![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
shadowkatTomorrow, 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.]
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.]
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2010-11-19 04:41 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-19 05:47 pm (UTC)But that begs a bigger question - why didn't Fox go with F/X?
It would have worked better on F/X - I think.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-19 07:47 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-20 05:01 am (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-21 07:19 pm (UTC)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.
no subject
Date: 2010-11-21 11:33 pm (UTC)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.