|
Post by Sue on Oct 11, 2009 20:08:36 GMT -5
Oh. My. Gosh. It's a metaphor! Terry = The DollhouseDid you all already know this? I can hear you all laughing at me for being so dense. Jim was watching and I came in at the scene where the kidnapped women were waking up in their cage. One crawls to the other and says "what is your name?" That is what Caroline/Echo is trying to figure out: who she is. Then there are the lines: "We have names. Remember that. We're human. Not his toys. We're getting out of here." Yes, Terry was creepy beyond belief. He robbed people of their identities, and made them into dolls and forced them to play the roles he chose for them. Duh. He IS the Dollhouse. And even Topher was appalled by him. And Ballard pulled the plug on him!!! How could I have been so blind? This reviewer saw it: (from www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2009/10/dollhouse_belle_chose_echo_and.html)And I liked that Echo's gig was a straight-up call girl fantasy job, and how the serial killer was also trying to turn his victims into dolls. Too many episodes of the show try to suggest that there's some good to be gained from this business, when it's rotten to the core, and I tend to prefer episodes that don't run for that. But while I think Tim Minear was very aware of the parallel between the killer and the Dollhouse when he wrote the script, I would have liked for the characters to be more troubled by it. The closest we came was when Ballard told Adele that he was never really able to put himself in the killer's head - the implication being that Paul still can't get comfortable with what the Dollhouse is doing. Although I think he's wrong about the characters not being troubled. The closest wasn't Ballard not getting in his head: Ballard killed him! Oh happy day. Minear et al are totally aware of how horrid and creepy and WRONG it all is and how it must be stopped. [Okay, is it "meta" to then ask if the show itself must be stopped because, as Anne says, even watching it makes us complicit (voyeurs)?] Still bothered by the fact that Ballard was happy to let Boyd takeover as handler for the call girl fantasy---he seemed less upset about her role than about the fact that it was icky for him. And, yes, on second watch Boyd still seems oddly detached. But Topher is trying things out over the "airwaves" that scramble not one, but two, brains/personalities. Clearly this can lead to no good. There might be even more, but I probably won't re-watch. The guy who wrote the review also said that Terry's uncle was a bigwig in Rossum. I must have missed that too. But the parallel continues: Terry gets out of the control of the uncle. I suspect the Dollhouse is going to get out of the control of Rossum. I mean, it's not like it was a very subtle metaphor. How could I have missed what was so very obvious?
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Oct 11, 2009 20:11:01 GMT -5
Oh. My. Gosh. It's a metaphor! Terry = The DollhouseDid you all already know this? I can hear you all laughing at me for being so dense. Jim was watching and I came in at the scene where the kidnapped women were waking up in their cage. One crawls to the other and says "what is your name?" That is what Caroline/Echo is trying to figure out: who she is. Then there are the lines: "We have names. Remember that. We're human. Not his toys. We're getting out of here." Yes, Terry was creepy beyond belief. He robbed people of their identities, and made them into dolls and forced them to play the roles he chose for them. Duh. He IS the Dollhouse. And even Topher was appalled by him. And Ballard pulled the plug on him!!! How could I have been so blind? This reviewer saw it: (from www.nj.com/entertainment/tv/index.ssf/2009/10/dollhouse_belle_chose_echo_and.html)And I liked that Echo's gig was a straight-up call girl fantasy job, and how the serial killer was also trying to turn his victims into dolls. Too many episodes of the show try to suggest that there's some good to be gained from this business, when it's rotten to the core, and I tend to prefer episodes that don't run for that. But while I think Tim Minear was very aware of the parallel between the killer and the Dollhouse when he wrote the script, I would have liked for the characters to be more troubled by it. The closest we came was when Ballard told Adele that he was never really able to put himself in the killer's head - the implication being that Paul still can't get comfortable with what the Dollhouse is doing. Although I think he's wrong about the characters not being troubled. The closest wasn't Ballard not getting in his head: Ballard killed him! Oh happy day. Minear et al are totally aware of how horrid and creepy and WRONG it all is and how it must be stopped. [Okay, is it "meta" to then ask if the show itself must be stopped because, as Anne says, even watching it makes us complicit (voyeurs)?] Still bothered by the fact that Ballard was happy to let Boyd takeover as handler for the call girl fantasy---he seemed less upset about her role than about the fact that it was icky for him. And, yes, on second watch Boyd still seems oddly detached. But Topher is trying things out over the "airwaves" that scramble not one, but two, brains/personalities. Clearly this can lead to no good. There might be even more, but I probably won't re-watch. The guy who wrote the review also said that Terry's uncle was a bigwig in Rossum. I must have missed that too. But the parallel continues: Terry gets out of the control of the uncle. I suspect the Dollhouse is going to get out of the control of Rossum. I mean, it's not like it was a very subtle metaphor. How could I have missed what was so very obvious? Damn, you're right. squared. My only excuse for missing this is that it was too obvious. I don't want to rewatch this one either.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 11, 2009 22:37:29 GMT -5
So...no real comment yet on the Big Thoughts, except to say that the metaphor is so obvious as to be easily missed, yup. I missed it, too.
