This made me giggle. I love Charlie and his angry.

gossi | May 23, 07:41 CET

He looks exactly like one would imagine he looks... not sure what that means.

ThorpeWithoutShrimp | May 23, 07:50 CET

I have no idea who this person is, but this was a funny review. Although I would actually say Buffy took about six episodes to get good.

bonzob | May 23, 07:53 CET

Don't know about the review, but "implausible, punchable little tit" did make me choke on my bedtime cup of tea . . . Buffy? One episode. Give it another chance, Charlie dear.

SoddingNancyTribe | May 23, 08:06 CET

I kind of like Brooker, but on the other hand I'm sick to death of the 'Grumpy Old Men'-fetish the British media seem to have, thinking bitching is an art form.

Caroline | May 23, 08:09 CET

"one of those implausible, punchable little tits" I read that and thought: "pot, meet kettle."

mangydog | May 23, 08:14 CET

*laughs* Oh, dear.

Braeden Fireheart | May 23, 08:21 CET

Somewhere, deep down, he himself likes Scouting for Girls. He also knows more about Buffy than he's pretending to.

Revolver | May 23, 08:43 CET

He should watch Firefly, that was great from the start, and would hopefully get him hooked on Whedon enough to give his other shows a chance... of course he probably wouldn't watch firefly on the grounds that "it'd be a sodding waste of my British time, watching some show that was cancelled in it's first season"

mortimer | May 23, 08:44 CET

Also, I've never heard a Buffy fan of any stripe say they didn't like season 2. It's sort of the definitive Buffy story arc.

And another thing, has he ever seen a WB show? Dollhouse is not the show to be complaining about too many pretty people. They even desexified Amy Acker for the sake of character development.

Revolver | May 23, 08:49 CET

Highly amusing. And he has his points - although greatly exaggerated, they're all things pounced on by the US media at one point or another too. Perhaps he needs a kitten?

cabri | May 23, 09:09 CET

Also, I've never heard a Buffy fan of any stripe say they didn't like season 2.

*raises hand*

I don't. I don't hate it or anything, but it's by far my least favourite season. It has some good moments but the main arc is just far too Twilight-esque for my taste.

And I have to disagree about the de-sexification of Amy Acker as well. She's no more homely in DH than she was on AtS, and her scars hardly count as making her unsexy and at most just code her as 'tragic'.

...unless you were talking about something that happens in the last two episodes which I have't seen yet, in which case just ignore me :D

ruuger | May 23, 09:10 CET

*hoots! Love it! Gotta say I agree with many of his points too. :0

sueworld2003 | May 23, 09:19 CET

I like the guy, and I have both his books, but I started to tire of the "misanthropic rage" schtick some time ago. His columns on the state of the world, on the other hand, tend to be much more enjoyable than his "everything on TV except The Wire sucks" columns.

[ edited by redders on 2009-05-23 09:21 ]

redders | May 23, 09:20 CET

Brooker has been doing it since way before it was the current fashion. Also, he doesn't just hate for the sake of it, as anyone who's seen his The Wire and Battlestar Galactica fanboy raving will know.

bivith | May 23, 09:27 CET

He's right that the first 2 episodes of dolhouse were bad though

mortimer | May 23, 09:28 CET

And we meet the only man on the internet who can trash Whedon and get away with it. Even here. Charlie Brooker has my total respect. :)

curlymynci | May 23, 09:35 CET

His review is pretty close to how I felt about Dollhouse after two episodes. I really like it now and am well on the way to loving it, but if I hadn't already loved Buffy, Angel and Firefly I would have bailed.

Charlie Brooker, though, I'm about 50/50 on. I read his columns pretty regularly and tend to love them or loathe them. Definitely loathe his television show.

Ildeth | May 23, 09:46 CET

Now see I too am in the camp of liking Mr Brooker on the whole, he amuses me greatly, and Screen Wipe, his TV series I can forgive the laziness of some of his interpretations, because frankly it comes across more as entertainment than anything else, but this is a newspaper article in a half decent newspaper, so here I expect some journalistic professionalism.

And what do I get? Laziness again, oh and of course completely missing the point. He even noticed the "empty prettiness" and fail to even consider that this in fact could be the point.

He also compared it to Mr Ben, Joe 90 and Quantum Leap. Now all these comparisons might be fair except that none of the above involved the central character actually giving up who they were, which is a central part of the concept.

So yes, amusing? Certainly. Journalism? Only the very laziest and worst kind.

dev | May 23, 09:46 CET

Does he always disable comments on his articles? Or is that just a way to avoid hordes of angry Whedon fans descending in outrage on his article?

