Dollhouse Quotes and Whedon's Writing Process

[shadowkat]

Tomorrow, after work, I look at apartments again with realtor. Trying to not dread it. Will admit it is easier to do with realtor. Less nerve-wracking. So there's that.

Here's a quote that struck me as...informative (in - that "explains A LOT" sort of way), by Joss Whedon on Dollhouse from his recent SciFi Now interview on the Avengers. Which I'm admittedly posting against my better judgment, which means it may be gone tomorrow because I'll think damn, why did I post that? But I really want to know what people think and discuss it - in particular people who are NOT necessarily fans of the writer and/or Dollhouse and/or the Buffy comics.

Dollhouse in retrospect.

I never concieved of a more pure journey from helplessness to power, which is what I always write about, and in that sense, I feel we accomplished a lot of it. I do feel that part of what we tried to get at kind of got taken out at the beginning and it really was more important to how the show would work than I even realized when they took it out- which was sex. The show was supposed to be, on some level, a celebration of perversion, as something that makes us unique. Sort of our hidden selves. You can talk about your hidden selves and identity, but when you have to shoot each other every week, you get a bit limited. The show was supposed to flop genres every episode, and the moment we did that, they shut us down and said, 'Quickly, have someone shoot at someone.' I feel when we had to take sex out of the equation, it became kind of a joke or almost unsettling. Because we couldn't hit it head on - and so much of our identity is wrapped up in our sexuality, and this is something Eliza (Dusku) was talking to me about, as something she wanted to examine before I even came up with the idea, and to have that sort of excised and marginalized and santised and not to be able to hit on the head what they were doing made the show a little bit limited and a little bit creepy at times, I think we still did some fairly out-there stuff, and I'm proud of what we did, given the circumstances, but with those circumstances, it was never really going to happen the way it should have.

Regarding why Dollhouse didn't work:

The situation with Dollhouse was that Fox was trying to get it, but we had come at two different shows (Yeah, Fox wanted Nikita, you wanted...) we had done that accidentally, and it got to a point where I didn't know what I was trying to accomplish, and you can't go into a story room with that feeling, because it's already really hard. I remember thinking this is the difference between this and Firefly, because with Firefly, I knew, and here, now I'm not even sure. I was just thinking..I'm writing a shoot-out on a dock- I'm a whore. They're like - No, that doesn't make you a whore, and I'm like, I'm fairly certain it does! They explained that, actually having sex for money makes you a whore. But I also did that.

[In consideration of my blood-pressure, please refrain from the following while commenting: praising, personal insults, degrading, bashing, or expressing sympathy for Whedon. Also no Joss Whedon icons. Thank you. All other comments and icons, within reason of course, are welcome.]

Comments

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The show was supposed to be, on some level, a celebration of perversion, as something that makes us unique. [...] The show was supposed to flop genres every episode, and the moment we did that, they shut us down [...] was just thinking..I'm writing a shoot-out on a dock- I'm a whore. They're like - No, that doesn't make you a whore, and I'm like, I'm fairly certain it does! They explained that, actually having sex for money makes you a whore. But I also did that.

And people wonder why his network shows get canceled.

Um, Joss, in case you didn't notice, you're trying to film primetime network tv. Why not pitch the next one to Showtime.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thought much the same thing when I read this. I'm guessing he didn't have any choice? I know both Whedon and Dusku had development deals with Fox and had to pitch there first.
But that begs a bigger question - why didn't Fox go with F/X?
It would have worked better on F/X - I think.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

True. They may have been able to pull that off on F/X.

It just seems odd to me that Joss both wants to work in the industry and fight it at the same time, and without necessarily identifying the areas where it wouldn't be as much of a fight. There are certain requirements of primetime network in terms of being 'mainstream' enough to have success. If he doesn't want to be mainstream, then try cable. It's a more natural fit. And has a different set of parameters for what is needed and considered to be successful. It feels like he's trying to put square pegs in round holes when why not choose the places where square pegs fit.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It's is odd. Whedon for some reason seems to want to mainstream acceptance like JJ Abrahams? Can't say I blame him for that. More money, and hey Emmy's.

