I think Stephen Baldwin is a washed up loser, but I could get behind the campaign to restore Joss Whedon.
Pharyngula
Evolution, development, and random biological ejaculations from a godless liberal
I think Stephen Baldwin is a washed up loser, but I could get behind the campaign to restore Joss Whedon.
I’ve been dead inside ever since Wash was impaled. (For unrelated reasons I was already ‘close to death’ inside, but Serenity did me in the rest of the way.)
This is 5 fucktonnes of awesome.
Slightly related, wasn’t Jayne a Baldwin?
@ladyh42: His name’s Adam Baldwin, but I’m pretty sure that’s just a coincidence.
He is not one of *those* Baldwins.
I’ll be one of the unbelievers in Costa Mesa tomorrow, PZ. And will be bringing a message from a certain mutual friend.
That asshole spoiled Serenity for me. Damn it. Guess I won’t watch it now.
Yeah, Adam Baldwin is no relation. You should totally see him in Cohen and Tate.
Goddamn me! That was hilarious.
I do dearly love me some gooood satire, and that was like George Carlin mixed with Terry Pratchett mixed with Penn and Teller… on a video!
Totally need Shepherd Book’s story told.
And, of course, more smokinghotasskickingchicks.
They seemed to have completely forgotten about Buffy. Minus 1 point for that, but still a 9.
Totally discriminatory. Why only one small mention of the smokinghotasskickingdudes, huh??
I love that video so very, very much. Spot-on parody, with plenty of Joss humor, and damn near mind-reading thoughts at the end!
yeah, when wash and shepard died I lost any interest in firefly sequels. Serenity would have been pretty awesome if they didn’t needlessly off those two.
Also, that video was pretty damn funny. The bit about Bones cracked me up.
@Janusi: Buffy wasn’t cancelled for no reason after a season or three. The rest that they were whinging about were.
Thus, not applicable.
Funny. I fully expected them to carry the Bones tangent on to Castle.
Still nucking futz though.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/author/abaldwin/
I didn’t like what he did, but I could tell he did it well and went the extra mile for his dream. We need more people like that.
@#15. Did not know that. Not really surprising though, when you’ve got an actor who can basically only play one role (the violent meathead), one should expect that he will turn out to be a meathead.
Alec is really the only Baldwin I’ve ever liked much.
Has anyone noticed that Dollhouse was based on the complete objectification of women? I guess sex trafficking and rape are popular in the USA, but I’m not a fan.
@15
Why did you have to post that? I used to like him.
@Jackaleyes: And was this trafficking prtrayed as a good thing? Did you get the impression Joss aproved? Or was it a metaphor?
@jackal.eyes Of course there were as many men being sex trafficked as women, and the hero of the whole thing was a woman, and the leader of the Dollhouse who was a very strong and powerful figure was a woman, and she used a male “doll” for her own pleasures. Dollhouse was based on the objectification of everyone. But it could also have been said to be about that objectification, commenting on it even as it reveled in it.
The sad thing is that Baldwin’s appeal will probably work, enough gullible Christians will buy his message and send him money to make him a millionaire. And then they’ll hold his “restoration” to be some kind of miracle. And then he’ll make even more money by running around talking about his miracle.
Very funny video though, I really loved Firefly.
@15 Wow, is he ever. I guess he didn’t have to dig too deep to find the asshole Jayne was. The humour of his character was undeniable tho.
Did Joss Whedon ever speak out publicly against human trafficking? Did he donate part of his proceeds to organizations that fight against the sex slave industry? Or did he just take advantage of a “sexy” issue to make his commentary on objectification popular? I certainly don’t know. I don’t follow celebrities.
@Jackaleyes: What do you think the show’s about?
What does his giving or not giving money have to do with whether his show is sexist or not?
I still celebrate browncoat day!
@jackal.eyes Did you ever actually watch Dollhouse?
Joss is a feminist so he spread the objectification around and it was far more everybody is treated as slave chattel. The Dollhouse thing did annoy me a lot, I thought it made a lot of the first season suck. Later on in the second season the shit started hitting the fan and it was far less whore-house and far more tear down the evil alliance.
