January 16 2009
Understanding the Dollhouse.
Fox just released a new Dollhouse behind-the-scenes featurette which includes interviews with Joss and the cast, as well as some new footage from the show itself.
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
gossi | January 16, 13:21 CET
Poi-feck. This should be everywhere.
QuoterGal | January 16, 13:25 CET
Pointy | January 16, 13:25 CET
Anuris | January 16, 13:27 CET
hitnrun017 | January 16, 13:30 CET
phlebotinin | January 16, 13:36 CET
zeitgeist | January 16, 13:42 CET
Anuris | January 16, 13:57 CET
zeitgeist | January 16, 14:06 CET
WheelsOfJoy | January 16, 14:08 CET
Donnie | January 16, 14:12 CET
[ edited by Anuris on 2009-01-16 23:17 ]
Anuris | January 16, 14:14 CET
zeitgeist | January 16, 14:16 CET
katetwo | January 16, 14:18 CET
@theonetruebix | January 16, 14:19 CET
Sunfire | January 16, 14:33 CET
That seems like something perfect for, like, Entertainment Tonight. If they even still have that show.
swanjun | January 16, 14:33 CET
Zannadoo | January 16, 15:03 CET
SteppeMerc | January 16, 15:10 CET
flugufrelsarinn | January 16, 15:22 CET
palehorse | January 16, 15:35 CET
Whisper | January 16, 15:36 CET
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q6HhZal5sY
edcsLover9 | January 16, 15:48 CET
Ooh controversial. I'll leave any psychologists around here to defend their pseudo-science. But philosophy isn't science at all and doesn't pretend to be. It's as much pseudo-science as law is
Absolutely awesome promo, btw. I'd totally watch that if I'd never heard of Joss Whedon or Eliza Dushku. Really, really good. It captures the excitement, intelligence, cuteness of Eliza, philosophical interest, Joss in a baseball cap and everything else
Let Down | January 16, 16:11 CET
That's a great promo ... Is that a promo ? Cos it'd promote the show well.
Good to see the other dolls in the action (briefly), looked like Ms Lachman in some assassin style hijinks. And I really think Olivia Williams should try to, like, do something to make herself more attractive just cos I have a thing about space and time tearing apart (and she likes a pint of Adnams *fans self ... but in a totally manly way ... like maybe with a cricket bat or something* ;).
Saje | January 16, 16:34 CET
This would do everything for me. It seems like the 30-second is the one destined to bring in fans of mindless action, and this is to bring in people who enjoy fascinating, quality entertainment. It's a pity that this won't be airing on television, or if it does, not as a commercial.
UnpluggedCrazy | January 16, 16:34 CET
Xyron | January 16, 16:46 CET
Side note: Did anyone else notice the awesome hat Joss was wearing? :)
thegingerpire | January 16, 16:48 CET
Saje | January 16, 16:50 CET
@theonetruebix | January 16, 16:51 CET
Dr. Horrible's Sing-Along Blog.
@theonetruebix | January 16, 16:51 CET
They re-shot the "Did I fall asleep ?" bit, they could've re-shot other dialogue too (though I don't remember Adelle's original "pitch" well enough, it's only the cup - of sake ? - that makes me think it's new).
ETcorrect an alcoholic misspelling ;).
[ edited by Saje on 2009-01-17 01:57 ]
Saje | January 16, 16:56 CET
Pointy | January 16, 17:09 CET
Saje | January 16, 17:12 CET
I might be hallucinating, but I swear we've actually seen two completely different "zombie slaves" shots, which was making me think they re-used the line.
I hope they kept the eyes. Those things were wonderful.
sumogrip | January 16, 17:30 CET
snot monster from outer space | January 16, 17:41 CET
[ edited by toast on 2009-01-17 03:10 ]
toast | January 16, 18:10 CET
Original: "I know you've heard colorful rumors about (what an active really is. ...) Robots ... Zombie slaves ... They are, of course, quite the opposite. An active is the truest soul among us."
New: "I know you've heard colorful rumors about*Robots ... Zombie Slaves. They are, of course, quite the opposite. An active is the truest soul among us."