But...that's not where his ideas or talent lies. It does feel quite a bit like he's trying to fit square pegs in round holes.
Alan Ball - was a bit brighter in this regard - by pitching to HBO.

That said? We don't know if he pitched to HBO or a cable outlet first. I'm guessing from the interviews that he didn't - that he went to Fox with Eliza first. Possibly because of the development deal. And FOX probably assumed they were getting a show like "Nikita" when they realized they weren't they struggled to find a way to make it work. Got to give them credit for trying. I have to admit I was surprised that they gave it a second season.

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The thing is, like Firefly, so often fandom blames the network, when really, the network is just doing what networks do. They have to have certain numbers for success and they thought they signed on for one thing and Joss delivered something else. When that something else doesn't deliver what they need ratings-wise, the show gets canceled... and fans treat it like some conspiracy against Joss. What it looks like is Joss and FOX working at cross purposes.

I understand Joss wanting to do something different and unique... but there's only so much 'difference' in network TV. So if that's the venue then he should understand compromises will have to be made and if he doesn't want to make those compromises then perhaps he should seek a slightly different venue. It often seems like network expectations always come as a surprise to Joss and I'm not sure why.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

It often seems like network expectations always come as a surprise to Joss and I'm not sure why.

Agreed.

I wonder sometimes if it has something to do with his experience on Buffy and Angel - where the network tended to leave him alone for the most part? WB and UPN rarely interfered on Buffy. They did on Angel - a bit more - but Whedon was less involved?

I don't know. Because even there - he had difficulties. Buffy and Angel being cult tv shows were always on the verge of being canceled. I was always half surprised they got renewed. They never did stellar in the ratings department. (We obsessively tracked them back in 2002). So, Whedon had to have had the network breathing down his neck. Also as you know - networks always fiddle with TV shows - always. Because they have to deal with advertisers - who are buying air time. If the advertiser doesn't like something - they will pull their ads and bucks/sponsorship. That's a million dollars the network lost.

In the interview - a portion I did not post, Whedon explains why he left television to direct the Avengers movie - he says:"I think I already left television. The plan had been to dive into the world of self-produced, internet, tiny stuff, which my wife was very excited about.....

Obviously there were basically two roads we talked about - one was a huge project that needs a total re-write that you can walk into and make, but there's no reason to think that that would ever happen. And the other is self-producing stuff, either having something really big or really small, but not trying to truck down the middle road where you have all the interference of a big project and the feeling of a small project (This is TV). It's more about doing it by the seat of your pants, but definitely one or the other."

So clearly he's figured it out finally. What I don't quite understand is why he didn't get it earlier? Or maybe he did and just thought like most young rebellious filmmakers - I'll be the one who can buck the system?

Rumor has it, by the way, that he's having the same problems with Marvel that he had with Fox - on the Avengers. Marvel is telling him to pull it back, not go over the top, not overdo the budget, and reign it in. He's getting lots and lots of back seat driver advice. They aren't being quiet little producers sitting on the sidelines - as I suspect Gail Berman and the Kuzies were on Buffy. And that may well be it? That the Buffy producers more or less let him and Greenwalt do whatever they wanted? That's the only explanation I can think of. And it is to a degree backed by interviews regarding Firefly- where I vaguely remember him stating that "he got spoiled with Buffy, that the networks tended to leave him alone..." That's the only explanation - because it sure as hell wasn't that way on Roseanne or I suspect the experience his father or grandfather had.

