January 30 2010
What the papers say about the last ever Dollhouse episode.
The A.V. Club gave "Epitaph Two: Return" an 'A-' saying it was "a thrilling, twist-filled hour with real emotional resonance". TV critic Alan Sepinwall said it was "an imperfect but often moving finale". E! Online consided it "to be plenty rewarding for faithful viewers" but IGN.com thought a lot of it "felt very silly". The MTV recap believed that the finale "was about as good as could be expected" and HitFix declared that "it's a very, very good episode of television" but "[it] won't sit proudly alongside the "Angel" finale as one of the all-time greats". And finally TV Overmind says "this wasn't an ending for everyone" but concluded that "it has been one helluva run".
This thread has been closed for new comments.
You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.
xander fan | January 30, 08:07 CET
Lioness | January 30, 08:28 CET
I would overall give Dollhouse a 7/10. The dialog was really cheesy alot of the time and Eliza Dushku, in my opinion, is not a very good actress. She can be a badass spitting out cheesy lines and that's really about all she can do well.
geratongs3000 | January 30, 08:30 CET
Not like they really matter.
[ edited by nuccbko on 2010-01-30 17:45 ]
nuccbko | January 30, 08:44 CET
It's like a heckler trying to blame a comedian for why he doesn't connect IMO.
Now I know people who didn't connect, I'm just saying coming from this guy I don't find it especially valid.
azzers | January 30, 08:47 CET
And who are you to say that they don't matter? I think they are usually pretty intelligent.
geratongs3000 | January 30, 08:48 CET
Simon | January 30, 08:50 CET
But I am saying this is a person who watched all 26 episodes, and at best all I read were backhanded compliments. I don't consider critics any more sainted than television producers, so I don't think it's unreasonable to question the validity of a critic's work if you detect a pattern that never leaves their reviews. But that is just my opinion.
[ edited by azzers on 2010-01-30 17:56 ]
azzers | January 30, 08:53 CET
It's fine not to like the show, but the reviewer has literally been ragging on Dollhouse since before it started. We get it, it's different than Firefly. That's fine. Most of us have been able to get over that for some time. He has not. The fact is that I can't take anything the guy says seriously about this episode because of how he's treated the show in the past.
Is Dollhouse my favorite Whedon show? Is it my least-favorite? I'm not really sure. But it's definitely one of the best series I've ever seen, and I'm extremely grateful for the experience. I realize it's not for everyone. Joss' next show might not be my cup of tea. But I'm not going to go in wishing it was a teenage vampire metaphor, a vampire noir, a sci-fi western or a whatever Dollhouse was.
nuccbko | January 30, 08:56 CET
Edit: After reading the "excellent point"... I guess it's safe to say that hell remains unchanged...
[ edited by Djungelurban on 2010-01-30 18:03 ]
Djungelurban | January 30, 08:57 CET
I've stopped bothering with reviews for the most part (well, entirely now since the show's over but you know what I mean ;). The critical ones seemed to get caught up in the same refrain (Eliza can't act, the characters aren't relatable, lather, rinse, repeat) and the positive ones never really seemed particularly insightful (i'd get more out of many of the posts in the discussion threads). Speaking as someone who at least liked it from the pilot and came to love it later on, the show had issues IMO (primarily of consistency) but seeing the same complaints over and over got old pretty quickly (particularly when I don't agree with them).
Saje | January 30, 09:02 CET
geratongs3000 | January 30, 09:04 CET
electricspacegirl | January 30, 09:37 CET
geratongs3000 | January 30, 09:38 CET
Eric G | January 30, 09:39 CET
http://ifmagazine.com/review.asp?article=3807
Shapenew | January 30, 09:50 CET
And I think I'm off for a buffy marathon to cope
maz | January 30, 09:59 CET
You're more than welcome to dislike the show, that's fine. Especially as a reviewer. There are parts of the show I didn't like. There are parts of last night's episode that I didn't particularly like. And I realize it's like nothing Whedon's ever done. But I've found you to be unfair to the show from the get-go, even if you have given some episodes positive reviews. Then again, you gave Belonging an 8 and gave Stop-Loss an 8.6, so I think we'll just have to agree to disagree.