Dolorosa | May 23, 10:29 CET

His Monday column is commentable. Screen burn is not. And I'm glad. I think if avid hordes of Whedon fans did descend, we would be summarily torn to shreds, bringing shame upon our clan.

curlymynci | May 23, 10:47 CET

Ouch. Amusing, yes. Taken seriously... I think not!

Archduke Sebassis | May 23, 10:49 CET

Wth does he know? has he even ever made anything that has become as popular as Joss Whedons shows? Answer:No because he's a grumpy idiot, lol.
It didn't take me 2 seasons to get into Buffy, i just needed 1, and each season gets better, it's worth watching and if your not watching it, your missing out!
Ok, so the first few episodes of Dollhouse were slow, but it doesnt mean its not any good, It may have a slow premise,but thats what i love about the show,i love that u dont always no what is going to happen.The show is shocking and it's now one of my fave shows.
English people have no imagination because be honest what decent shows do they have? Dr.Who? Torchwood? Primeval? There all really shocking(Not in a good way) and this is coming from someone who lives there.The shows have the same storyline everyweek and have u seen the graphics to the so called "monsters" they're so fake! how can anybody like it?

[ edited by gingyfromshrek on 2009-05-23 16:45 ]

One of Many | May 23, 10:53 CET

That review amused me greatly :)

debw | May 23, 11:07 CET

gingyfromshrek, please clean up your posts and use capitalisation.

Caroline | May 23, 11:08 CET

I love it!! I know I shouldn't because he basically slams Dollhouse, but the first few episodes of the show weren't that good, and I'm guessing that those are the ones he watched. Plus I love Charlie Brooker's spin on it.

misssoftserve | May 23, 11:11 CET

Hey, gingyfromshrek, understand the need to vent, but watch the Torchwood comments. Who knows, a rift in the space/time continuum might appear in your city of residence.

Archduke Sebassis | May 23, 11:13 CET

Not sure what to make of this article, is he winding us all up to get people to look at his article, maybe. But surely this tells us that peoples brains must be turning to mush, If they can't now watch 6 episodes of something to see if it gets good. I mean come on, watch about 10 episodes of one of our soaps and you'd be lucky to see someone buy an apple!

Or what else have we got, ahh...reality crap, watch 10 episodes of people singing, or 80 or so of people siting in a house doing nothing.

I know what I would chose, It's better to take a 'risk' and watch something that try's to chalenge us. I mean if this guy judges a show on two episodes, god he musn't get through a whole season of anything.

Gota luv that Buffy | May 23, 11:20 CET

i gave up on dollhouse after episode 3. I was watching on Hulu, and 2 and a half weeks after ep. 3, I developed a fever, and had nothing else to do but sit in bed and shiver, so I watched them, and decided that I'd made the right decision. But then the very intentional, 'look, we know it kinda sucks, just come back for episode 6, ok?' leaks started coming out of Mutant Enemy.

I have never been so happy to have been wrong.

But if I wasn't a Whedon fan, and didn't come here and stuff....I'd totally have been gone. So I understand where this guy comes from.

"Anne" was the first episode of Buffy I ever saw, while channel surfing. Watched it for a few weeks, and ordered the 1st and 2nd season from Australia for $100+ since it wasn't out in Region 1 for a few years yet then. Really glad I did.

thespian | May 23, 11:28 CET

Aw, Charlie, why so grumpy?

Surprised he hasn't seen any Buffy, I always think it's kinda strange when people in the business say that (especially those who write vampire/horror type shows *cough*Alan Ball*cough*), I mean if you're going to tell us that X is the best TV show ever surely you watch at least one episode of the other contenders so you can argue your point. Then again the amount of working writers I've met who don't actually watch TV is staggering.

Leaf | May 23, 12:42 CET

I guess this rules out a Dollhouse/Dead Set crossover.

Simon | May 23, 12:47 CET

I love it when people rant about things they admit to not having seen themselves.

Harridan | May 23, 13:11 CET

He's funny and he has some good points. Is he essentially a tv critic, or does he write about a wide variety of things? Because if he is set up as primarily a tv critic, I think he does have a responsibility to check things out more.

He says all the Whedon fans tell him the later episodes of Buffy are better. The same is said to be true of Dollhouse. If the man is a proper tv critic, then he should be checking some later episodes.

It's like the difference between a funny short story or article about a bad dinner at a restaurant, and a restaurant critic's piece. The restaurant critic is supposed to visit the place on more than one occasion, and try different things in order to write a proper, fair review. If you're not setting yourself up as specialized reviewer and rater, then you can be as lazy as you like in the interests of funny or interesting.

Which is he?

toast | May 23, 13:28 CET

I didn't find him amusing. Just sanctimonious and irritating.