But I do have one question, because I'm baffled by the strong reactions to this week's episode (which I thought was excellent).
Why has this specific episode led so many people to conclude that the Dollhouse is evil?
Bearing in mind - I'm not arguing that the Dollhouse ISN'T evil...I personally think they're still a rather dark gray in practice, and I haven't seen their ultimate goal in order to know how that will impact my feelings about their morality.
But in this specific episode - well, Echo's job was nothing new, so nothing to make me feel they're any MORE evil...they've been pimps as long as the show's been on. And I've always liked the "prostitution" episodes because they continually ask the question about whether prostitution can ever be moral - that is, does anyone ever truly choose to do it of their own free will? The Dolls, in theory, have signed an (illegal) contract that includes prostitution, but they're completely unable to make choices on a case-by-case basis, so they have no real free will, no matter what contract they signed. One could say the same is almost always true of prostitutes - they never really have a choice in the matter.
At any rate, it wasn't "new", so it didn't make them any more evil in my mind.
And the other case - their goal was actually admirable, though you might wish they'd gone about it in a different way. The goal was to find the women, alive if possible. The other options - say, to turn Terry over to the police (and, for that matter, to turn his uncle over, too) would arguably have come to nothing, since we were meant to understand that Terry's family had the money and power to buy their way out of ordinary police power.
They went about it in a really clumsy way - security needs some serious work in the Dollhouse, and I dislike when writers make characters incompetent in order to make a plot flow - but Victor's job wasn't actually evil. He was never meant to get out on the streets, certainly, and they did their (incompetent) best to stop him once he did.
I guess I don't understand why this episode is affecting people the way it seems to be. Yes, the Dollhouse is very morally ambiguous at best, and downright evil at worst. But we've known that for a long while. And, clearly, Ballard and Caroline are meant to be the heroes. We're MEANT to find the Dollhouse distasteful - much the same way Wolfram and Hart was. And in the same way, I think we're meant to be discovering that what happens to you in the belly of the beast is that you get digested, if you're not careful.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Oct 12, 2009 7:21:39 GMT -5
So...no real comment yet on the Big Thoughts, except to say that the metaphor is so obvious as to be easily missed, yup. I missed it, too. But I do have one question, because I'm baffled by the strong reactions to this week's episode (which I thought was excellent). Why has this specific episode led so many people to conclude that the Dollhouse is evil? Bearing in mind - I'm not arguing that the Dollhouse ISN'T evil...I personally think they're still a rather dark gray in practice, and I haven't seen their ultimate goal in order to know how that will impact my feelings about their morality. But in this specific episode - well, Echo's job was nothing new, so nothing to make me feel they're any MORE evil...they've been pimps as long as the show's been on. And I've always liked the "prostitution" episodes because they continually ask the question about whether prostitution can ever be moral - that is, does anyone ever truly choose to do it of their own free will? The Dolls, in theory, have signed an (illegal) contract that includes prostitution, but they're completely unable to make choices on a case-by-case basis, so they have no real free will, no matter what contract they signed. One could say the same is almost always true of prostitutes - they never really have a choice in the matter. At any rate, it wasn't "new", so it didn't make them any more evil in my mind. And the other case - their goal was actually admirable, though you might wish they'd gone about it in a different way. The goal was to find the women, alive if possible. The other options - say, to turn Terry over to the police (and, for that matter, to turn his uncle over, too) would arguably have come to nothing, since we were meant to understand that Terry's family had the money and power to buy their way out of ordinary police power. They went about it in a really clumsy way - security needs some serious work in the Dollhouse, and I dislike when writers make characters incompetent in order to make a plot flow - but Victor's job wasn't actually evil. He was never meant to get out on the streets, certainly, and they did their (incompetent) best to stop him once he did. I guess I don't understand why this episode is affecting people the way it seems to be. Yes, the Dollhouse is very morally ambiguous at best, and downright evil at worst. But we've known that for a long while. And, clearly, Ballard and Caroline are meant to be the heroes. We're MEANT to find the Dollhouse distasteful - much the same way Wolfram and Hart was. And in the same way, I think we're meant to be discovering that what happens to you in the belly of the beast is that you get digested, if you're not careful. In my case, anyway - I didn't suddenly discover that it was evil. Things just coalesced, or congealed, or solidified, and I had a coherent thought about what made me most uncomfortable about the show, is all. At least there was a lot of comment generated.