nuccbko | January 30, 10:18 CET
That said, I've enjoyed having these round-up threads to get a cross-section view of how the show has been doing reviews-wise. Some reviewers have noticeably moved into more positive territory as the show has gone on, which I think pretty much reflected the feelings of many viewers, too, and it was nice to see that. So to echo Lioness, thanks Simon for doing this each week.
skittledog | January 30, 10:37 CET
Dana5140 | January 30, 10:53 CET
It's fine to criticize a show, it's not fine to post review and potentially insinuate that the show creator doesn't even like his own show. That's not an opinion. I made that mistake once with Tim Minear and I'm never doing it again. Sure, I'm a Whedon fan. I might not like his next show while others might. That's fine. But I'm not going to go in expecting it to be Angel season 6 or Dollhouse season 3 and then complain about how it's not how I feel what a "Whedon show" should be for the rest of its run.
The man is gonna do his own thing and try out different stuff. His older stuff is over, and expecting his new stuff to be carbon copies of the old is a nostalgic pipe dream.
[ edited by nuccbko on 2010-01-30 20:24 ]
nuccbko | January 30, 11:20 CET
I think this overstates it. And, in fact, critics are no more immune to criticism than are the works they are criticizing. Critics don't get to voice their opinion in a vaccum, immune from response.
[ edited by The One True b!X on 2010-01-30 20:26 ]
@theonetruebix | January 30, 11:25 CET
The issue isn't whether or not a bad review is valid. It is, always. Unless the person was intentionally lying about how they felt. I don't think anyone's making that claim.
I think unfortunately in the IGN case, and this may not be fair to Eric, it always felt like he was looking for things to "not like." Especially this season. And yes, there IS a difference between giving a critique and giving complaints. Critique generally should fall along the lines of judging for something for what it is supposed to be, not against the the perfect image of the show you'd rather be watching.
However, that's the thing about communication, there's intention and the received message. And part of it may be that he ends articles on the episodes he likes with complaints, so by the time you finish reading them, it reads like he's emphasizing them.
And that's my point. Having read as many reviews from IGN as I have on this series, it's seems inductively obvious he wasn't connecting. I use the heckler parallel, because they also generally AREN'T at the comedy show to connect. They're there to do their own thing.
So when I read that he doesn't "connect" with the Ballard death...well... shocker.
Edit:
Later research proves that I have no idea what I'm talking about in regards to the word critique as it is extremely contested. Still... take the distinction I have in what I think a review should be rather than simple complaints. No, the irony is not lost on me.
[ edited by azzers on 2010-01-30 20:49 ]
[ edited by azzers on 2010-01-30 20:50 ]
azzers | January 30, 11:32 CET
Remember, the staff was told by Fox the show was over when they had two more episodes to make. They did they best they could, and it was pretty good.
impalergeneral | January 30, 11:49 CET
Since then I stopped reading any more TV & movie reviews as well as game reviews. I will just stick with my PC Gamer magazine.
Spacegirl3200 | January 30, 12:35 CET
A TV show's success is measured by numbers yes, and how well the network promotes it, and all sorts of variables, but if you don't have real, true discerning followers, are you really a success? Passion is an odd 'ole, funny thing, and in all my years of watching television, Joss' work is the only entertainment I've felt truly passionate about. Why is no mystery. So if you measure Joss by the positive passion felt for his work, he is a true success.
[ edited by Tonya J on 2010-01-30 23:08 ]
Tonya J | January 30, 14:06 CET
whedon is GOD | January 30, 16:35 CET
I'll also agree that Dushku's range doesn't equal (say) Sarah Michelle Gellar, who never ceases to amaze. But that's (A) a pretty steep comparison, and (B) not to say Dushku doesn't have her own strengths. The series had to have been an actress' dream, in that it allowed her to show what she had. Not Gellar, but not bad.
Having said that, this was still an involving, moving, classically-Whedony conclusion. The first season had some very good moments, that second had some amazing moments.
filops | January 30, 16:44 CET
Sunfire | January 30, 16:45 CET
Tonya J | January 30, 17:28 CET
Here's what I wrote in the review, "[Whedon's] recent comments that he has no intention of pursuing the Dollhouse universe in any way, such as comic books, make me feel his heart just wasn't in this one and that he might just be happy to move on. I have no idea if that's true or not, of course, but as a huge fan of Whedon, I certainly am absolutely fine with Dollhouse being over."