*(splice)
The only overlapping video of the scene appears at the end ("truest soul" line), and that appears to be identical as well. I think the reason people are thinking differently is because at the beginning of that part in the new clip, she's drinking some tea, which wasn't seen in the original. But as far as I can tell, it's the same footage. So either they're deciding to keep that stuff in (which would be awesome), or they're still recycling that old stuff.
JMaloney | January 16, 19:09 CET
Emmie | January 16, 19:20 CET
deadbessie | January 16, 19:26 CET
sumogrip | January 16, 20:04 CET
You can vote on photos in a gallery.
Sunfire | January 16, 20:12 CET
Madhatter | January 16, 20:23 CET
@theonetruebix | January 16, 20:26 CET
karosurly | January 16, 20:41 CET
Madhatter | January 16, 21:17 CET
SoddingNancyTribe | January 16, 21:21 CET
(oh goodness I hope his trademark dialogue shows up soon!)
bobw1o | January 16, 21:34 CET
@theonetruebix | January 16, 21:37 CET
Emmie | January 16, 21:55 CET
zeitgeist | January 16, 21:56 CET
edcsLover9 | January 16, 21:57 CET
SoddingNancyTribe | January 16, 22:05 CET
zeitgeist | January 16, 22:17 CET
At least Saje can blame his morning headache on the fanning-with-a-cricket-bat episode.
jcs | January 16, 23:23 CET
cabri | January 16, 23:45 CET
Seriously, that was actually a great promo. I felt like I saw the potential there for this to be a Whedon show, and I don't really feel like I did before.
Oh, and that 2 second clip of Dichen Lachman shooting things made me love her so much.
curlymynci | January 17, 00:33 CET
I've watched the first episode, and here's my take - it's actually quite good. Some stuff was a little wonky I felt, but overall it hangs together and lays the template for a compelling week-to-week show. The thing about Dollhouse is it's a pretty crazy concept - personality replacement - and the thing I didn't realise until seeing it is how that plays in the shows favour. It's actually crazy. Anything can happen. And it does.
[ edited by gossi on 2009-01-17 12:23 ]
gossi | January 17, 01:56 CET
And it doesn't need to be a constant hilarity fest for me (though i'd be pretty surprised - and disappointed - if there was NO humour in the show) but the dialogue does need to sparkle somehow - like it or not, Joss has a reputation for dialogue that's out of the ordinary with a certain rhythm and linguistic playfulness to it, that's part of what people expect when they watch his stuff (it's something we see in everything he's done up to now, including Astonishing X-Men - which, in fairness, is maybe a reason for him to try something different, certainly for his own creative fulfillment). If it's all going to be A to B pedestrian plot forwarding then why sell 'Dollhouse' as "From the Creator of Buffy the Vampire Slayer" ?
(and cricket bats are, indeed, ineffective fans as it turns out. Something to do with surface area I suspect but further testing might be called for ;)
Saje | January 17, 02:49 CET
I actually think the pilot will appeal more to non-fans than some of the floating Whedon fans, if I'm honest. It takes a bit of getting used to that Eliza isn't, in fact, Faith, for example. That will put some of the people here off, as there's an adjustment period to it not being Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dr Horrible etc. It's just a very different style of thing. Not everybody will like it, but I think it's got a lot of potential. Also, there's a *lot* of setup in the first episode for ongoing plot lines if you pay attention (in fact, I'd argue a little too much), so I don't think it's quite as stand alone as some might believe.
Also, you can tell Tim Minear has worked on this show.
gossi | January 17, 03:38 CET
I'd say that's a good thing. This show will need non-fans to survive.
Any ads spotted since the American Idol-spot?
wiesengrund | January 17, 03:45 CET
Something i've wondered for a while now is if maybe the months - and months and months and ... ;) - of speculation have just set us all up with expectations it's impossible to meet, through no-one's fault, just the passage of time and the anticipation that naturally comes with being a fan of The One True Purple. Given some of the reviews (and especially comments from people on here that've seen it) I now don't expect Dollhouse to explode out of the gate and set the world alight by the end of the first act - so long as I can see the seeds of what it'll become i'll be happy.