Whedon - remember is a product of the Hollywood tv industry. His Dad and Grandad were established TV writers. His brothers are tv writers. His Dad got him his first job - on Roseanne. Whedon went to Film School. He's not an outsider, he's an insider. Hollywood is in his blood. He's never really had to fight that hard to get ahead in this industry. Not like David Fury or Espenson or Doris Egan - who all started as guest-scripters or production assistants. Whedon came out of film school - and got Roseanne, then Toy Story, then the Buffy movie. He was connected.
So, being a bit spoiled - he probably has the attitude that he can get what he wants. While people like Judd Apatow who did Freaks and Geeks and got cancelled right out of the box, are a bit more cynical.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

I can't help but wonder why he tried to that on FOX. I mean it's not like there are no places where you don't have to deal with so much censorship.

Most of what he says makes sense to me, I wonder how it reflects on the Buffy comic though, because it reads even more directionless than Dollhouse and also more restricted because he decided to go with so many genre conventions that go with a purely male take.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Elsie in a separate post picks up on what I was reluctant to articulate.

I think Whedon thinks he's doing a female empowerment tale.
And if we stop with Chosen, he sort of has. But if you look at Dollhouse - it really is not an empowering story, so much as a creepy tragedy. We have a strong powerful, self-aware, secure woman - Caroline, who gets taken down, her personality wiped, and turned into the plaything/doll Echo by a guy, which we're told is a much better model and far superior to the original Caroline (he did her a favor by helping her explore all her identities) eventually takes him down, but not by herself but with help of Topher and (the guy who was on BSG, but name I forget), and while she survives, she takes into herself as a sort of new persona, consciousness, her lover?

How is that a pure journey of helplessness to power? In Buffy comics - I'm seeing a similar pattern. Also see it in all his other work.

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

I think Dollhouse, even the way he did it could have been a story about empowerment, but female empowerment is a particularly bad thing to associate it with.

Thing is the notion that you work yourself up from the deepest well and also the notion that you take the cards you're delt and make the best of them, grow on them, even if they are crap. That is empowerment in a way, but for women, who have taken shitty cards for far too long, who adapted to the most horrible circumstances, resistance needs to be more solid.

This one story I think I might have found a lot more interesting if it had been about male empowerment (and I did find Victor way more interesting) because for women this thing is really old news and also something that has to some extent become a trap.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Yes! I agree. Thank you for this.

This one story I think I might have found a lot more interesting if it had been about male empowerment (and I did find Victor way more interesting) because for women this thing is really old news and also something that has to some extent become a trap.


I think you are on to something here.

The problem with making it about Echo is Whedon played into the gender stereotypes as opposed to against them, which he's also to a degree is doing in the comics, playing into the stereotype or re-emphasizing it, and he did not do this in the tv series. In the Buffy series, he went against the stereotypes - or at least for the most part.

If he had made Victor the central figure, gotten rid of the rape plot line with Sierra (which did not work)...it might have worked a bit better. The concentration on women being victimized by men and all the ways we see them victimized by men in television dramas - and the roles men only see women in or fantasize them in...detracted from the identity theme that was actually interesting. The episodes of Dollhouse that worked for me were the one's that focused on Victor, Topher, Adelle, and Dr. Saunders.

Thing is the notion that you work yourself up from the deepest well and also the notion that you take the cards you're delt and make the best of them, grow on them, even if they are crap. That is empowerment in a way, but for women, who have taken shitty cards for far too long, who adapted to the most horrible circumstances, resistance needs to be more solid.

Yes. This! This is what I think has been bugging me both in regards to Dollhouse and the comics. You have stated perfectly what I have been trying to articulate - and why this feminist empowerment message doesn't quite work either here or in the Buffy comics for that matter. If anything it's rubbing me the wrong way - and I think you may have nailed why.

First - I want to make clear that I think what Whedon wanted to do in Dollhouse was very ambitious and if he'd found the right distributor, the right star, and the right support, he may have found the story. The mistake was rushing into it - without the story clear in his head. (Which he admits to above).