|
|
|
Post by Sue on Oct 12, 2009 10:44:54 GMT -5
So...no real comment yet on the Big Thoughts, except to say that the metaphor is so obvious as to be easily missed, yup. I missed it, too. But I do have one question, because I'm baffled by the strong reactions to this week's episode (which I thought was excellent). Why has this specific episode led so many people to conclude that the Dollhouse is evil? I guess I don't understand why this episode is affecting people the way it seems to be. Yes, the Dollhouse is very morally ambiguous at best, and downright evil at worst. But we've known that for a long while. And, clearly, Ballard and Caroline are meant to be the heroes. We're MEANT to find the Dollhouse distasteful - much the same way Wolfram and Hart was. And in the same way, I think we're meant to be discovering that what happens to you in the belly of the beast is that you get digested, if you're not careful.In my case, anyway - I didn't suddenly discover that it was evil. Things just coalesced, or congealed, or solidified, and I had a coherent thought about what made me most uncomfortable about the show, is all. At least there was a lot of comment generated. 1. Regarding Rachael's question: It was just something about the very very blatant storyline of Echo and the prof. Now that I think about it the very first time we met her she was nothing more or less than a "romantic liaison" (prostitute) for the cute guy --- in the dance club with the very short skirt. Maybe it was now that I know her better, plus we saw the whole behind the scenes programming and ward-robing, plus he wasn't rich and cute (hard to admit because this is such a horrid double standard but was I less appalled because maybe she wouldn't have "minded" the young, cute guy?), plus it was a fairly short scene, etc. Yes, she's clearly had sex with a lot of her clients but at least some of the times that seemed to be a "necessary part of a larger job" (rationalizing again, I know.) So I guess this time it was just so in my face and not dressed up. And yet, really, we never did see the prof put any direct moves on her. Maybe his fantasy was just to have a cute young babe read smutty Chaucer to him. I think Anne captured my reaction the best when she said the show invites? the audience to be voyeurs and that makes me feel icky. 2. But thank you Rachael for the part in red. Wowza, yes. And that concept resonates on so many, many levels: encouraging Hollywood's output by buying tickets to violent/slasher movies; being elected to public office and "digested" by politics/lobbyists, etc; being part of Wall Street and on and on. That seems to be what is happening to Ballard and Boyd. And possibly also buying into the idea that the "ends" (bringing down the Dollhouse) justifies the means of having to first collude with it. How far does an undercover agent go? 3. Anne's comment speaks to her earlier comments and what I said in #1 -- for some reason this particular episode just stepped up and hit me in the gut -- maybe the writing was better; maybe it was the total LACK of subtlety. 4. Reaction from my daughter Carolyn: uh, yeah.
metaphor.
also, adelle dewitt= terry's mom.
was joss saying it is a cycle? women create men who are emasculated who then need to dominate women? so then adelle dewitt whores out women to the men she emasculated who want to dominate women? the story line with the professor was directly parallel as well. (now that i think about it, and since it is 2am, he could be commenting on capitalism, too...the cycle of emasculation/subjugation and domination fuels if not THE economy, AN economy)
joss is grateful to his mom for letting him be a man and this is how he chooses to say it. and comment on how too many men are dominated by women their whole lives. and then try to dominate women through porn or the dollhouse or in the person of terry. and on some level women buy into it, too (adelle dewitt, Hollywood, fashion) and start facilitating men's domination of women, as well.I'm not sure I see that, but I thought her interpretation was interesting. 5. Finally, do I want to read so much deeper meaning into it because a) I really trust Joss to have deeper meaning or b) because I just want to believe "a"? Is watching Dollhouse like reading Chaucer---you have to have some understanding of the (metaphorical) language being spoken to be able to interpret it?