I think I’m missing something in that link to indicate Adam Baldwin is fucking nuts. He seems to be reacting to Silverman’s criticism of marriage in toto, but I don’t detect much of a difference between what he wrote and what a typical faitheist accommodationist perspective on a criticism of Catholicism in toto might be.
Then again, my spidey sense started tingling when I read:
I may be being overly conciliatory towards him because he’s Jayne. If you told me Alan Tudyk was a card-carrying member of the KKK, I’d probably start Kübler-Ross five-staging so fast you’d consider jamming a stick between my jaws and rolling me into the recovery position.
@Brownian Well, the fact that he’s writing for Breitbart might tell you something. But keep reading before you decide if he’s crazy, there’s more after the Silverman piece.
No, I did not watch Dollhouse. I read the Wikipedia article – the critical response made no mention of Whedon’s “commentary.” That and tatarize’s comment makes me think that description most of the audience were passive consumers of “sexy” objectification.
“What does his giving or not giving money have to do with whether his show is sexist or not?”
If he was actively working against sex-trafficing, I would believe more inclined to believe he was really cared about the issue, and that he wasn’t just using a hot topic to make his show popular.
Although I *love* “Castle”, “Serenity: Origins” would rock. So. Hard.
Editing error, should be:
@Jackaleyes: Then why the hell are you accusing him of objectifying women in a show you’ve never even seen, based on a Wikipedia article? Watch it yourself, or, bluntly, shut it.
Wikipedia isn’t a substitute for actually watching a show.
@jackal.eyes
The defense rests.
Sorry for bringing up a contentious, unpopular issue. I guess we don’t like freedom of expression or the discussion of opposing ideas.
@jackaleyes
Have you opened up your home as a refuge for sex slaves? Have you spent your savings purchasing sex slaves from their pimps, so they can be set free? Have you made a career in law enforcement so you can target the Chinese massage parlors that everyone knows traffic women? No? Have you done ANYTHING besides criticize a brilliantly written television show on an internet blog?
Joss Whedon was not capitalizing on the “sexiness” of human trafficking to make Dollhouse. You apparently didn’t watch the show if you think so. And as far as him not doing enough to promote awareness of the issue, or contributing to stop it… how many of us can say the same? There might be one person per 100,000 in this country that genuinely works towards eradicating that problem.
I must confess to a liking for smokinghotasskickingchicks. If this is wrong, I do not want to be right.
That is all.
@Jackaleyes: As has been told to me, free speech and discussion of issues doesn’t mean automatic approval of stupid ideas. We’re not here to hold your hand, and this isn’t a mutal cluster-jerk of self-congratulation.
Ideas stand or get called bullshit on their own merits, and judging a show you haven’t seen is BULLSHIT.
If you want a place where everyone agrees with you 100% of the time, and never calls you on your bullshit, stay in la-la land.
I did discuss your opposing ideas. I just didn’t agree, which is clearly what you’re looking for. So, if you want to diss a good show by a good writer based on second or third-hand accounts on it, don’t expect us to agree with you.
@36
But you don’t have any opposing ideas. You’re making claims that a show’s creator is exploitative of trafficked women based on pre-conceived notions you’ve got about it from a Wikipedia article. If you knew enough about the show to point out particular scenes or episodes that you felt proved your point, or had anecdotal evidence of Joss Whedon hiring underage girls smuggled in to snort crack off his johnson, THEN you’d have opposing ideas we could argue.
You’re free to express yourself all you want, just as we’re free to tell you when you’re being dumb.
@jackal.eyes In this case what we don’t like is making grandiose statements based on absolutely zero knowledge of the subject.
