This site will work and look better in a browser that supports web standards, but it is accessible to any browser or Internet device.

Whedonesque - a community weblog about Joss Whedon
"So I could be alone with my, you know...sweaty...shirtless...shame."
11944 members | you are not logged in | 20 September 2014




Tweet







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".

Simon, thanks for gathering these all together every week.
Excellent point on IGN regarding the death of Paul.

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.
I don't think IGN has ever given Dollhouse a positive review.

Not like they really matter.

[ edited by nuccbko on 2010-01-30 17:45 ]
Except IGN has essentially been ragging on the series for two seasons now. So when he says he didn't connect with the character, I'm not shocked.

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.
I think IGN is correct about Dollhouse. Whedon has made some damn fine shows but this is not one of them.

And who are you to say that they don't matter? I think they are usually pretty intelligent.
Play the ball, not the man.
I didn't say they don't matter. As I said, I know people who didn't connect. He's allowed to not like the show. But I don't have to consider him unbiased.

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 ]
IGN? Intelligent? The laughing stock of the gaming industry? Ok, sure. In the world of TV reviewers in general, they're probably the last people I'd turn to.

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.
What? IGN has an excellent point? That would explain why it's so cold outside today, hell just froze over.

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 ]
Is hell outside your door ? That has to play havoc with property values.

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).
Sorry azzers, that was directed at nuccbko.
That EW article pisses me off. So tired of the Eliza bashing, it's not even funny. She never stood a chance. It's the curse of the female lead, in my opinion. Also, Fran Kranz doesn't have range? They must not have seen The TV Set. I went into Dollhouse knowing he had range. Oh, and Fox "burning off the second season on Friday nights"? The entire series aired on Friday nights. Something tells me the author wasn't really paying attention.
Agreed about EW. (Except I agree about Eliza).
nuccbko, as the person who wrote every Dollhouse review for IGN, I just have to point out that it's untrue to say I never gave any episodes positive reviews. This season I particularly liked The Public Eye (8.5), Stop-Loss (8.6), The Attic (9) and Getting Closer (8.5). In Season 1, my favorites were Needs (8.4), plus Spy in the House of Love, Briar Rose and Epitaph One, all of which I gave 8.5 to. I would list all of those episodes as very good television - even if I didn't think the series, overall, fully overcame some fundamental issues.
I was satisfied with the ending, as for review material, I'll wait for Io9 review which is the only one in the pack I feel shares most of my points of views
And I think I'm off for a buffy marathon to cope
That's all well and good, Eric, but I think you, and frankly many critics once the show premiered, have been fundamentally critical about aspects of the show because it wasn't "your Whedon show". You even go so far as to insinuate that Whedon doesn't have his heart in the show at the end of your review, which is almost laughably inaccurate. Unlike Firefly, the series is complete. There are plot points here and there, but it's not a show that has a large enough fanbase to warrant a comic book. And both Whedon and Dushku are probably right - it wouldn't work.

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.
Hmm. I don't see as any reviewer can be blamed for fundamentally failing to connect with certain shows. Even the reviewers and bloggers I read on a weekly basis because I respect their opinions like shows I think are dull and don't like ones I think are amazing. Reviewers are sort of meant to be biased, it's kind of the point of having an opinion.

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.
An issue. It is hard to come to whedonesque and think that you will get unbiased comments regarding a Whedon show. So many people here are so invested in his work that any critic who dares criticize that work has to come under fire. It is the job of the critic to criticize; that's why they are called critics. And they need not like a show, they need not be unbiased- as if people here are unbiased- and they can state what they wish. You can read and disagree, but what you cannot do is disagree over a point you cannot possible prove- for example, whether or not Joss had his heart in the final episode. You simply do not know whether or not he did. Would you, nuccbko, have found Eric fair if he had been always positive to the show? Surely. You'd have been happy to find someone who agrees with your perspective. 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- a choice on my part since I do not have to post my opinions, except I enjoy posting them and debating issues. But I think we need to move past whether or not we think critics have biases and are fair to the substance of their comments. All critics have them, except when they always agree with us; then, they don't.
There are plenty of people who don't like Dollhouse or don't think that it's the show for them - that's fine.

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 ]
So many people here are so invested in his work that any critic who dares criticize that work has to come under fire.

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 ]
Again, and echoing Simon we're trying to play the ball here. In my case, that means specifically the IGN review.