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 12, 2009 11:21:32 GMT -5
Boyd disturbs me- he's all flat affect now, as if he were on the wrong anti-depressant, or possibly dissociative. Adele I've been assuming is just an ice maiden, and Topher an asocial geek, but what if the managers are being druggedor modified to have their emotions flattened? Julia, I don't trust whoever is on the executive committee whatsoever.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 12, 2009 11:24:17 GMT -5
And Mr. Gjokaj (pronounced Jo-kay) has a twin brother... Oooohh! That is interesting, considering that Joss hired a twin once before.
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Oct 12, 2009 13:17:44 GMT -5
In my case, anyway - I didn't suddenly discover that it was evil. Things just coalesced, or congealed, or solidified, and I had a coherent thought about what made me most uncomfortable about the show, is all. At least there was a lot of comment generated. 1. Regarding Rachael's question: It was just something about the very very blatant storyline of Echo and the prof. Now that I think about it the very first time we met her she was nothing more or less than a "romantic liaison" (prostitute) for the cute guy --- in the dance club with the very short skirt. Maybe it was now that I know her better, plus we saw the whole behind the scenes programming and ward-robing, plus he wasn't rich and cute (hard to admit because this is such a horrid double standard but was I less appalled because maybe she wouldn't have "minded" the young, cute guy?), plus it was a fairly short scene, etc. Yes, she's clearly had sex with a lot of her clients but at least some of the times that seemed to be a "necessary part of a larger job" (rationalizing again, I know.) So I guess this time it was just so in my face and not dressed up. And yet, really, we never did see the prof put any direct moves on her. Maybe his fantasy was just to have a cute young babe read smutty Chaucer to him. I think Anne captured my reaction the best when she said the show invites? the audience to be voyeurs and that makes me feel icky. 2. But thank you Rachael for the part in red. Wowza, yes. And that concept resonates on so many, many levels: encouraging Hollywood's output by buying tickets to violent/slasher movies; being elected to public office and "digested" by politics/lobbyists, etc; being part of Wall Street and on and on. That seems to be what is happening to Ballard and Boyd. And possibly also buying into the idea that the "ends" (bringing down the Dollhouse) justifies the means of having to first collude with it. How far does an undercover agent go? 3. Anne's comment speaks to her earlier comments and what I said in #1 -- for some reason this particular episode just stepped up and hit me in the gut -- maybe the writing was better; maybe it was the total LACK of subtlety. 4. Reaction from my daughter Carolyn: uh, yeah.
metaphor.
also, adelle dewitt= terry's mom.
was joss saying it is a cycle? women create men who are emasculated who then need to dominate women? so then adelle dewitt whores out women to the men she emasculated who want to dominate women? the story line with the professor was directly parallel as well. (now that i think about it, and since it is 2am, he could be commenting on capitalism, too...the cycle of emasculation/subjugation and domination fuels if not THE economy, AN economy)
joss is grateful to his mom for letting him be a man and this is how he chooses to say it. and comment on how too many men are dominated by women their whole lives. and then try to dominate women through porn or the dollhouse or in the person of terry. and on some level women buy into it, too (adelle dewitt, Hollywood, fashion) and start facilitating men's domination of women, as well.I'm not sure I see that, but I thought her interpretation was interesting. 5. Finally, do I want to read so much deeper meaning into it because a) I really trust Joss to have deeper meaning or b) because I just want to believe "a"? Is watching Dollhouse like reading Chaucer---you have to have some understanding of the (metaphorical) language being spoken to be able to interpret it? Yeah, I don't buy that Joss would write a story where the central meaning was that women create emasculated men who then feel the need to dominate women. I can't imagine him believing that - it's one of the antifeminist arguments that bug the crap out of me, actually. I don't think our "faith" in Joss is misplaced. He does mean to say something about human trafficking in its subtle AND gross forms, and he's not writing this just for the tittilation factor, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 12, 2009 14:33:13 GMT -5
1. Regarding Rachael's question: It was just something about the very very blatant storyline of Echo and the prof. Now that I think about it the very first time we met her she was nothing more or less than a "romantic liaison" (prostitute) for the cute guy --- in the dance club with the very short skirt. Maybe it was now that I know her better, plus we saw the whole behind the scenes programming and ward-robing, plus he wasn't rich and cute (hard to admit because this is such a horrid double standard but was I less appalled because maybe she wouldn't have "minded" the young, cute guy?), plus it was a fairly short scene, etc. Yes, she's clearly had sex with a lot of her clients but at least some of the times that seemed to be a "necessary part of a larger job" (rationalizing again, I know.) So I guess this time it was just so in my face and not dressed up. And yet, really, we never did see the prof put any direct moves on her. Maybe his fantasy was just to have a cute young babe read smutty Chaucer to him. I think Anne captured my reaction the best when she said the show invites? the audience to be voyeurs and that makes me feel icky. 2. But thank you Rachael for the part in red. Wowza, yes. And that concept resonates on so many, many levels: encouraging Hollywood's output by buying tickets to violent/slasher movies; being elected to public office and "digested" by politics/lobbyists, etc; being part of Wall Street and on and on. That seems to be what is happening to Ballard and Boyd. And possibly also buying into the idea that the "ends" (bringing down the Dollhouse) justifies the means of having to first collude with it. How far does an undercover agent go? 3. Anne's comment speaks to her earlier comments and what I said in #1 -- for some reason this particular episode just stepped up and hit me in the gut -- maybe the writing was better; maybe it was the total LACK of subtlety. 4. Reaction from my daughter Carolyn: uh, yeah.