I think the biggest mistake in Dollhouse was an over-emphasis on the ways women are being victimized. Often invading female romantic tropes as the way of depicting the ways we objectify and victimize women. At times, I felt as if I were watching the female romantic trope depicted as a horror film through male eyes. Example - the rich guy who sees the art of the young artist and falls in love with her, wants to romance her and show her the world - that's right out of any number of contemporary romance novels I've seen. But here - he's a rapist who makes her crazy, so she can become his romantic fantasy. The female romantic trope is turned into a fantasy for a man, and a nightmare for the woman. I was fascinated by it, but at the same time unsettled...it felt patronizing to me. I see it in the comics as well - in particular with the Twilight series. Almost as if I'm being told..."you need to be strong, you need to not fantasize, you need to deal with the cards you are dealt, you need to make the best of this...and by doing so, this is power! You need to realize God does not exist, you are alone in the universe, and how empowering that is!" And suddenly I feel an overwhelming desire to slap the writer.

Not sure that made sense. You are doing a far better job of articulating your feelings on this, than I am, I'm afraid. ;-)

[flake-sake.livejournal.com]

I very much agree. It feels jerkish, when a female romantic fantasy gets appropriated like that for educational purposes by a man.

I actually agree that this fantasy is often harmful to women and I like to see it subverted but I've seen that done so much better by women, who really get what's wrong with it, not the love itself but the self abandonment. Whedon doesn't really get it, instead he just tramples on the fantasy to show how destructive it is.
He also subverted the male side, Ballard saw himself as the prince and it was pretty much creepy most of the time, but still the character for some reason got to keep that the way his women ever do. They have to let go of the fantasy completely.

Mal from Firefly was a romantic too, he had this fantasy of himself as the honourable outlaw, the ultimate freedom. That fantasy is not more or less destructive than that of all encompassing love but it never got trampled like that.

Same with Spike, he's a fool for love even, but his folly gets treated with respect to some extent. The women don't they, they love intensely and it's a character flaw that must be burned out. It's not empowering, it's just saying "you're stupid to want that and you can't have it".

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Exactly. It's a double-standard. The guy gets to be with the bad-girl, and yes to a degree it is critiqued but not to the same degree. It's okay for Wes to have a thing for Illyria or Lilah - who he attempts to save and fails. But Buffy can't have a thing for Angel or Spike, who by the way she does save. It feels very one-sided.

And while there's a lot to critique in the female romantic trope, and quite a few women have long before Whedon took breath - notably Jane Austen, and has you state far better, there's an equal amount to be critiqued in the male. In Dollhouse - Ballard and Topher's fantasies are treated with more respect than Caroline and Sierra's. It's almost as if Whedon is saying it's okay for me to have romantic fantasies about the strong kick-ass girl who beats me up and is "dominant" but not you. And granted, men are stronger then women, so that makes sense, but...it is also as sexist as telling me I can't work late because I'm female and I'm more likely to be raped and mugged than my male co-workers. So Whedon in a way is talking out of both sides of his mouth - you can't have these fantasies, you should be ashamed of them, they are holding you done, but I can because I'm a guy? (In other words, I'm better than you.)

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

think the biggest mistake in Dollhouse was an over-emphasis on the ways women are being victimized. Often invading female romantic tropes as the way of depicting the ways we objectify and victimize women. At times, I felt as if I were watching the female romantic trope depicted as a horror film through male eyes.

I've grown more and more irritated with male writers who like to deconstruct female romantic tropes. It's like they're lecturing women to think better. Really, if a male writer wants to deconstruct some tropes why not the standard tv trope of middle aged nobody with a gorgeous hottie for a wife. Isn't that a male fantasy? What about the entitled "good guy" trope that we see pop up in fandom over and over that we also see in fandom turn quite misognistic because guys that hyper-identify with that 'regular joe' character take it out on the female character never quite noticing that maybe regular joe is also kind of a jerk.