I stand by what I said. I get the feeling Whedon's heart was not fully invested in this Dollhouse - certainly not as much as it has been with projects like Buffy and Firefly. I think I more than qualify that comment though by saying I have no idea if it's true or not. How is that "laughably inaccurate"? I'm guessing there are interviews where Joss has said he was fully invested in Dollhouse, but it's just not the impression I get. Neither of us are in his head, so neither of us can be sure. It's all just our opinions... I would hope mine is no more laughable than yours.
Eric G | January 30, 17:33 CET
Madhatter | January 30, 18:32 CET
bknick | January 30, 19:30 CET
To be fair, most of the criticism of Dollhouse I - at least - have come across has essentially revolved around it lacking the inherent sense of cohesiveness that makes its predecessors so remarkable (ie. Buffy was an excellent Buffy. Angel was an excellent Angel. It's pretty hard to imagine how Firefly could have been/be any better than it was/is. Dollhouse often seemed like it could've been better.)
In retrospect I would have to say that while Dollhouse had many fine moments scattered throughout its two season run, for whatever reason - whether it be a question of flawed casting, poor writing, network interference, sun spots, or more likely a little of everything - the show never really seemed to manage to add up to the sum of all its parts - a disappointing first for the Whedon tv canon.
Here's to future works/tactful rehashings of older favorites that manage to entertain like Whedony things have tended to do in the past (I certainly hope expecting his new stuff to be of a similar caliber to the old isn't a nostalgic pipe dream.)
[ edited by brinderwalt on 2010-01-31 06:20 ]
brinderwalt | January 30, 21:07 CET
JAYROCK | January 30, 21:11 CET
"I have not enjoyed this show, though I have watched it with my wife, who loves it, and my negative comments about the show have not been met with what I would call open arms"
I'm glad to have dissenting opinions on this site, in newspapers, and in real life, as it'd be kinda boring if we all more or less agreed with one another. For that reason, at least, I appreciate your participation in the Dollhouse threads (among others). I think you're maybe misinterpreting the arguing of your points in the episode threads as not being met with open arms though. Unless folks personally attacked you or **the way you present your opinions, I'd say other posters debating your assertion that "this show needed more relatable characters", for example (possibly not an exact quote from the past), is simply a part of the discussion, not a rejection of your right to voice your opinion or some kind of righteous fanboy indignation.
**On occasion, you do kinda present your opinions in a know-it-all, I'm-more-educated-than-most-of-you, here's-how-teacher-sees-it kinda tone that might rub people the wrong way, if they aren't used to you, just FYI, IMO (and it's not the kind of opinion-presentation that I'd say needs more "IMO"s written in, 'cause that's pretty much assumed when any of us are posting). Might explain the more prickly reactions you receive, at times.
Kris | January 30, 23:33 CET
Yeah... that's IGN for you
"Here's to future works/tactful rehashings of older favorites that manage to entertain like Whedony things have tended to do in the past (I certainly hope expecting his new stuff to be of a similar caliber to the old isn't a nostalgic pipe dream.)"
Expecting his new stuff to be of the same caliber is fine. Expecting them to be the same is not.
[ edited by nuccbko on 2010-01-31 09:04 ]
nuccbko | January 31, 00:01 CET
SoddingNancyTribe | January 31, 00:08 CET
I realize Dollhouse isn't perfect. Hell, I'm not even sure how I feel about it towards the end. But there's a difference between critiquing the show on its merits and baselessly charging that the show runner doesn't give a crap.
Eliza, who is heavily invested in the show, doesn't see it as a continuing story. Joss doesn't see it as a continuing story. It's completed, it's over. That's one of the joys of Fox letting the show finish its run. That doesn't somehow mean that they don't care. To even suggest that Joss doesn't care about the show because he doesn't want to continue it shows what I believe to be a very naive opinion on how he feels. There's really no evidence that he didn't care beyond pure speculation. And after watching this episode I have a hard time believing that he didn't love it.
Then again, that's my opinion. You're fine to disagree... I just see it as a fairly baseless opinion, that's all.