metaphor.
also, adelle dewitt= terry's mom.
was joss saying it is a cycle? women create men who are emasculated who then need to dominate women? so then adelle dewitt whores out women to the men she emasculated who want to dominate women? the story line with the professor was directly parallel as well. (now that i think about it, and since it is 2am, he could be commenting on capitalism, too...the cycle of emasculation/subjugation and domination fuels if not THE economy, AN economy)
joss is grateful to his mom for letting him be a man and this is how he chooses to say it. and comment on how too many men are dominated by women their whole lives. and then try to dominate women through porn or the dollhouse or in the person of terry. and on some level women buy into it, too (adelle dewitt, Hollywood, fashion) and start facilitating men's domination of women, as well.I'm not sure I see that, but I thought her interpretation was interesting. 5. Finally, do I want to read so much deeper meaning into it because a) I really trust Joss to have deeper meaning or b) because I just want to believe "a"? Is watching Dollhouse like reading Chaucer---you have to have some understanding of the (metaphorical) language being spoken to be able to interpret it? Yeah, I don't buy that Joss would write a story where the central meaning was that women create emasculated men who then feel the need to dominate women. I can't imagine him believing that - it's one of the antifeminist arguments that bug the crap out of me, actually. I don't think our "faith" in Joss is misplaced. He does mean to say something about human trafficking in its subtle AND gross forms, and he's not writing this just for the tittilation factor, IMO. It would be hard to write a story that showed the evils of the world without actually showing, well, the evils of the world.
|
|
|
Post by Michelle on Oct 13, 2009 17:11:54 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't buy that Joss would write a story where the central meaning was that women create emasculated men who then feel the need to dominate women. I can't imagine him believing that - it's one of the antifeminist arguments that bug the crap out of me, actually. I don't think our "faith" in Joss is misplaced. He does mean to say something about human trafficking in its subtle AND gross forms, and he's not writing this just for the tittilation factor, IMO. It would be hard to write a story that showed the evils of the world without actually showing, well, the evils of the world. Excellent point.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 13, 2009 19:05:43 GMT -5
Written by Tim Minear. Has that BSG guy in it. Lots of "Victor" -- what is that actor's name? I need to be able to say I knew him when Joss discovered him. Some trademark humor and quippiness: thanks Tim! But these are bad people. I was complaining about Glee not having a hero. These are people who work with bad people and allow them to get away with bad things and really don't seem all that concerned. What has happened to Boyd? They send the dolls out with creepy personalities and no back-up generator. Ballard just pulled the plug on that guy. Yes, he "deserved" it but is Joss endorsing vigilantism now? How does the Dollhouse get the police to show up and and rescue those women but ask no other questions? Aren't Echo's fingerprints on a number of crime scenes at this point? Or did Mr. Professor claim to have accidentally stabbed himself in the neck rather than admit that he had paid for a sexy co-ed fantasy. And, ew, just ew. Sorry, but Topher and Adelle are pimps. Grumble. I wanted to like DH. But ..... this episode, even though it was well written and did have some humor, was just off-putting; seriously off-putting with regard to higher moral issues. Maybe the point is that there is no higher morality in the DH, but then, let's start seeing the consequences. Too many loose ends and too much oogling. Rewatched. Had to. I missed too much on the first watch. Agree about the funny. Trademark ME - When Terry/Victor was being driven away by his uncle, who remarked that they were going to have a nice long talk - and in the next instance Terry made them crash - so very familiar. "Everything will be fine." WHACK! We go directly from Terry saying that his women relatives are 'whores' to the professor saying the women in the story Kiki was reading weren't whores. So, on one hand you have a man who wants to be dominated/controlled/manipulated by a woman - actually admires women who do that. And on the