up to an objective truth.

But I think we can ask certain questions about a work: Is it easy to produce what he produced? (no) Does it require an incredible level of technical skill? (yes) Is it original? (yes) Is the result widely regarded as beautiful? (yes) Is it technically / emotionally / intellectually complex and multi-faceted? (yes) Has it stood the test of time? (yes)... these just a few off the top of my head, but there are criteria beyond "a lot of people like it" by which we judge artistic merit.

It seems a little too easy to say "well, everything's subjective," when surely we need a way to distinguish between Moby Dick and Harry Potter. I liked Harry Potter better, but that's different from saying that it is better. I think it's an important difference, no? To be able to recognize artistic quality regardless of personal taste? Of course determining artistic merit is different from being able to say that gravity exists, but just because it's less clear-cut (one can't establish an "absolute" answer) doesn't mean it's meaningless.

catherine | September 29, 21:49 CET

First, I wish to bid 11thHour a welcome.

Second, the rules have change. Don't you see it?

Madhatter | September 29, 21:51 CET

I see what you mean Saje, we'll just have to disagree here. I do agree with you though that there isn't an absolute benchmark against which art can be compared, I just don't think it needs one. If I'd only ever heard one piece of music in my life, do I really need to hear another to make a judgement on whether or not it's good? I'm not sure. That's my thought experiment contribution to the conversation anyway. :)

I do agree with you in a way, that even if we do accept Mozart most definitely is in the "good" category (and those with contrary opinions are simply wrong), we are still limited within the scope of human experiences, or rather, human physiology (our brains find aesthetic value in certain things, perhaps not for any logical reason).

And I don't think your book thought experiment is actually that far fetched, I'm sure if you looked at a book by either of the USA presidential candidates you'd probably find a pretty even split in opinions.

ETA: And Happy Un-Birthday!
ETA2: And it turns out catherine said what I was trying to say far more elegantly, so I'll just defer to her post instead of arguing further. :)

[ edited by MattK on 2008-09-29 21:58 ]

MattK | September 29, 21:53 CET

I am not a radical relativist who believes there are no fixed truths and everything is in the eye of the beholder, though of course I am a major reader response person. But to call Mozart good implies that we have a definition of "good," and that somehow Mozart meets it. And Matt, I don't think there are things that are "definitely good" or bad, as if everyone agrees that they are. There are people who love Pulp Fiction- or Tokyo Story- and those who don't. Some find it good; others bad. That there is a consensus that these are both great films does not make them great films, unless we can agree on what makes a great film. That is harder than you might think. On progressiveears, which I noted above, people cannot even agree on what progressive music is! So, while Mozart is considered great and important, there are people to whom his music is meaningless. In this sense, I cannot see a fixed sense of good or bad applied to art; I think, personally, that Damian Hurst is a bad artist, but hey, he just sold $200 million worth of art.

Dana5140 | September 29, 21:55 CET

This does nothing to deter my enthusiasm for Dollhouse. It surprises me that there are Joss fans who are turned off by all of this (largely pointless) speculation and doomsaying; I think the end product will speak for itself, as it always has. This, all of this, has nothing to do with the actual show itself or whether or not it will be good. I'm just as tired of this crap as you all are, but it will in no way affect my opinion of the show itself.

Would I like it to be a big mainstream hit? Certainly. Do I need it to be? Not at all. I've come to accept that, as with many things I like, the works of Joss Whedon will not work for everyone. They require attention and concentration, which, to be honest and to get out of this whole elitist/snob angle, is simply not what many people are willing to give to art, and I can't blame them for it. This world that we live in kind of sucks, and if, after a day of doing battle with the day-to-day humdrums, you want to kick back and watch some 'Til Death (or read some Dan Brown, or listen to some Kid Rock, etc.) before you go to bed, more power to you. That's not what I want, though, and I'll take it wherever I can get it.

Is it my own subjective opinion that the works I've mentioned above are bad? Yes. Do I wish that they would stop making those things and that people would give it up for quality instead? Hell yes. But my own definition of "quality" is not the same as others.

As for whether or not we can determine whether or not something is absolutely "good" or "bad," I don't think we can. I do not like A Clockwork Orange at all (the film, that is, haven't read the book), and even though many consider it high art, I still think it's bad. A waste of both time and thoughts. On the other hand, Citizen Kane is a great film, one of my favorites, and while I can't argue with the fact that it is a better technical achievement than Serenity, Serenity moves me more. I think it's the better overall piece of work simply because I like it better, even if it isn't revolutionary like Citizen Kane. So while I want to say that there is no objectivity in art, that's not exactly true either. It's more like a complicated middle ground.

To discuss the actual letter that started all of this, it is ridiculous to say that Joss is arrogant. Maybe you think his shows are arrogant and pretentious (which I wholly disagree with, but again, subjective), but he as a person comes across as very far from being an egotist. (Okay, the "I'll give them what they need instead of what they want" comment probably crosses the line. But everybody says something self-aggrandizing at some point, especially artists. John Lennon, "We're bigger than Jesus," anyone?)

But what baffles me the most is that someone who is obviously familiar with Joss and his work would expect Dollhouse to be exploitative. I've even seen comments here that say the show sounds "icky" and that the premise totally turns them off, as if Joss would make a show about willing sex slaves. To me, it sounds disturbing and complex, with potential layers of social commentary. It kind of boggles my mind that some fans would expect otherwise.

On another note, Xane, I'd rather have it called Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which is a brill