I suppose it's primarily the patronizing part of it that gets to me. Male writers who seem to feel like they have to deconstruct female fantasies seem to take on some paternalistic role that irks. There are some male delusional tropes that could also be taken to task... just look at Charlie Sheen's role on two and a half men and how a middle aged drunk without a job it supposedly that guy who gets the hot girl and how HIMYM's Barney can have slept with a few hundred bimbos and yet be lovable and not just a skeeve.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed. If Whedon wanted to deconstruct a trope - Xander would have been the one to do it with. He's the regular joe, the nice guy, the Ted of How I Met Your Mother - who gets the hot babe or her younger sister. (I like Xander - but I find it interesting that Whedon lets Xander remain untarnished, his relationships end badly merely because the women are killed by Buffy's actions (not his) - he plays out his fantasy of the geeky guy growing up to be the suave nice guy that you can depend on no matter what. Granted we get Warren too and Andrew...but their fantasies aren't trampled on either really.) Nor is Giles. The male fantasies in the comics are treated with respect, while the female fantasies are torn asunder. And we're told this is female empowerment and feminism?


I suppose it's primarily the patronizing part of it that gets to me. Male writers who seem to feel like they have to deconstruct female fantasies seem to take on some paternalistic role that irks. There are some male delusional tropes that could also be taken to task... just look at Charlie Sheen's role on two and a half men and how a middle aged drunk without a job it supposedly that guy who gets the hot girl and how HIMYM's Barney can have slept with a few hundred bimbos and yet be lovable and not just a skeeve.

That's exactly what has been bugging me. It's that damn double-standard. And they have the gall to call themselves "Feminist"?
And this text = feminist? Hardly.

Granted we have Robin on HIYM...but she's more the male fantasy than real. Actually that whole series is a male fantasy - the father regaling his kids with tales of his rocking free-willing bachelor days before he meet their hot Mom. With Allyson Hannigan playing yet another version of her sex-obsessed band geek from American Pie. HIYM has its moments, but it is so male fantasy.
As is Two and Half Men - which is also a male fantasy show. Both which are untouched by parody or criticism. Women are denigrated on tv daily, but Whedon is wasting his time attacking female romance novels like Twilight???

[shipperx.livejournal.com]

The Middle's take on Twilight last week was far more real and more kind. With Sue the awkward, outsider Jr. High Schooler that never quite succeeds being mean-girled by her supposed 'friend' and the Dad noticing. The Dad does stuff to try to get the daughter invited to the slumber party, pointing out to mean-girl's dad that the guy's daughter was being mean. In the end to no avail.

So the episode ended with young Sue all excited about a movie night with her dad. He'd agreed to sit down and watch Eclipse with her. Clearly the father knew it was going to be a chore for him to watch, but he was doing something to make his daughter happy, because he knew that real life (and news of the slumber party) was going to come around to get her tomorrow. So he acted interested. "So what's this movie about?" with Sue ecstatically explaining about how Bella, the clumsy, ordinary girl, had two 'amazing' guys fighting over her...

Which, really, at the end of the day is what the awkward 14 year old girl in braces fantasizes about. There's a lot to criticize Twlight over. A whole hell of a lot. But, honestly, are we also really surprised that fourteen year old girls occasionally might want a romantic fantasy where two handsome 'special' boys (who aren't particularly interested in something as unsettling for a young tween as sex) are attracted to an ordinary, clumsy girl?

At any rate, the Dad deciding to take the bullet and sit and watch this abyssmal movie series with his young daughter, to make her feel special, was the most kind-hearted and understanding take-down of Twilight that I've seen. It got both that the movies are terrible and that it make sense why young girls may at times need that sort of fantasy as an antidote to real life.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Agreed. I watched that episode of The Middle this weekend, after DVRing it. It managed to not only explain why women love Twilight, but how men look at it.

While I definitely understand Whedon's temptation to go after Twilight and Anne Rice, it strikes me as interesting that he's never really gone after male fantasy tropes - such as Harry Potter (which is repected) or Star Wars or even Star Trek. (Granted I like both a heck of a lot better and am fans of those two...but). Not parody them, but attack the trope itself in much the same way he's doing with Twilight and well Anne Rice's take on vampires.