What you’ve done here is make a statement about what Dollhouse was without any knowledge whatsoever. Do that about religion, science, evolution, climate change, or the price of tea in China and you’ll get a similar response around here. Also, you appended that with the standard insult about the United States based on our television viewing habits. And where are you from that sex doesn’t sell television? If I was to judge most of Europe on their television shows, it would be a sad judgment indeed. Then when someone suggested to you that maybe you had misjudged Dollhouse, instead of accepting that maybe you didn’t know what you were talking about and perhaps the show was more complex than your perusal of a Wikipedia article led you to believe, you shifted the goalposts to suggest that the creation of the show could only be justified if Joss made donations or public statements about sex trafficking. That was not only a logical and rhetorical fallacy, it was also showed a complete lack of understanding of how art can affect change in society simply through its existence, without the artist making speeches, donating money, or creating the next plastic awareness bracelet and ribbon.
I don’t really get why people like actors from watching a show.
I don’t care for Adam Baldwin. I am completely apathetic regarding him.
I do, however, love the dialogue the writers of Firefly gave to Jayne. Perhaps not coincidentally, a lot of the characters on that show got terrific lines. I don’t think any of the actors came up with them themselves.
Killing Wash and Book was terrible, though. It felt like Joss had so much he planned to bring out in the course of a weekly show that he ended up just trying to stuff into/write out of a 2-hour movie. Serenity was kind of painful to watch, end-to-end, with the awareness of how it could have been treated in a series that lasted 5 seasons or more.
@Gus Snarp:
Oh.
Fuck.
Ouch.
I’m still howling about Joss Whedon writing deep characters. BAAHAHAAHAH…in how many seasons of Buffy, he managed only two characters that had any vague depth, and one he killed to fulfill a “lifelong ambition to have kill off a character the same episode they showed up in the opening credits.”
My wife is a buffy fan, so I’ve sat through every episode of that drivel, too many of angel, and you couldn’t pay me to watch anything else Wheedon wrote. Such astounding tripe, yet, because he includes women performing hilariously bad fight choreography, they’re “strong”.
Pfft.
also unimpressed how everytime yet another one of his projects fails, it’s never Joss’s fault. ever. It’s always eeeeeeveryone else’s. Joss would have had everything he did be massively successful, except for the actions of hollywood, the freemasons, the star chamber, the new world order, Mega Shark, Giant Octopus, the boy scouts, the girl scouts, the republicans, the democrats, the libertarians, that wierd guy on the corner, and zombie Herve Villechaize.
But never Joss. It’s never Joss’s fault.
@legistech It’s pretty hard to separate the character you’ve come to know and love from the actor who portrayed them when you don’t know the actor at all. It’s hard when the actor then disappoints you. I always like Hyde on That 70s Show, and I was so disappointed to learn that Danny Masterson was a Scientologist.
WRT #43, that was about the rest of Adam Baldwin’s articles. Anyone who gives GWB a tug job like that is just…just…wow.
@Jwelch: So, again, here we have someone who’s passing judgement on shows he’s never watched. So you htought Buffy and Angel were shallow shows. Join the club. But then you assume that all shows Joss Whedon writes are shallow, while admitting you’ve never even seen them. What the hell? Was Joss so stained by making two air-headed shows that everything he does is tainted ever after, never more to watchable? Is he, as a writer, incapable of Growing the Beard?
BULLSHIT!
I don’t know. I just never get emotionally involved enough in people on tv to care what the actors do in their real life.
Alton Brown from the food network for example. I find him dorkishly entertaining and yet when I found out he’s a super fundy christian, I shrugged and said meh.
He still entertains me.
So far, none of you have done anything more than shout me down and assert your position. Did watching Dollhouse make you start donating to organizations that fight sex trafficking? Did it make you stop buying products that used blatant objectification in their commercials? Did it make you feel revulsion at what you had seen? If it did, then I withdraw my criticism.
I have learned from jackal.eyes that if a artist describes a type of world in his art, he implicitly endorses any and all behavior that might occur in that art.