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 ]
Looking at it three items, I think the final episode was good, but it would have been so much better if we had more episodes that filled in the gaps between this one and Epitaph One, and between Hollow Men and Epitaph One.
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.
IGN gave the Castle pilot one of the harshest reviews out there. I couldn't help but find that were comparing Castle to Firefly; which is just silly. And yet they still manage to give it a 7.6! How they come up with that number? Only IGN knows....
Since then I stopped reading any more TV & movie reviews as well as game reviews. I will just stick with my PC Gamer magazine.
When you get to my age, or maybe not, the stock you put into what critics think will hopefully diminish. There is not one critic left I need to read before taking a chance on a film or a TV show. And I've seen all of this criticism about Joss, Eliza, Fran, Tahmoh et al in brief glimpses at what reviewers write and just chuckle to myself. I often wonder whether Joss wants to be a "little darling" on television, like a Lost, which while a great show in my eyes, is like bread for the masses, and those masses may or may not really "get" the show, or is he content with having a core group of fans like us and others, who do get him, but aren't afraid to express dissatisfaction with some aspects of what he does without getting into slinging fiery poison-tipped arrows like some of these reviewers do?

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, you are a true poet. Kudos. I most wholeheartedly agree.
I'll agree that the Angel finale was the BEST. FINALE. EVER.

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.
io9 has a nice review: "We've been imprinted with these people's lives and personalities. There's no going back."
whedon is GOD, thank you, you're very kind to say so, but I pay tribute to the real poet, who is not through thrilling us with his own special iambic pentameter.
nuccbko, you said, "You even go so far as to insinuate that Whedon doesn't have his heart in the show at the end of your review, which is almost laughably inaccurate."

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.
Wait, I've been imprinted!? Damnit, hate when that happens! Only seems to happen around Joss Whedon's based stories. Must be a pattern here, I'll figure it out yet.....
Are you trying to say that there might be some sort of connection between Ben and Glory?
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.

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 ]
I don't take too much from what critics think, either. I mean, it's nice when they reaffirm what you believe, because those affirmations are always welcome. But at the end of the day, I like what I like, and their opinion is not something I concern myself with. Caring about what video game sites think about a TV show I enjoy, for example, is something I wouldn't do. So, I don't think it really matters what IGN thinks.
Dana said:
"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.
You have no idea if it's true or not... then why even say it? You've insinuated that a man who has created a remarkable world vision from scrap that was visibly upset at the end of the show didn't care about it.

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, you've been stepping over the line in this thread in attacking the critic rather than the content - please tone it down. Thanks.
I'm attacking a completely baseless assumption that a critic has made based on pre-conceived notions on the show. And yes, saying that IGN as a whole isn't a worthy site for TV reviews. But I don't think anyone else in this thread would disagree with that statement. And honestly, what's wrong with criticizing the content of a review? It's published, it's out there and just like a TV show it's completely open to its own criticism.

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 ]
As Simon said way way up-thread, our site's rule is to play the ball not the man. Slamming an entire website is *clearly* the latter. We can discuss this further on e-mail if you'd like (although, honestly, it's past my bedtime). Otherwise, case closed. Thanks.
I will say I'm in the "how could Joss not love this?" boat. The last episode, wow. There's no way he couldn't love it, it was exceptional. The man should be proud. :)
I'm pretty sure Joss is proud of the show. Because, well, he's said he is proud of the show.

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 ]
Quite. People wanted cosy and 'Dollhouse' was rarely cosy.
Now put it against Buffy season one and half of Buffy season two.

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.
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.
One problem I have with Dollhouse is Joss wrote like 2 episodes, maybe a couple more I missed. His pilot was awesome, and didn't air, and he didn't write the finale. If it is his baby I'd like to see him write a little more. I get he is busy, just his writing is always better than even his best staff.
Tangential comment warning in three... two... one....

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.
None of know how much or how little input Joss has on each and every script. Writing credits are how people get paid (residuals), build up resumes, etc. It doesn't necessarily mean what you think it does. Joss could have rewritten every single line of a script and the credit may have still gone to the listed writer. That is an internal show decision and something we are likely to never be privy to. Or at least I hope we never get access like that.
If you heard my comment as critical, Tamara, then I miscommunicated. More or less just thinking aloud. Even when he doesn't get writing credits, Whedon's shows very much bear his stamp.