Saje | January 17, 04:03 CET
UnpluggedCrazy | January 17, 04:06 CET
[ edited by gossi on 2009-01-17 13:38 ]
gossi | January 17, 04:37 CET
Simon | January 17, 05:12 CET
flugufrelsarinn | January 17, 07:31 CET
gossi | January 17, 07:35 CET
wiesengrund | January 17, 07:59 CET
beckyboo | January 17, 08:20 CET
beckyboo, I would pitch it thematically as a cross between Angel season two (there's an episode I have in mind, but don't want to say as it gives something away - but think slightly sinister), Buffy season four ("Who Are You?" - Faith as Buffy) and Angel's fifth season (working inside Wolfram and Hart).
gossi | January 17, 08:57 CET
Although if you insist, I guess gossi's combo is the way to describe it.
[ edited by zeitgeist on 2009-01-17 17:59 ]
zeitgeist | January 17, 08:58 CET
Also, I still think FOX should just put the damn thing online in a few weeks for, say, a day. Or, hell, organise an invite only Whedonesque member screening. Anything to get people talking.
gossi | January 17, 09:03 CET
Also, you can tell Tim Minear has worked on this show.
Gossi, what do you see that smacks of Minear exactly?
And to the PTB - yes, please let Whedonesque members screen Dollhouse.
Emmie | January 17, 09:11 CET
Or, Fox has gone to enormous lengths to make the screeners secure. I don't know how advanced watermarking and stuff has become.
wiesengrund | January 17, 09:12 CET
Old school Angel more than anything in terms of visualness. It's closer to City Of than anything else.
Simon | January 17, 09:16 CET
Firefly was the best visually though. What with the lighting and the shaky cams and the special-effects-kind-of-lighting (grainy blue, grainy green etc.).
J.I.G. | January 17, 09:34 CET
zeitgeist | January 17, 09:41 CET
Ooh controversial. I'll leave any psychologists around here to defend their pseudo-science. But philosophy isn't science at all and doesn't pretend to be. It's as much pseudo-science as law is
Not to get too off topic, but since I have a minor in Philosophy I had to point out that philosophy is considered to be the father of all sciences.
I would argue that a pseudo-science or fake science is where you do not follow scientific method and come up with answer before you have any data on the subject. I will not give examples as it might upset some people. So while science is within the boundaries of Philosophy, Philosophy covers a much larger area than science because it can ask the unknowable.
Philosophy just doesn't get much respect anymore, but without it we would probably not have ever gotten out of the Dark Ages and started asking about why things work the way they do.
To bring it back on topic though, Joss is very Philosophical in his writing and always asks "What if?". Then he tries to make the laws of his universe explain why it is that way.
It is one of the reasons I like his writing so much.
Jayne's Hat | January 17, 09:50 CET
Emmie | January 17, 09:55 CET
It would be when someone knows that they are reporting the opposite of what the facts tell them in order to deceive or manipulate someone or even themselves. They are claiming it is science when they know it is not.
Politicians and lawyers use Pseudo science all the time and usually then back up their claim with statistics, and as we all know there are lies, damned lies, and statistics. :)
I believe Joss has even used this as a plot device a few times when the public finds out about vampires/demons/reavers and the people in charge try to cover it up with fake science.
Jayne's Hat | January 17, 10:28 CET
Yes I've seen Fringe.
Simon | January 17, 10:53 CET
I'd say philosophy isn't science because it's not empirical i.e. something can disagree with reality or even be untestable in principle and yet be a perfectly valid topic for philosophy (not so for science, if something's untestable/unfalsifiable in principle then it's scientifically meaningless which is why - just to throw the cat amongst the pigeons with a for instance ;) - intelligent design isn't science). That's not to say philosophy is lesser, just different.
(and pseudo-science is just an assertion or set of assertions about the world that claim to have been arrived at by employing the scientific method but actually weren't, either through incompetence or fraud - I disagree that it necessarily involves someone "reporting the opposite of what the facts tell them" since they might think they're using the scientific method but be wrong)
Much as i'm desperate to see Dollhouse BTW, I think i'd rather wait and see the totally finished product.
Saje | January 17, 10:55 CET
Nice to see it appealing to a non-fan audience.
Let's be the force behind Dollhouse's popularity by using our online presences & tools to drive viral interest... rather than bemoaning Fox's lackluster promotion. Be the solution!