From this, I can conclude
– Bram Stoker approved of vampirism
– Arthur Haley (the author of Roots) approved of slavery
– Margaret Atwood approved of forcible impregnation and the subjugation of women
– George Orwell approved of mind control, newspeak, and an eternal state of war
– the creators of the mini-series Holocaust approved of the euthanasia of the Jews
– the creators of The Day After approved of nuclear war (as did Stanley Kubrick)
– speaking of Stanley Kubrick, did you know he approves of parents attacking their children with an axe (he directed The Shining)
– and that brings us to Stephen King. That guy should be locked away.
@Jackaleyes: Yes, watching it made me dislike human traficking even more. No, that’s not relevant to whether it approves of such trafficking or not. No, we’re not just shouting you down, we’re calling you on your ignorance and bullshit, and yes, you are fucking ignorant.
@jcwelch
In spite of my defense of Dollhouse, that was funny. I could never sit through Buffy or Angel. But Toy Story was good. I almost stopped watching Dollhouse, but then it started to seem like it was actually interesting, and actually raising some intriguing moral and philosophical questions and the characters actually did develop some depth and complexity. Not so much Echo, but Boyd and DeWitt, who was a strong woman who couldn’t fight or use a gun. She used her brain, and also showed human weakness. I think Dollhouse was Joss’ best work and I’ll never know what was Joss’ fault and what was someone else’s. One thing about television, no writer or director ever sees their vision on screen. There’s a wall of network executives and producers who really do change things, sometimes without telling anyone. I have heard from a television director who shall remain nameless that he watched episodes he had directed that didn’t look the least bit like the final cut he saw.
I miss Dollhouse. It was awesome, and jackal.eyes is wrong. I won’t write an essay explaining why, but it was a freaking brilliant show, murdered in its Prime by the evil FOX corporation. I await my Season 2 DVD pre-order.
Gratitude for bringing a beloved character to life. No amount of good writing can save a bad performance. Also hotness doesn’t hurt.
Wait, was Dollhouse good? I watched the first episode and it was TERRIBLE. I assumed fans were just able to tolerate it because of their love for Joss. Elisha Dushku (sp?) is such a terrible actress.
I thought Buffy was OK and I’ve never seen angel (though my friend’s cousin was on it, he was the blue demon dude). Firefly was incredible and the cancellation of that show deserves all the lamentation in the world. There was clearly enough substance there for 4 or 5 really good seasons. Dr. Horrible was also fantastic. The blend of humor and pathos with really well written music and a unique story was outstanding. I’m no Joss fanboy, but I would never call him untalented. If you haven’t seen Firefly or Dr. Horrible, I don’t think you can make that judgement either.
I’d love to see Serenity: The Prequel. However it’s not likely to happen.
Here’s one of Whedon’s smokinghotasskickingchicks
The worst thing about Joss Whedon? His rabid fans.
As someone who has watched Angel, Buffy, Firefly, and Dr. Horrible, as well as some other stuff of his, I have to say that Whedon is capable of putting together a story, but should not be allowed to continue past a certain point with his shows.
Not only that, but people should take away his favorite tropes and make him play with new ones after a while. Maybe Dollhouse did that, but I stopped watching TV just before that.
Though the entire series was pretty incredible, I loved the fact that Firefly had soundless space scenes.
I don’t understand some of the words you used here, Rev. To what are you referring when you write ‘actors’ and ‘real life’?
In other news, has anyone noticed from the recent commercials that Miss Piggy hasn’t aged at all since The Muppet Show?
@mikerattlesnake Having just recently watched Firefly, pretty much simultaneously with Dollhouse, I will say unequivocally that Dollhouse was better. The first half of the first season was pretty weak, and Elisha Dushku is pretty bad, so is Dichen Lachman, but the whole show just got better and better as it went on. Alan Tudyk was great as Alpha and Harry J. Lennix as Boyd really stole the show. Eventually it became way more about the complexities of identity and what makes a person who they are than about the fights and the sexy stuff.
@legistech:
Welll…. “Faster would be better” was an ad lib by Nathan Fillion (Mal). :D
@mikerattlesnake:
Dollhouse definitely got better later on, but when, or if, it ever got “really good” is hotly debated.