other hand, you have Terry, who feels the opposite. When Topher was setting up the biolink reset - you could just feel that something was going to go wrong. Lots of little bits of technology just begging to fail. Victor/Kiki is a good dancer. Reminded me of the Buffy/Faith switcheroo. Didn't see the stabbing coming. Glad the guy didn't die. Although I am sure that eventually Echo will probably kill someone and there will be all sorts of fallout from it. As far as the ooggling goes - Joss has always been good for showing us a bit of skin and sex. He's also been good for showing us the fallout from too much skin and sex. And Echo is a very self-sacrificing person at her core. When she realized Terry was going to kill those women, she fought to keep him under control and was willing to have the women kill her in order to save them. Amazing. Very creepy that she has a bit of Terry still in her. And were those the police or part of the Dollhouse machine? They didn't look like real police. No badges. It's hard for me to believe that Ballard killed Terry, but that's what he did. And he felt no remorse - none that I could see. The Dollhouse is changing Paul. The Sierra episode looks very dark and we'll most likely get a lot of answers - and probably many more questions.
|
|
|
Post by Karen on Oct 14, 2009 10:28:14 GMT -5
Intelligent and positive review of Belle Chose and the series. Paste Magazine.comWe again see the disastrous effects of Topher’s hubris in the remote wipe, which is even more ominous if you know (from “Epitaph One”) how the remote wipe will come to be used.
Technology unchecked by ethical responsibility is a dangerous thing, and Whedon joins the long line of science fiction authors to remind us of that.
But he does it with a very likable and relatable character, reminding us that the hubris is in us, not (just) in some soulless other we can readily dismiss.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 23, 2009 20:07:55 GMT -5
Icky guy! Icky looney guy!
Nice comparison of Ballard’s adult awareness of her nudity and her innocent unawareness. She wants a towel because she’s wet.
So, the company is not completely happy with Dr Saunders leaving. I was wondering about that.
Ha! “I choose not to hear that.”
Ah. Creepy guy is “connected”. Well, that’s not good.
Echo makes a fun dancey slightly-airheady college student. “First, Paul is gonna take you on a little spree.” ”Shopping or killing? Joke!” And don’t think I’m not noticing how you are referencing the other storyline there, show!
“Topher has ethical problems. Topher!” Ha! Nicely played, Boyd! I just love Boyd.
Changing their outsides, that’s an art. I like how we’re seeing more details of the inner workings of the Dollhouse.
Oh! Hey, it’s Saul from BSG! And why am I not surprised to see him as relative of the icky guy, hmmmm?
Ohhhh! They want to find the women. Before they're dead. While they can still be bribed perhaps. Which basically makes his relatives, who knew what he was doing, sort of, accomplices. And now they need to question him to find out where the women are.
Ah, Paul. Do you think you see the woman Echo should be, a “carefree student”? Are you attracted? Are you just disgusted at the pretence? Or a bit of both, perhaps?
Nostalgic for Boyd, isn’t it? I keep thinking he must miss Echo.
Damn. Putting icky guy into Victor. Poor Victor! Get the icky out of his head! What if he glitches and remembers this? Ick!
“I figured it was medieval lit, not advanced evil, how hard could it be.” Ha! Once again with the funny that also is a pun/commentary on the other storyline! Clever!
Does Professor’s fantasy include teaching her, perhaps, like a Pygmalion thing?
I have to say, I think I would have tried letting his relative guy talk to him as a first concept. Just to see if it would work. I mean, they might be planning on scaring him and then bringing in the uncle as the “good cop”, but who knows if it might have gone very fast with him just talking to the guy. And they still could have controlled it, taped it, etc. so that there was no risk of them colluding and somehow missing something.
Also, Ballard is obviously very much seeing how this guy is just a small version of what they do all the time in the Dollhouse so he may very well go off the rails a bit as this thing goes along.
And I have to think that showing him his own body was not the best move either. I’m probably wrong, but . . .
Ah. Professor is one of those guys. Oh, very nice inter-cutting of serial killer and Professor and power and women.