But I'll still agree with Jeff: more Whedon is usually a good thing.
I get he is busy, just his writing is always better than even his best staff.

Except in this case, where Jed, Maurissa, and Andrew produced the best, most interesting scripts. Better than his, I argue.
Agreed and disagreed at the same time b!x. I'm being ambivilent. Or am I? I do agree that the best scripts came from those three. At the same time, I'd also have to admit that the way the stories were broken gave those writers much more to work with in regards to game changing episodes.

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.
The io9 review says
The big where he turns to Adelle and says, confidingly, "Your job is wayyyy harder," managed to be a uniquely Whedonian mix of funny and tragic.


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.
The inevitable misfires are made up by the facts that Joss can make me laugh and break my heart at the same time.

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"?
The Cabin in the Woods isn't out until early next year, due to the studio's decision to convert is to 3D.
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.

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.)
Oh goodness graces, don't tell me Drew is jumping on that band wagon as well? (sigh)
The studio is jumping on the bandwagon.
I notice that at least three of the critics ask, "What happened to Whiskey?" Not in the sense of "How did she get from the end of Hollow Man to the beginning of Epitaph One," but in the sense of she got no closure.

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.
I never expected Whiskey to be in Epitaph Two because I always thought she died. The only qualm I have with the show is that I don't think her little arc in Getting Closer/The Hollow Men was handled very well, but I felt closure on her since the season 1 DVD first came out.
I thought the very lack of Whiskey in Epitaph Two made it clear she died in Epitaph One. When E1 first 'aired' there was room for ambiguity, but I wouldn't say anymore.
The thought of lack of Whiskey was made quite clear.

Joss is so cruel to our favorite characters.
Agreed. If they'd decided to have her be alive and justify it, I would have gone along and been happy to see more of Amy Acker! But I was still surprised to have so many people seeming confused that she wasn't there. I thought her ending was very poignant, sweet, and sad, and couldn't have asked for more as far as closure for her.

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. ^_^;
If Whiskey had died, they would have found the body.
Unless Alpha removed it, along with Mr. Miller's, Lynn's, and Gryff's bodies and all the Butchers' bodies, when he arrived with his cadre of Dolls. Whether Whiskey died or not, there definitely were corpses lying around that House when Mags & co. left, and we saw/heard nothing about any of them in Epitaph Two, so I think that was supposed to be the assumption.

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.
Pesky cancellation.
If Whiskey had died, they would have found the body.


It got eaten by the Butchers.
THERE'S a Topless Robot fic!
Pesky cancellation, indeed! >_<
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.

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.
They didn't have their vehicle at the end of E1 - who knows how long it took them to acquire it.
C'mon the Jeep was on the roof with a parachute attached to it -best BASE jump ever ;-)
... who knows how long it took them to acquire it.

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)
To continue this very "one post-apocalyptic ground transit unit leaves Neuropolis going 45 MPH" fanwank, they seemed to be foraging for water and food and such on the drive to Safe Haven. Not to mention dodging other people and nearly getting eaten. The to would be a lot more time consuming than the from due to a giant armored truck stocked with supplies being ever so convenient for post-apocalyptic roadways.
There is also some mention about how it has taken weeks to get as far as they have just before they reach their destination.
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.
See, they should've harnessed a couple of camels to the front of their car, camels are the only truly apocalypse proof fuel. This is a known thing.

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 ;)
If the Actuals were lucky, the wave or waves of wiping/butcher-imprinting happened late at night with less heavy traffic clogging things up, resulting in fewer road blockages across North America, or at least its west coast.
Yeah, that's how any considerate apocalypse would operate though most catastrophic ends of the world these days just seem to have no manners. Not like in my day when any budding apocalypse would know to behave or it'd get a good averting by some passing hero.
I bet the apocalypse didn't even have the decency to happen in May.
Heh, smartass. I did say if they were lucky. As Felicia Day pointed out in her interview, she's pretty sure her character didn't survive due to any specific skills or life advantages, a lot of it came down to luck (maybe being in the right place at the right time--or a less horrible place than everyone else, at least).
Dude, Nocticola totally didn't deserve that.


... what ?
Pfff, dork.

"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

You need to log in to be able to post comments.
About membership.



joss speaks back home back home back home back home back home