QingTing | May 23, 13:30 CET

I'm a fan of Charlie Brooker. He generally talks sense, even if he is angry about it (but, honestly, with good reason a lot of the time -- Zero Punctuation's Yahtzee reminds me of him). I can't really fault what he's saying either, because he did pretty much hit the nail on the head: Dollhouse didn't have a great start, and you do have to wait until the end of the season to see anything mind-blowing.

Also, it was nice to see the Joe 90 reference, which is something I remember from my childhood (and it was already decades old then, not that I noticed). It's something I imagine only British people are familiar with.

MattK | May 23, 13:32 CET

Why does this review make me want to cuddle Mr Brooker, even though I completely disagree with his view-point?

[ edited by bubblecat on 2009-05-23 13:46 ]

bubblecat | May 23, 13:46 CET

I like Charlie Brooker, his Screenwipe shows about the TV business are great and despite hating Big Brother I loved Dead Set. So he at least has more moral authority than most critics since he has actually written a (very good IMHO) series himself.

But I also wonder about any Buffy fans who dislike season 2, for me one of the best of the series. And his logic is a bit strange. If the first season, or two, of a show is not that great then why not start watching S3? He talks like he would have to force himself to watch S1 and 2 to get to 3.

Not only that but he fails to mention that one of the "Buffy fans" who rave about the show include Russel T Davis who he interviewed in a Screenwipe episode, the impression being that he very much respected RTS and his writing.
So it's not just "Crazy fans" who he's ignoring but a highly respected writer whose work he respects. Surely that would suggest he should give the show a chance?

For a glimpse at his persona, his guide to TV

zz9 | May 23, 14:26 CET

Haha! I used to watch that! Brings back memories!

Ok, so it didn't get off to a great start but jeez, give the show a chance! (After watching it in the UK, I find myself liking the first episode more than I did before - or maybe it's just because I know how good it gets later). And he seems to have completely missed the point of the show.

I don't think Buffy needs two seasons to get going either. Season 1 had me hooked. And I freakin' loved Season 2 - probably my favourite.
Joss did it first! Twilight did it badly!

Shep | May 23, 14:30 CET

LOL. This review was hilarious. I mean, the first two episodes weren't mind-blowing, but they were by no means awful. I'm fine with it, though, because his only arguments were "BLAH BLAH BLAH WHO CARES?", "Topher is a 12 year old!", and him being mad that people in this show are gorgeous. Interesting review ;)

benboy606 | May 23, 15:23 CET

I'm still wondering which fan said that it takes Buffy TWO SEASONS to get going? I think it was pretty kick ass right out of the gate!

Connor Angel Chase | May 23, 15:41 CET

"Okay, okay, Whedonphiles, I get the msg: Dollhouse gets good circa ep 6. Maybe I'll take another look then. Maybe." - Mr Brooker via twitter one min ago.

bubblecat | May 23, 15:54 CET

That review made me laugh, and I liked it. And I agreed with some of it too! Everyone is just oh so improbably pretty and done just right. And the beginning plots were just so...simple. Overdone. Redone. But around episode six it was good, and then it kind of just went back to being a little blah again.

I hope season two is better!

the ninja report | May 23, 15:56 CET

To be fair he was in a hurry to get to the finale of the Eurovision Song Contest before someone spoiled it for him :). I'm kidding, of course - bubblecat you wanted to throw him a cuddle anyway :). Hoping re: his tweet that we end up seeing a "Ok, you were right..." follow-on article :).

zeitgeist | May 23, 15:57 CET

I personally think someone should force Firefly on him. It's not like there's even that many episodes that he could resent its quantity... but then, he could still hate it. Some people are not for Whedon.

And I just want to tell The Ninja Report that somehow I have never registered your name before, and it rocks. ;)

skittledog | May 23, 16:05 CET

We're "Whedonphiles"? I thought we were Whedonites? Do I have to throw away all the posters and badges?

Maybe while he's waiting for Episode 6 he should start watching S2 of Buffy...

zz9 | May 23, 16:06 CET

Whedonphilia sounds... possibly a little worrying, if you're Joss.

(On the other hand, 'Whedonphilia memorabilia' is great fun to say.)

skittledog | May 23, 16:24 CET

New favourite word combination.

curlymynci | May 23, 16:49 CET

Having just started a class on media criticism, this is pretty fascinating to read, if only as an example of how not to do a critique. Though I have to admit, he was pretty funny. ;)

deepgirl187 | May 23, 17:02 CET

I didn't really find the article funny at all, just pompous. Either he's feigning ignorance about the whole "It takes 34 episodes for Buffy to get good" thing or he just misunderstood whoever told him it gets good in season two. I find it extremely hard to believe that any Buffy fan would discount season two entirely.

wonderflonium | May 23, 17:38 CET

I'm a little frightened, but also amused :)

jkalderash | May 23, 17:47 CET

Yeah, I'm not gonna bother reading it, I've had enough of 'professional critics' (or whoever this guy is) attacking Dollhouse. They are wrong, and me getting angry about it by reading it won't change it. Oh and I think season 2 of Buffy is awesome, but my favorite is 3 and 5.