I’m betting uncle tampered. To get the guy out of there. Yep. And oh how horribly wrong it goes. Stupid uncle. Now Terry’s got a brand new body to put to work. Oy! And now he’s loose with no LoJack on board.
Oh my. Remote wipe. Which is maybe the start of his later clever idea . . . how to build an army with a single robot call sent to a bunch of people . . .
Professor wants to “teach” her, eh. Well, it’s a fairly common fantasy, I suppose.
Heee! Cynical, world-weary Boyd is cynical and world-weary.
(Pause for a moment to once again applaud actor who plays Victor. Man, he’s so good!)
HOLY CRAP!! OMG OMG OMG!! Did they all play musical bodies?! Whoa!!!
On the other hand, Victor is totally rocking as a party girl! Heeeeee!! “You suck, trying to hit a girl!” You go, girl! Also? Sweet Paul.
DAMN!!! Scary Echo is scary. And glitching?
You have to kill him . . . you have to kill her. Whoa!! What part of Echo-Caroline-someone else is that? Is able to understand what’s happening? And she actually convinces the woman to, maybe not really understand, but understand enough to see he’s in there somehow. To try to kill her.
“Think he’ll ever wake up?” “Wouldn’t it be nice if he never did?” Yeah, that pretty much seals his fate, I’m thinking.
“Goodness gracious.” Eeeeeeeeeep!!! He’s still in there. They’re all still in there.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 23, 2009 22:25:40 GMT -5
Written by Tim Minear. Has that BSG guy in it. Lots of "Victor" -- what is that actor's name? I need to be able to say I knew him when Joss discovered him. Isn't he excellent? Boyd was always layers of cynic and guarded calm concern, IMHO. Hmmm. Well, I don't think I'd want to go down the road of "if he films it, it must be his opinon", otherwise we'll also have to say he endorses all the stuff that was done to River in Firefly, and ending the world like some of his other characters have tried to do, and so on and so on. Call me wacky, but I think he can present characters that are mixtures of good and bad, doing good and bad things, making us think about the good and bad we do and how far would we go under what circumstances, etc. All without thinking that "Joss is telling me mind control is a good thing". Um. Not to be harsh or anything. Also, do we know Ballard killed him? Is he dead? If not, will Adelle have him killed? Is the reason Ballard said the thing about him not dreaming anymore because the guy was dead? Or coma-ed? I think it is ambiguous. Well, yeah, fanwank is always needed to some extent with genre fiction. On the other hand, I assume they have some cops and so on on the payroll, so to speak. Hey, give yourself a break! You don't have to like everything the man does. You don't have to like everything that other folks here like. You don't have to dislike things that you like and that others don't. Lather, rinse, repeat.
|
|
|
Post by Lola m on Oct 23, 2009 22:29:08 GMT -5
Written by Tim Minear. Has that BSG guy in it. Lots of "Victor" -- what is that actor's name? I need to be able to say I knew him when Joss discovered him. Some trademark humor and quippiness: thanks Tim! But these are bad people. I was complaining about Glee not having a hero. These are people who work with bad people and allow them to get away with bad things and really don't seem all that concerned. What has happened to Boyd? They send the dolls out with creepy personalities and no back-up generator. Ballard just pulled the plug on that guy. Yes, he "deserved" it but is Joss endorsing vigilantism now? How does the Dollhouse get the police to show up and and rescue those women but ask no other questions? Aren't Echo's fingerprints on a number of crime scenes at this point? Or did Mr. Professor claim to have accidentally stabbed himself in the neck rather than admit that he had paid for a sexy co-ed fantasy. And, ew, just ew. Sorry, but Topher and Adelle are pimps. Grumble. I wanted to like DH. But ..... this episode, even though it was well written and did have some humor, was just off-putting; seriously off-putting with regard to higher moral issues. Maybe the point is that there is no higher morality in the DH, but then, let's start seeing the consequences. Too many loose ends and too much oogling. Oh, yeah- so many bad, bad guys on this episode, with Topher sliding back onto the utterly unsympathetic end of things again. Imprinting an active with no GPS with the personality of a seriously sociopathic killer? LOSE. Well, to be fair, they didn't exactly know that uncle-dude would be so easily be able to grab the guy and go. Who knew that the Dollhouse's security was that sucky? Oh, wait, considering all the other folks who have slipped thru their cracks, I guess we did. Heeee!
|
|