[ edited by nuccbko on 2010-01-31 09:25 ]
nuccbko | January 31, 00:11 CET
SoddingNancyTribe | January 31, 00:20 CET
JAYROCK | January 31, 01:00 CET
The way I look at Dollhouse is this - it had two 13 episode seasons. In those seasons, it's got many episodes which people consider Whedonverse classics - Spy In The House of Love, Epitaph One, Belonging, The Attic etc. I would say whilst the show was uneven, a vast majority of the episodes are actually good. Now put it against Buffy season one and half of Buffy season two. Try to forget everything that followed (Oz, Tara, the big drama, the big bads etc etc etc etc), and try to look at it objectively.
What I see as the truth is that Dollhouse is a very different show to people (including the network) wanted. Fans wanted good guys, bad guys, humour humour humour, lovable characters. Buffy, Angel or Firefly, basically. They wanted a Willow. They wanted a gang of people on a spaceship, or Scoobies. Instead they got a show about how we use and abuse each other. They got Adelle. It doesn't mean it's a 'bad' show - there's a lot of great episodes of Dollhouse - it means it's not an easy show. If I wanted to kick back and relax right now, I'd watch Buffy. Hello, Willow. I love your hair. They're all my TV friends. But I absolutely loved Dollhouse for very different reasons.
[ edited by gossi on 2010-01-31 11:57 ]
gossi | January 31, 02:56 CET
Saje | January 31, 03:08 CET
That's quite a good point. If you compare the runs of the first 26 episodes of each show, ignorning Firefly, you have "Ghost" to "Epitaph Two"; "Welcome to the Hellmouth" to "Innocence"; and "City of..." to "Untouched". At this point Angel was okay but nowhere as amazing as it would become, whereas Buffy like Dollhouse had a few fantastic episodes ("Prophecy Girl", "What's My Line?") in with some which weren't bad per se, but not as good ("Some Assembly Required", "Bad Eggs", etc.)
Based on their first 26 episodes alone, I think Dollhouse was the strongest of the three.
Matt7325 | January 31, 03:15 CET
I think many people - like me - were looking for something a lot simpler and perfectly compatible with a new show entirely unlike any of its predecessors: a compelling viewing experience.
Works like DH that are designed to operate against the natural grain of the viewer's open enjoyment always have to find some way to make up for that inherent lack. For whatever reason DH seemed to never quite manage to cross back over that line.
Speaking as someone whose favorite film of all time is about a child molester and murderer (Fritz Lang's M c. 1936) - if the work is compelling I'll watch it with enthusiasm - I couldn't care less about the subject matter. I tend to enjoy stuff that's "harder to get into" more for the precise reason that to make something distasteful interesting enough to watch is a lot harder and is usually a lot more spectacular - assuming it succeeds.
brinderwalt | January 31, 06:59 CET
Jeffbot | January 31, 10:50 CET
Yeah, I've noticed that over all his series. We credit him with being the creative genius, and "his" episodes do tend to be golden, but there's a lot that doesn't come straight from him.
Contrast that with the Babylon 5 series, which J. Michael Straczynski had a very specific 5-year story he wanted to tell, and ended up writing the lion's share of the eps.
filops | January 31, 10:57 CET
IrrationaliTV | January 31, 12:00 CET
But I'll still agree with Jeff: more Whedon is usually a good thing.
filops | January 31, 12:17 CET
Except in this case, where Jed, Maurissa, and Andrew produced the best, most interesting scripts. Better than his, I argue.
@theonetruebix | January 31, 12:33 CET
I do agree I liked their scripts better. It's just hard for me to compare them when the stakes in the scripts by Joss seemed comparatively much lower.
Also one note about Joss writing scripts in general. Even in Buffy, for the most part I think he was writing usually the finale and the opening most of the time. I'm not sure how often he actually wrote more than one script per 13 episodes. So I actually don't find anything too uncommon about his approach here, except that he tended to write the finales which probably didn't happen here because I would suspect Episode 13 had already been assigned by the time they got the cancellation notice. And I can't fault him for not "taking" the finale when he found out, because it feels fitting that Jed and Mo got to write the continuation of the world they first wrote.
azzers | January 31, 14:57 CET
And to me that is what it comes down to.The inevitable misfires are made up by the fact that Joss can make me laugh and break my heart at the same time.
As far as how much he wrote, as Shawna said on twitter "He is a very giving guy / he touched everyone with great passion" when someone pointed out that he had only written one episode.
Lioness | January 31, 18:14 CET
Well said, Lioness. People tend to be brilliant with their mistakes. And Joss has been making a few.