SteveP | January 17, 10:58 CET
As you say, the word has a much broader meaning than just that limited definition. If you look up 'science' in Merriam Webster, one of the examples given is the "science of theology" - now that too sounds like a doozy but it's real. Science at its heart is about pursuing knowledge, truth, understanding of how the world works - both the natural and the human world. Social sciences, natural sciences, and so on. Call biology and chemistry empirical sciences because that's true, but don't call them 'real' science. That suggests that all other sciences are somehow less because they may not be as readily quantifiable through the Scientific Method.
When did the Scientific Method become the end all, be all of the word that predated that methodology? Is the only true knowledge what can be quantified through those 7 steps? Truth and knowledge only exist if you can form a hypothesis and test it?
As for the phrase fake science, I was (perhaps not clearly enough) objecting to when people call psychology a fake science. Now with Dollhouse, I think I'd rather say that they've created fictional science. An understanding of psychology and biology that has been created for fictional purposes.
Emmie | January 17, 11:45 CET
(theology for instance, often features assertions that we don't even know are knowledge in the strict philosophical sense - i.e. a justified true belief - so why use a word that means knowledge to describe it ? One aspect of art is a body of knowledge, do we call art a science ?)
Apart from that, I haven't called social science less 'real' as a science, the word I used was 'soft' because a lot of psychology (up to now) has been dependent on the subjects themselves reporting their ideas etc. which, in my view, makes the knowledge gained less reliable (that's changing BTW, though there're sometimes issues with experiments etc. fMRI scanning - assuming the initial assumptions made about it are valid - is making psychology a 'harder' science, basing it more on the state of the world rather than someone's subjective impressions of the world).
edited for some grammar. T'was buggin' me so it was ;).
[ edited by Saje on 2009-01-17 23:13 ]
Saje | January 17, 12:18 CET
UnpluggedCrazy | January 17, 12:42 CET
Dark Ages for Europe, maybe. The Middle East and China were doing quite well. Besides, philosophy started with the Greeks, and they didn't do well at all (Alexander doesn't count as a Greek, and he just destroyed a superior civilization rather than creating improvements).
I'm a historian, and I'm far from unbiased, but I cannot stand philosophy (those Greek guys give me a headache). Give me the Secret History of the Mongols, or the Shahnameh, or the Epic of Gilgamesh any day over Plato or Aristotle. The reason I called it and psych a pseudo science was primarily in jest, but they don't use real evidence as the basis of their writings.
SteppeMerc | January 17, 13:11 CET
cabri | January 17, 13:15 CET
What constitutes real evidence to a historian then ?
Saje | January 17, 13:16 CET
[ edited by SteppeMerc on 2009-01-17 22:22 ]
[ edited by SteppeMerc on 2009-01-17 22:23 ]
SteppeMerc | January 17, 13:22 CET
(i'm ignoring philosophy, it's not a science, let alone a pseudo-science)
Saje | January 17, 13:28 CET
Love hearing all of the different impressions of the show.
Rhodey | January 17, 13:32 CET
Perhaps other aspects of psychology arrives at conclusions from better documentation, and if that is so, I apologize.
edit: Ah, I remember one about the claim that violent media causes violence. A claim I find quite laughable, really, considering the continual state of war most of humanity found itself in most periods of history.
[ edited by SteppeMerc on 2009-01-17 22:44 ]
SteppeMerc | January 17, 13:38 CET
Sounds to me though like you were exposed to bad science and you get that in all subjects. And maybe because psychology tends to be about people and how and why we act as we do it's also (arguably) more open to political agendas, to presenting people in a certain light irrespective of the actual truth of the matter.
But in theory things like picking sufficiently randomised samples (of sufficient size), double blind experiments, controlling for variables, repeatability, predictive/explanatory power etc. are all a part of the subject, just as they are with other sciences. So with the best will in the world SteppeMerc, your position is a bit like saying "All historical evidence is worthless" because there're people like e.g. David Irving that cherry pick from it to suit their own agenda.