SteppeMerc | May 23, 18:37 CET

I thought Buffy was good but not great until around Passion. And it just kept getting better from there.

I find humor in lots of things, but this sort not so much. It's trivially easy to deliberately not know something and guffaw at it. And how many great things do you miss that way?

That said, the only reason I made it through the first five episodes of Dollhouse was because Whedon has paid off patience before. Without that faith I'd have been gone at Stage Fright.

Maggie | May 23, 18:40 CET

Am I the only person who likes Buffy Season One?

streetartist | May 23, 18:50 CET

Reading this Review was a great deal like trying to read sandpaper. Waaay too abrasive.

I'm not exactly a Fan of DH either, but this guy totally misunderstood the premise. Someone earlier used the word "Lazy". Good Call.

:)

TDBrown | May 23, 18:52 CET

Charlie's been a media critic for - what - a decade now? He's spawned a TV comedy out of it, a TV horror movie (which didn't Joss reference at one point? May be wrong) and two TV critic shows (the excellent Screenwipe and Newswipe). People may scoff at his review skills, but he's really good at what he does.

gossi | May 23, 18:57 CET

Ouch but funny. Gotta respect a guy with opinions.

marymary | May 23, 19:01 CET

He sort of makes a career out of being lazy but intelligent and generally well-informed. I don't mind him, but I do find his political rantings more to my taste than his cultural ones.


Nope! I do think seasons two and three are better, but I have a big soft spot for all starting points of tv shows, so I love Welcome To The Hellmouth for that reason alone. I think I liked The Pack a lot on first watching, although that might have changed now. Retrospectively, I find it quite amazing how well Angel gels with... well, Angel. The Darla stuff is almost spot on by the later standards of their relationship. And I think Out of Mind, Out of Sight is sort of Buffy s1's Objects in Space for expansion of scope and sudden deeper thoughts (and screaming Cordelia, always fun).

Hmm, now I want a rewatch...

skittledog | May 23, 19:05 CET

That does ring a bell Gossi, but I can't recall it. Maybe Joss said it was terrible and this is his revenge? :)

zz9 | May 23, 19:13 CET

I thought Buffy was pretty good from the first episode, but hey! That's me. I don't read the silly Guardian or it's fellow weekend rag anyway, too elite, too leftist for my tastes.

Peanut Noir | May 23, 19:38 CET

Brilliant. I love Buffy (my second favourite show after The Wire, yes it is the greatest thing ever made ever) and most things Whedon but Charlie Brooker is spot on about Dollhouse. Also Topher's character is rubbish and I'm glad someone's else thinks so to.

Dave B | May 23, 19:38 CET

Getting all upset about Charlie Brookers tone and abrasiveness is pointless. That's his style. Even stuff he actually really enjoys gets this treatment, and he's really only complementry about stuff he's a real fanboy about like The Wire and Battlestar Galactica. The primary point of his TV "reviews" is humour.

Besides with Brooker, the worse the review the better for the show I suspect. He's got a big fanbase, and I know I've watched shows he's trashed out of sheer curiosity.

[ edited by bivith on 2009-05-23 19:54 ]

bivith | May 23, 19:54 CET

The funny thing is that Charlie Brooker is so interested in the medium of television, particularly in the power relationships between viewers, stars, and producers. Lots of very watchable (amusing and often insightful) material on this kind of thing in his Screenwipe shows.

I find this really ironic and kind of a shame since from my perspective Dollhouse is the best television show about television (particularly, about said relationships) around.

Anthony | May 23, 20:14 CET

Anyone else think it's probably a good thing he didn't watch episode 3?

curlymynci | May 23, 21:10 CET

Sssh... we Shall Not Speak of episode 3 (apart from the Victor sequences.)

Anthony | May 23, 21:33 CET

The first season of Dollhouse wasn't that good, so I don't blame him for disliking some of the episodes that he saw. And like others have mentioned on here, I would've stopped watching the show after Stage Fright. That episode was just bad. The only reason I continued to watch the show was because I'm a Whedon fan. But I do honestly believe that season 2 will be a lot better.

ria | May 23, 21:44 CET

an⋅he⋅do⋅ni⋅a
  /ˌænhiˈdoʊniə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [an-hee-doh-nee-uh]
–noun Psychology.
: a psychological condition characterized by inability to experience pleasure in acts which normally produce it.

kungfubear | May 23, 22:20 CET

Two seasons to get going? That's a commitment of 34 episodes before even its fans think it becomes worthwhile.