The Middle's handling is far better writing - its subtle and at the same time, is respectful. It understands why the girl is feeling that way, instead of just judging her for feeling it.
The Buffy comics and Dollhouse feel very judgmental to me. As if the writer has jumped up on a soap box to pontificate. Never a good thing.

[dlgood.livejournal.com]

Ican't help but wonder why he tried to that on FOX

I guess he's just really wedded to getting his material on over-the-air network TV. This show wouldn't even have run on ABC, CBS, or NBC.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking the same thing. Not sure why...is it ego? Maybe WB and UPN's lax attitude in the latter seasons of Buffy and Angel are part of the reason? He got away with a lot on both shows...and may have thought he could push the envelope further?

(shrugs)

But I agree...there's no way Dollhouse would have made it on network tv. I was shocked it was on Fox. Nip/Tuck granted - did get away with it and doing far more shocking material, as did BSG for that matter - but they weren't on broadcast tv, they were both on cable. And you can do a lot more on cable than broadcast (or apparently PBS - I found out that PBS cut the politically sensitive content of Tina Fey's acceptance speech for the Mark Twain award, while CNN aired it.)

[shapinglight]

They explained that, actually having sex for money makes you a whore. But I also did that.

This made me laugh. Possibly he doesn't realise how that comes across. :)

Also, I can't believe that he thinks taking the sex out of Dollhouse made it more creepy. I quite enjoyed what I've seen of the show (season 1), but it was creepy enough already, I thought.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

I enjoyed S1 as well, S2...not so much, while it had moments of brilliance (episodes written by Andrew Chamblis), it was also very creepy. Don't read my comment to flake-sake above or
in response to Elsie's post - since it will completely spoil you on it.

[shapinglight]

Thanks for the warning, though I've been spoilered for all the major plot twists in season 2, unfortunately.

I will come back and read the rest of this after I've seen season 2.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

You're welcome ;-)

[elisi]

Hmm. Interesting. And it really was supposed to be all about sex and power(lessness). I've never seen Dollhouse, but from what I've heard that makes sense - plus, that it clearly his 'thing', the subject he keeps revisiting all the time.

You've seen My Medea, right?

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Thank you - you picked up on what was bugging me about that quote, without even seeing Dollhouse. And articulated it quite well in a separate post. Thanks!

Yes, I'd seen it - I forgot I had, until I read your post on it.

[elisi]

My pleasure. :)

Oh and thank you for posting the quote - it finally allowed me to work out the main problem with the comics, which is such a relief!

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

Oh and thank you for posting the quote - it finally allowed me to work out the main problem with the comics, which is such a relief!

You're very welcome. Felt exactly the same way, just couldn't figure out how to articulate it without launching into a rant. ;-) You did a marvelous job.

[elisi]

Thank you. I'm good at being calm, when I want to. :)

[thespikeofit.livejournal.com]

I think Joss maybe needs to rethink how he pitches shows to the networks. I seem to remember him saying the problem with Firefly was that he was providing a different show to the one FOX were expecting.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Thanks for these quotes! (Do you have a link to the interview? Or is it not available online?) There's definitely an interesting tension throughout the show between what Whedon thought he was trying to do, what he was actually working toward, and what the network would let him get through. I do like the show, actually, especially late season one, but there is a real sense of lost potential I find watching the series. Of course, the comments above point out rightly that the show may not have worked even if there were no network interference; it might just have been a different kind of uneven than it currently is. Ultimately I think he was trying to maintain a balance in the show--you shouldn't fantasize, but look at these things that fantasy can bring you--and that tightrope walk is very, very hard to do in the best of circumstances. With BtVS and AtS and Firefly, he was acting within a specific enough genre that he could do it, and question the genre's expectations and assumptions from the inside-out while still telling a good story. It's...harder, with Dollhouse, and he and his staff only inconsistently managed it. But I remain bizarrely fascinated by it.