Re: 'TV violence causes real violence' I can't help but wonder if you either only remember part of what you were taught OR you were taught badly OR you were taught well but from bad studies (all too possible unfortunately) since it seems like any psychology study worth its salt would make clear that it found a correlation between consumption of TV/film violence and violent behaviour, which is a far cry from causation (that's one of the problems I have with the subject in fact - some of its conclusions seem to me to be more correlative than causative) - if the study claimed TV/film violence was the sole cause of violence then it's clearly patent nonsense since, as you say, we were violent before TV/film (but I doubt it was making that claim). Even if so though, again, that's just a bad study rather than a fundamental flaw in the entire subject I reckon.
(and the fact that we were violent long before TV/film came along isn't a counter argument to the claim that TV/film violence is one cause of real violence. That'd be like saying air crashes aren't one cause of deaths because people were dying long before there were aircraft ;)
Saje | January 17, 14:07 CET
[ edited by SteppeMerc on 2009-01-17 23:14 ]
[ edited by SteppeMerc on 2009-01-17 23:15 ]
SteppeMerc | January 17, 14:14 CET
1) After years in the wilderness, there will be fans who will be disappointed in what they see.
2) The real proof of the pudding will be when we see the later episodes where Fox let Joss get on with it rather than interfere. Cause 'Ghost' did feel Joss-lite. And that's going to be a very wanky source of debate come February 13th. That and the sexiness of the show.
I will say that Joss and co did a wonderful job casting Dichen Lachman and Fran Kranz. Huge potential there with those actors. I would need to see more of Olivia and Harry's characters before I can make a reasonable guess on the impact they will have on the fandom. And it's a good sign that I didn't think "Faith" or "Fred" whenever I saw Eliza or Amy on screen.
Simon | January 17, 14:34 CET
Whether observations are culled from studying similar groups of people or diverse groups of people, there are REAL observations that hold true.
While of course, each individual is different, for example psychologists can very much say that in a general sense, boys grow up in a certain schema that perpetuates certain things like what kinds of toys boys are expected to like versus how girls grow up, and what girls like. The study of how people develop from children to adults is a large part of developmental psychology - and studying where the deviations occur goes a long way in studying certain behaviors, such as lying.
Many scholarly psychology studies are focused on large groups of people, and study one particular thing. One study I recall specifically studied female criminal offenders, and by studying the female prison population, researchers were able to determine that female offenders generally prefer less confrontational methods of crime against others, and that money was the highest motivation for committing crime.
So now, when police study a crime scene, they can use psychological observations of victimology (what type of victim is it?) and observations of the perpetrator who may have chosen this particular type of victim, and have groundwork for what type of person may have committed this crime.
As in all science, mere observation does not equal fact or absolute truth. A broken clock is right twice a day, but it's a still broken clock. Likewise, psychology's observations can be applied with a general correctness, but there are always individuals who do not conform. We're talking about people, not gravity.
As far as primary documentation, history is not quite like psychology. You can't actively perform experiments in history. And because psychology is very much a progression of thought and observations throughout the years, what was said in 1900 can be regarded as a primary document in the technical sense (a document from history chronicling evidence) it only goes so far to confirm that a scientist in 1900 did say what the document claims. It does NOT, however, give any credence to the current schools of thought or the advancements made in modern psychology.
I defend psychology because I believe it has merits and it is extremely helpful in studying behavior.
the ninja report | January 17, 14:43 CET
beckyboo | January 17, 14:56 CET
Joss is his own man, and while I get that studios and networks have their own ideas of what will work or what won't work, the writers and creators can shop their ideas to whoever and choose to retool the work if no one is interested, or they can go entirely off grid and do it themselves. Joss said in the Dr. Horrible special features that they shopped the idea to different studios and such and they all wanted to roll it out in 18 months, and Joss & Co. simply decided they didn't want to do that and made it free for the internet.
So it can be done, and it can preserve creativity...but television shows can't be done like that (too much money involved), not unless Joss decides to own his own network.
I think the Joss that created Buffy is vastly different than the Joss who made Dollhouse because Firefly was such a joyful yet heartbreaking thing for everyone involved. Certainly, we can't stay the same.
the ninja report | January 17, 16:57 CET
Kris | January 18, 00:20 CET
Bluey | January 18, 09:34 CET