He needs to talk to PeanutNoir and others. Buffy was worthwhile from the start. It took 34ish episodes to inspire the evangelism/fanaticism that he is seeing now. Which is something most shows never see.

OneTeV | May 23, 22:40 CET

Glad to hear he's thinking about taking a look at the later episodes, bubblecat. He may have some clever things to say about those, too.

Re starting from the beginning: I first watched Buffy when I happened upon some season 2 reruns, after it was no longer airing. Since I was hooked, I started watching the dvds from where the limited reruns left me hanging, and only watched season 1 after the end of season 7. At that point, I found the early shows endearing. I'm far from certain that I'd have been riveted from day 1 though. When I try to get someone else hooked,(Buffy junkie that I am) I usually do start with showing them some season 2.

Criticism worth reading (of the kind of tv or any other work which aspires to more than a forgettable, entertaining joy ride) really requires some generous sampling. Hope he is going to check Dollhouse out from episode 6 on.

toast | May 23, 22:47 CET

Whatever else he is, Brooker is sexist. He assumes his audience is male, or more likely, he doesn't think of gender at all and falls into male-as-default. Why do I say this? Because we don't ALL want to screw Echo. (Yes, I know some women do, but I don't think Brooker is writing for lesbians and bisexual women.) I get tired of guys writing as if we all respond the same way to Eliza.

Suzie | May 23, 23:02 CET

Suzie, I think he's mocking the premise setup. Dollhouse opens with a near upskirt shot of Echo in the dance club. The advertising was all "house full of hot chicks" (actual quote). I think it's okay to pick that apart.

gossi | May 23, 23:03 CET

Gossi, I agree, and all of that deserves mocking. But it's a problem in journalism when writers write as if everyone shares their demographic. The sports pages are the worst.

Suzie | May 23, 23:45 CET

When Spike showed up on Buffy, I was hooked and he is the reason I stayed for the last 4 seasons. Having said that, I have to agree with most of what Brooker said about DH, it did not get good until ep 6, but I love it now. I would not have stayed with it if I did not already love Joss shows and just knew it was going to get better. Firefly was good from the get go, even if Fox messed with the ep order.

rehabber | May 24, 00:29 CET

Ugh. The "Angry Brit" shtick is so 2008. Poor guy needs better material. :(

I do agree with him about DH eps 1 and 2, they reeked. If it weren't for my faith in Joss, I would have jumped ship.

Whistler | May 24, 02:38 CET

Sooo angry. People enjoy reading this regularly? Well, I'll follow his lead and stop after my first impression, which was rather disheartening.

I disagree with a few of his points, but one specific thing I don't get. He's so distracted by the actors/actresses' beauty that he can't concentrate on the show? Sounds more like his problem than the show's.

And yeah, the actives should be attractive, for specific engagements. This is clear. I don't see why that needs to be mocked.

Ifwewait | May 24, 05:47 CET

Considering at most he's only reviewing the first few episodes, I don't really have a problem with it. Pretty similar to the American criticisms through the first five episodes except with decidedly more colloquial expressions.

Just a random talking point. Everyone pretty much agreed that it got better at episode six. Would they have done better to simply cut the first five? The ugly truth is, bad first impressions can kill and that's part of the reviewers point.

azzers | May 24, 06:40 CET

SteppeMerc: Yeah, I'm not gonna bother reading it, I've had enough of 'professional critics' (or whoever this guy is) attacking Dollhouse. They are wrong, and me getting angry about it by reading it won't change it. Oh and I think season 2 of Buffy is awesome, but my favorite is 3 and 5.

He's not attacking Dollhouse...and I think all fans do a disservice to themselves if they won't actually discuss the flaws in a Whedon work.

Let's face it: Season one of Dollhouse was not spectacular. At its best, it was good. At its worst, it was dismal and terrible and did not work. After Stage Fright, I thought it would get canceled and didn't think it would ever get renewed, not even after the "good" episodes.

So the fact that fans will get so up in arms to defend Joss is such a disservice to the fandom because you have to recognize the flaws. Joss is not almighty - he will screw up. It's up to the fans to understand that, and not blindly devote themselves to a work and denounce all who disagree. The review makes some very valid points.

the ninja report | May 24, 06:43 CET

Ifwewait: I disagree with a few of his points, but one specific thing I don't get. He's so distracted by the actors/actresses' beauty that he can't concentrate on the show? Sounds more like his problem than the show's.

And yeah, the actives should be attractive, for specific engagements. This is clear. I don't see why that needs to be mocked.

It's not that he was distracted...it was that the show has a lot of style, but seemed to take that over substance, at least in the first two episodes.