[shadowkat67.livejournal.com]

(Do you have a link to the interview? Or is it not available online?)

I don't know if it is available online. This was from a magazine that I bought at Barnes And Noble last week. You may actually be able to find it - since it is published in the UK. The magazine is called "SciFiNow" - it has Dean and Sam from Supernatural on the Cover. And is issue 46. The website for it is www.scifinow.co.uk.
There is more to the interview (although it's really all about The Avengers, Buffy and Angel aren't mentioned at all - so unless you are interested in the Avengers...) and I did not type out the entire quote...because it was incredibly long.

Dollhouse plays with my head. There's bits of it that work brilliantly, and bits that really really don't. It feels scattered and uneven, like I'm sorry to say most of Whedon's latter work.
Almost as if the writer is striving to communicate something but can't quite find a way to do it effectively?

Buffy the TV series, at least in the early years, - was in a way simpler, because of both the genre, and he had a simple idea and trope - high school is evil, horror, and subverting the teenage slasher horror trope. You can see the writer stretching his muscles during S4-7 of Buffy, and in Angel. And as he states, he had a clear idea on what he wanted to do with Firefly - he was doing a subversion of the old Western/Space Frontier genre. But it got pulled before he could really achieve it - and I think that may have thrown him a bit off his game?

At any rate Dollhouse is by far the most ambitious project he tried. And he does state in the part of the quote I did not transcribe - "Dollhouse accomplished some of the things I wanted to accomplish. The questions of identity and humanity I thought were out there front and centre (interesting in US it is center), and I've heard people respond really well to that, and I've heard people say the show even helped them. "

He also states that he has more or less left tv for now. Before he got the Avenger's gig, he was planning on producing more tiny stuff for the internet.

"It's more about doing it by the seat of your pants..." he say this in regards to what interests him. Which also explains a lot.
This is a writer who doesn't really plan things out, so much as writes and does things off the cuff, which has its pros and cons, from a reader's perspective. And to be fair - most successful screenwriters and television writers are like that. You have to be - it's a business that requires you to do things off the cuff and fast. And to be flexible. Admittedly a lot of my issues are with Hollywood and how they do things, not necessarily with Whedon.

[local-max.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I agree with most of this. I feel like Firefly is sort of equivalent to BtVS' first few seasons, or Angel's first season--it is meant as the setup for what was to come later. There's been some criticism directed at Firefly for embracing problematic Western archetypes, but even very early on, there are hints he was going to take these down (for example, Jaynestown is n early commentary on the lies in storytelling, sort of a The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance story). I actually prefer Firefly greatly to BtVS' or AtS' first seasons--because the characters are more complex and better drawn, I think, than the other shows' first seasons--but there's the same sense that the world is presented as somewhat simple, so that it might be complicated later. How well he would have succeeded is up for debate I suppose. Anyway, I've felt for a while that Firefly marked a big change in the way Whedon operated; everything afterward, from AtS season 5 to Dr. Horrible to Dollhouse to season eight to some extent, is very much centred on taking down the system, being a villain, disliking the socioeconomic studio system, etc. Some of these themes were in his work before, certainly, but it does feel like his being burned by the cancellation has changed his fundamental focus in some ways. And that has probably also resulted in some of the sloppier writing. I do like Dollhouse and I like season eight, but they're certainly not tightly written, even by Whedon's standards.

At any rate Dollhouse is by far the most ambitious project he tried. And he does state in the part of the quote I did not transcribe - "Dollhouse accomplished some of the things I wanted to accomplish. The questions of identity and humanity I thought were out there front and centre (interesting in US it is center), and I've heard people respond really well to that, and I've heard people say the show even helped them. "

I agree that Dollhouse is the most ambitious thing he's ever done--which is why it's so frustrating, because as you say, parts of it work beautifully. It's nice to see someone else who agrees generally that the first season is superior to the second.