BTW, when is he releasing "Cabin in the Woods"?
Madhatter | January 31, 19:23 CET
@theonetruebix | January 31, 19:25 CET
The whole creator role in a tv production has always seemed to me to be more in line with that of a film director - ie. they may have no direct involvement with the specifics of the work in question but they act to guide the overall course that it takes in the long run (director in the literal sense of the word.)
brinderwalt | January 31, 19:58 CET
Madhatter | January 31, 20:12 CET
@theonetruebix | January 31, 20:13 CET
Was I wrong in thinking she died in the end of Epitaph One? I thought we were supposed to infer that the gas she was pumping through the Dollhouse was poisonous, and that she died quietly as it killed all the invading butchers. How much more closure could she have than that? I was sorry but not surprised to not see her in Epitaph Two.
Bakoneko | January 31, 20:55 CET
JAYROCK | January 31, 21:03 CET
Matt7325 | January 31, 21:54 CET
Joss is so cruel to our favorite characters.
Madhatter | January 31, 22:25 CET
Though I do wish we'd gotten to see how she got to the beginning of Epitaph One. When li'l Echo was imprinted, she seemed to be expecting to see Claire Saunders, which suggests that they re-imprinted Whiskey as Saunders after Hollow Man, before Echo backed herself up on that wedge, and then somehow Saunders was wiped again at some point after that.
It's also a little disappointing that we never got to know who she was before she became an Active. Especially given the fascinating scenes early this season when she was so afraid and conflicted about the possibility of regaining her original identity at the cost of her imprinted one. Maybe it was never important who that original identity was, but I was curious!
This is probably getting off-topic for this particular thread, though. I'll stop. ^_^;
Bakoneko | January 31, 22:32 CET
gossi | February 01, 08:38 CET
Now, Alpha happening to show up, move in, clean the place out, and completely take it over within the - what, week? - it took the Epitaph One gang to get to Safe Haven and back, that's something else I would have liked to see fleshed out more.
Bakoneko | February 01, 09:53 CET
gossi | February 01, 09:56 CET
It got eaten by the Butchers.
Simon | February 01, 09:58 CET
gossi | February 01, 10:00 CET
Bakoneko | February 01, 10:03 CET
Isn't E1 set in 2019 and E2 in 2020 ? Granted, there could still only be a week in between (so long as it's the right week ;) but I dunno why they'd use different years unless it was to suggest "significant time has passed".
That said, I also don't know why it'd take more than a few days/a week to drive from LA to Tuscon-ish (even when your navigator can't see over the dash ;) since a) it's about, what, 500 miles ? and b) it doesn't seem to take that long to drive back.
Saje | February 01, 10:09 CET
brinderwalt | February 01, 11:20 CET
viewingfigures | February 01, 11:25 CET
Yeah true, you've just got to have a convertible when driving cross country ;).
(post-apocalyptic cities would seem to offer numerous opportunities when it comes to cars)
Saje | February 01, 12:57 CET
Sunfire | February 01, 13:16 CET
Perhaps they have been driving vehicles till they run out of gas/get blown up then they have to scrounge around for the next one. Yes, I imagine there is plenty to keep them busy.
Lioness | February 01, 13:41 CET
Sure, as we're seeing with people's efforts with every other plot issue that's an inevitable result of rushing the last few episodes slightly, we can interpret charitably or full-on fan-wank away most problems (and why not). Maybe they had trouble getting petrol (I know that in theory, when the electricity cuts out, you can get petrol from garage forecourts manually BUT i've absolutely no idea how to actually do it - no reason to think a sociology student and a landscape architect would either), hell, maybe Zone can't drive so they couldn't share the load, maybe most of the cars they came across had manual transmissions or roads were blocked etc. Who knows. Maybe lots of things.
(though I will say that if they just drove straight there then they wouldn't really need to forage for food or water since it's about an 8 hour drive ;)
Saje | February 01, 14:24 CET
Kris | February 02, 03:37 CET
Saje | February 02, 04:29 CET
Nocticola | February 02, 12:06 CET
Kris | February 04, 18:08 CET
... what ?
Saje | February 04, 23:03 CET
"Not like in my day when any budding apocalypse would know to behave or it'd get a good averting by some passing hero."
You may be dating yourself here. :p
Kris | February 05, 11:48 CET