I had a lot of problems with the first two or three episodes in particular because of the practically vertical shot up the skirt. Instead of starting with substance, it started with style - and poor taste. What does that say to me as a viewer of this brand new show? How am I supposed to believe it's any different from the blatant pandering to the demographic who enjoy short skirts and big boobs and the demographic who want big muscles and washboard abs?

What if I want flawed characters who aren't classically attractive? Why can't I have characters who are enigmatic and attractive because of their words, their personalities, their actions - and not because they have rock hard abs and a tan?

Why can't Alan Tudyk get cast in everything? No one has a hard time being convinced that Alan Tudyk as Alpha could have been a doll, so why go to such great lengths to make sure every doll is spectacularly attractive? I'm not saying Alan isn't handsome (I think he is very handsome indeed) but Hollywood's definition of attractive is something that I believe has been an uphill battle in television (for instance, Alyson Hannigan as Willow was always made to look pretty, despite being portrayed as the nerd).

Why do you think fans are so happy about Miracle Laurie? She's gorgeous, yes, but she also defies the traditional Hollywood idea of what is beautiful. She's not a size 0, and she is gorgeous. We considered that a triumph, but yet time and time again we are treated to up-the-skirt shots and lets-focus-on-Eliza's-chest shots.

ETA: Clarified the comment about Alyson Hannigan as Willow.

[ edited by The Ninja Report on 2009-05-24 06:56 ]

the ninja report | May 24, 06:49 CET

Whatever else he is, Brooker is sexist. [...] I get tired of guys writing as if we all respond the same way to Eliza.

Susie, do you mean to say that you're tired of people writing as if we all respond the same way to Eliza, or is it only bad when males do it?

What Brooker actually says is that "we're supposed to want to screw the main character" which is a gender neutral statement - her sex appeal is a big part of the marketing, whether it's a motivation for the individual viewer or not. He didn't say "we all want to", he said "we're supposed to want to." And of course, not all men (or even all heterosexual ones) respond the same way to Eliza either.

Re:ruuger Okay, now I've heard it. :p

Revolver | May 24, 08:27 CET

My problem is the absolutist statements about Dollhouse being "bloody awful", based on watching two episodes. I just find that to be very unprofessional.
A professional critic should understand that some shows are created with arcs in mind, and that it takes more than two eps for characterization and direction to unfold.

Shey | May 24, 11:56 CET

Why shouldn't we judge a show after one episode though? If the plot, characterisation, directing, acting and dialogue is rubbish, which is was for the most of Dollhouse, then why can't a critic say so? Just because a show may get better doesn't mean the first season is beyond criticism.

Dave B | May 24, 16:30 CET

TheNinjaReport: Instead of starting with substance, it started with style - and poor taste. What does that say to me as a viewer of this brand new show?

That got me thinking about the opening episodes of the other shows. Since the writers are free to start the story anywhere in the timeline, the question becomes what is the advantage with starting where they did? Besides the pilot being an introduction, it should be a mission statement.

(1) We had the opening teaser to demonstrate that this show would be unconventional, but the story begins with Buffy & mom having just moved to Sunnydale, and about to meet her new friends. So even more than high school, we get the larger elements of family and friends. The town of Sunnydale is the jumping on point, so the story is resolved in season 7 with the Sunnydale sinkhole.

(2) The Angel pilot had him just moving to LA, but the key element was when Doyle introduces the theme about his Mission in (un)life. This is also the first time Angel locked horns with WR&H. The story gets wrapped up in season 5 (should have been 6) with a big fight at WR&H, and Angel re-committing himself to the Mission.

(3a) Original Firefly pilot: We meet Mal, who is our introduction to the 'Verse, but this episode is about how he crossed paths with the Tams. They are the new element in his life that will drive the Firefly arc, and that is resolved in Serenity.
(3b) Train Job: An episode that gets much better when you consider it had to be written over a weekend. But I think some people had trouble getting hooked because this was an odd story to begin the series. We do find out that more technology doesn't translate to more civilization, and that Mal has his code that is more moral than the law. But it didn't tie into the overall series as well as the original pilot.

(4a) I haven't seen the original Dollhouse pilot or the script. But I remember some scenes that used to exist, with the guy wanting a knockout (Doll) on his arm when he went to an ex's wedding. Besides bringing the funny, it would have made the introduction center on emotion (loneliness) rather than superficial sexiness. The other part I remember is that Ballard met Echo, which would seem to be a compelling moment to the series.
(4b) Ghost: Why does the series start here? Echo has already been a doll for a while. Ballard is in the middle of his investigation. Boyd has been a handler for a while. The central plot for the episode doesn't appear to tie into the Dollhouse mythology. The new element to the Dollhouse was Sierra, but that appears to be a coincidence rather than an integral story element. This episode was a decent enough introduction to the series, but right now doesn't appear to be any kind of a mission statement. And the teaser seems to push sex appeal/style to the front, rather than make it a fringe benefit of the storytelling.

