--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Bhairitu <noozg...@...> wrote: > > I don't know Turq, so far I've watched only a half hour of it. > Very bad arc, the episode didn't draw me in at all. Mainly a > chic flic I guess.
That may be true. I have been honest from the start in admitting that I am "reading in" a lot into this new Joss Whedon series, because I like Joss Whedon. On the other hand, I really *like* "chick flicks" if they are done well. They reveal a point of view that is useful to learn from, even when they were written by men. Take "Sex and the City," for example. Chick flick TV series to the max. Written for TV almost entirely by men. Go figure. Take "When Harry Met Sally," written by a woman, but *in conjunction with* Rob Reiner and Billy Crystal and all of the other men on the set. They used to sit around and jackpot ideas past each other, based on their respective different points of view, and many of those points of view made it into the final shooting script. I give all the credit for this to Nora Ephron, for being not only a wonderful writer with a strong point of view, but also a wonderful human being with an openness to *other* points of view. Would the dialog in the batting cage have come from Nora Ephron? Of course not. It's a purely "guy thang." But was it *relevant* to the "chick flick" Nora was writing? You betcha. So it made it into the movie. That's my definition of an artist. > Eliza has told the critics to hold out for episode 6 > where Joss's episodes begin. This is interesting information. I know from the few "fansites" I have ventured into that FOX has "edit control" on the first five episodes. Being the network that is risking its financial bottom line by airing this series, they have the right to demand that Joss rewrite these first five episodes if they don't match what they thought they were paying for when they first heard his pitch. And that's cool. I completely *understand* the dynamic of "market forces." "Dollhouse* does NOT have a universal appeal. It's OUT THERE. It's a VERY "conceptual" series. In other words, what it is about is not what it's about on the surface. It's in the class of other great TV series as "Deadwood" and "John From Cincinatti." It's about what lurks "beneath the surface," for those who see it there, or (and I admit this fully) who only imagine that they see it there. Joss Whedon may have NONE of the philosophical themes I see in his series in mind when writing it. Then again, given his history and some of the things he has said in interviews, he might. I don't care. I have fun seeing in his series the things I see in it. They might NOT have been intended by him. He might never have even *conceived* of some of the things I see in his series. But seeing them there makes me smile. Why I think I can get away with seeing them there is that I don't claim that they are "really there." It's not as if I am watching a silly TV series full of babalicious fembots and declaring them Dakinis. I don't feel that Joss' silly TV series is on the level of the "Vedic literature," and thus imbued with Eternal Wisdom. It's just that I can amuse myself by seeing Eternal Wisdom *IN* his silly TV series, even if just for an hour a week. It might not be there. But it makes me smile to think it is, for an hour a week. > Liza Lapira (Ivy) can be quite funny. She was great > in "Huff" as Maggie the secretary for the Oliver Platt > character and had a small roll on this last season of > Dexter. Apparently this is the only episode she > is in. Was she the Asian apprentice to the Meganerd in the series, Topher? Great character. I wanted *instantly* to see more of her. She's my favorite babe of the series so far, the only one I'd have asked out.