I'm wondering if viewers would have been hooked better if the pilot was at a key moment rather than a convenient moment: just after Alpha incident, Ballard first being assigned Dollhouse, Ballard meeting Echo, Boyd's first days at the Dollhouse, Ballard receiving Alpha's photos of Caroline, etc.

OneTeV | May 24, 16:34 CET

OneTev,

I actually thought that the second episode served better as a pilot. Most likely because it not only introduces the basic premise of the Dollhouse, but starts things off at a critical juncture in the storyline (as per your thoughts).

That said, "The Target" still had its problems and I'm not sure if it would have hooked many more viewers than "Ghost".

JossIzBoss | May 24, 23:03 CET

Revolver, professional critics are overwhelmingly male. In more than 18 years as a journalist, I never had to deal with a female critic who assumed that all of her readers were female. So, personally, I am tired of men who do this.

I can't imagine how anyone would think that Brooker's comment was gender neutral. Could Fox truly want all female viewers to screw Eliza? No, Fox was pandering to its male viewers, and that seems to have paid off, because DH was more popular with young men than any other demographic.

I'll make you a deal: I'll start being gender neutral when the world stops discriminating against women because of their gender. As the saying goes, I'll be post-feminist in the post-patriarchy.

Suzie | May 25, 01:27 CET

Ninja Report:

It sounds like you (and Brooker) are looking for a show (without physically attractive people) that won't be appearing on network television. If physically attractive people turn you off, I don't know what to tell you. Except maybe watch cable-only series.

I guess that explains Brooker's fanboy devotion to The Wire and BSG. Though BSG did have some fairly attractive people (Tahmoh included), so I'm not sure how he jumped that hurdle.

Ifwewait | May 25, 04:54 CET

Again, it's a gender neutral statement because he's not assuming anyone's response, he's pointing out what response FOX is assuming. He's pointing out sexism! He said that "we're supposed to want to sleep with the main character" not that we do. Coming from someone who hated this review, there's still nothing sexist about it.

As for your next point, about how female critics never do this - ridiculous. You honestly mean to tell me you've never seen a review of anything that commented on a male's sex appeal in a way that assumed the reader was sympathetic to it? Look around.

The deal you've offered me isn't a good one. It's an excuse to continue with sexist behavior and rhetoric until you can't find examples (real or imagined) of anyone else doing it to complain about - in other words, forever. Positive social change is initiated by example, and individual men don't deserve to be discriminated against based on the supposed attitudes of "the world" in general.

Revolver | May 25, 08:37 CET

Here's Brooker's first comment: In other words, it's like Joe 90, except you're supposed to want to screw the lead character, because the lead character is the improbably gorgeous Eliza Dushku, not a nine-year-old schoolboy marionette.

I doubt I will convince you of my point, but I think he's referring to the way Eliza has been used (has used herself?) as bait for the men folk. The problem is his use of "you" for the generic watcher of the show/reader of his article.

I didn't say there has never existed a female critic who wrote as if all of her readers wanted to have sex with a good-looking actor. Nor am I encouraging female critics to do this. In more than 18 years, I can't remember ever editing a woman who had a regular gig as a professional entertainment critic at a major newspaper. They have not been that common. So, personally, I can be tired of this crap if I want to be.

I'm not discriminating against Brooker or anyone else by discussing their use (or misuse) of language. I have no power over Brooker. I did not discriminate against people I edited. Some of my best friends are men. (Just a little levity in case any feminists are still reading.)

By the way, noting that someone is gorgeous or that this would be pleasing to viewers is different than using "you" to refer to the generic viewer/reader.

You misunderstand my deal. The opposite of "gender neutral" is not "sexism." In my perspective, you want me -- here and in other threads -- not to see or comment on gender. That is the common definition of "post feminism." (But I understand that people who have studied postmodernism and poststructuralism may define it differently.)

Patriarchy isn't defined as a world in which no man ever does anything bad. It's a world in which men hold most of the power.

Positive social change is initiated in a lot of ways. For example, I'm heading off to a major cancer conference where I'll be working for free on behalf of patients. That, too, is positive social change. And, by the way, the great majority of the doctors will be men, but I'm sure that's just a coincidence that I should never mention, lest I discriminate against them.

As far as leading by example, I'm thrilled when one of the guys jumps in on these threads to write against sexism.

Suzie | May 25, 15:48 CET

Definitely doesn't deserve a thread of it's own but if people thought Charlie's review was bad... try this one.

Leaf | May 25, 16:04 CET

Wow. I was going to comment on what Suzie's been saying, but decided against it after I clicked on the link provided by Leaf. Misinformed and deliberately angry though that review may be, I think it does deserve a thread. Fair is fair.

At the same time, I understand not wanting to call too much attention to so much vile, almost seemingly personal resentment towards Dollhouse, as there's plenty of it already. Who knew 50 minute increments of a popcorn sprinkled morality tale (hidden in the depths of Friday night television, far from the sensitive eyes and ears of the zoo-going children of the world) would piss people off so much? As if Joss and company are seriously going out of their way to bring about social and cultural destruction with their little corner of weekly entertainment. Shouldn't folks know better by now? I mean really, of all the things to get so up in arms about.

If a sci-fi thriller, front-loaded with attractive young people (on TV?! Since when?!), 'splosions and kung fu, so as to help the thought-provoking medicine go down... If that's the biggest offender in my life, so much so that I'm compelled to rant about it across the information super highway, then I'll consider my life pretty freaking nice and stop complaining about every little thing that isn't my favorite flavor of ice cream (cookies and cream). :)

kungfubear | May 25, 17:31 CET

It was the personal slagging off of Joss and his appearance that made me not want to post it front and centre, I am a bit of a coward like that, though I'm fine with anyone else doing so (don't know if the mods would be?).

Leaf | May 25, 23:54 CET

The Kathryn Flett review was posted but was deleted soon after.

moley75 | May 26, 00:06 CET

Suzie, I don't have a problem with you commenting on gender, or wondering why male doctors outnumber female doctors, or discussing the way that gender enters into the Dollhouse demographic. Where I think gender neutrality is absolutely essential though is in moral judgments of others. Every time that I can remember complaining, it's been because you seemed to say that a certain action is wrong when men do it.

I also resent the idea that sexism against men is either nonexistent or trivial. (I'm not saying you believe this, but certain statements you've made, such as "I'm thrilled when one of the guys jumps in on these threads to write against sexism", are the kind of thing that one would use sarcastically to present this kind of viewpoint.) As a person who is trying to further progress beyond a patriarchal society, you should understand that the gender based expectations that it epitomizes are harmful to men as well as women when applied to the modern world.

On the subject of patriarchy... I acknowledge, and I think it's necessary for others to do so as well, that people experience the world differently. Being as young as I am, I am not in a position to notice the power imbalances at work in the professional world. However, I am one of many people who came of age in the 90s and 2000s who feels that in the social constructions relevant to our lives, the rate at which gender based expectations have disappeared for women outpaces the rate at which they have done so for men, resulting in a pronounced female privilege. I imagine that when people are dismissive of this idea, it's because they have no firsthand experience of it.

Revolver | May 26, 02:42 CET

Revolver, I am sincerely happy when a man opposes sexism. I'm not sarcastic about that. But I don't see men involved in the fight against sexism in nearly the same numbers as women.

Google it, and you'll find that a common definition of sexism is abuse and discrimination against the opposite sex, often specifically against women. Although men also can be harmed by stereotypes and rigid gender roles, the difference is that men have more power in society and, thus, it's often men harming other men. For example, consider the idea that men are the ones who are supposed to be warriors. Sadly, that has gotten a lot of men killed. In almost all current governments, however, men predominate as lawmakers, and they have the power to change laws governing women in the military. Media also influence cultural ideas about warfare. The owners and managers of TV and radio stations, newspapers and publishing houses, and the writers and producers of TV shows and movies are predominantly men.

Can you give concrete examples of ways women are now privileged over men? Here's a specific example of how we are not privileged: Men still commit violence against women in much greater numbers than women commit against men.

Suzie | May 26, 04:45 CET

Well, I'm not arguing that men aren't more violent than women, but that doesn't represent a societal privilege. These men, they go to prison, don't they? But the women who commit violent crimes, don't they do less jail time on average? That seems more like a societal privilege to me.

As for the degree of involvement, that can mean a lot of different things. If you see all women as being directly involved in a day to day struggle, but only measure male involvement by concrete actions and allegiances, then such a view is inevitable. On the scale of gender-oriented political movements, feminism is much more popular and accepted than male advocacy (which is a social advantage for women). And within the feminist movement itself, reception of men has been, at various times and to various degrees, unfriendly.

You keep saying that men have more power in society, and I guess I'm just supposed to take that at face value. My conclusion is that it's true in some ways and untrue in others. Yes, in American society (that's the one that's relevant to me) there are more male lawmakers, but women have more power to pick them. (That's not a social advantage, just a mathematical one.) It's hard to give a concrete example of the social privilege I'm trying to express because it's such a broad concept, but in short, women are free to take on traits that are traditionally masculine or feminine, and to switch at will. Men however, still face pressure to be alpha males, except when to do so would disrespect female empowerment. I don't resent women for their newfound freedom, but I'd like it for myself.

Revolver | May 28, 12:33 CET