Sorry sorry. My bad.
Yes, yes, Brownian, there is a Santa Claus.
Oh yes she looks great.
OK, enough sounding like a fawning fan boy from me now. I have a friend who calls Joss a “nerd herder”. Kind of true. Not sure that original.
@59
I might give the show another shot, but I think some of the bad acting is going to be a turnoff no matter what. I don’t really have much interest in the philosophical implications of the show, either. I liked firefly because it had a great mix of action, likeable characters (who were given room to grow and develop and who were played by good actors), humor, special effects (I’m a sucker for good space sci fi), and drama. It reminded me of star wars in a way, but it took the ‘space western’ concept to a whole other level and that made it unique. How long do you think Dollhouse could have sustained itself on it’s premise? I think firefly would have benefitted from longevity, whereas it seems like dollhouse would run out of places to go.
@Mikerattlesnake
So, after having watched Dollhouse on TV, I rented the DVD from netlfix that had both the unaired last season 1 episode (Epitaph 1), and the unaired original pilot that Joss made before FOX made him add sex scenes and a purely gratuitous motorcycle chase.
The original was so much better and made much more sense in the broader scope of the series. It may have been a bit more difficult to follow (which would lose your avarage FOX executive), but much much better.
And I’m surprised no one mentioned Dr. Horrible’s Sing-a-long Blog. That’s a perfect example of Joss Whedon without any creative tampering from networks.
@jackaleyes 49:
Yes, actually. “Belonging”, the fourth episode of season 2, was one that really got me. The backstory of the character Sierra, and how she came to be at the Dollhouse but could never leave either, was gut wrenching. Ohh… but you don’t know what I’m talking about, since you’ve NEVER ACTUALLY WATCHED the series! You’re also assuming that the purpose of the show was to somehow educate people on that particular problem, or that it was the central theme of the show: neither of which is true (again, something you’d know if you watched it.)
But no, I was not spurred to any specific action by watching Dollhouse. That’s because I already HAD an awareness of the problems of human trafficking and sex slavery in this country. For fuck’s sake, I live in Las Vegas; it’s all around me! Furthermore, the false equivalency of “if I don’t donate to fight the problem, I obviously approve of it” is BS. If I were to donate simply a dollar to every cause I care about in the world, I’d quickly find myself homeless and starving. You would too, you self-righteous, sanctimonious…
@64 Good to know that motorcycle chase was not his idea. That was an immediate turnoff. I guess the concept was never intriguing enough to me to motivate me to sit through a few bad episodes to get to the good ones. Alan Tudyk is awesome, though, so I’ll probably get to it eventually.
also, I totally mentioned Dr. Horrible, and I don’t think I was the only one.
@mikerattlesnake The great mystery will always be what was supposed to happen with Dollhouse. One can assume the entire second season was created knowing it was the end, which may have drastically changed the story line. The original premise could have held out for a few more seasons at least, but if the rest of the show was basically the time between the second to last and last episodes, it could have gone on indefinitely, but the name wouldn’t have made much sense anymore.
Dear Jackaleyes:
“If he was actively working against sex-trafficing, I would believe more inclined to believe he was really cared about the issue, and that he wasn’t just using a hot topic to make his show popular.”
He is: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYaczoJMRhs
From Wikipedia: Equality Now is a non-governmental organization whose stated purpose is to protect the human rights of women around the world. The group provides an international framework for spreading awareness of issues and providing support to local grassroots groups working to address issues of concern to it. The organization lists its primary concerns as being rape, domestic violence, reproductive rights, trafficking of women, female genital mutilation, and equal access to economic opportunity and political participation.
My bolding.
“Did watching Dollhouse make you start donating to organizations that fight sex trafficking?”
Yep, see above re: Equality Now.
Also, Google “Can’t Stop the Serenity.”
In short, you fail University of Google.
@48: Really? I hadn’t sen that. too bad. Still an awesome show though.
As for posting the bit about Adam Baldwin, he actually came to my attention as a wingnut for an older story he did about the evil of Sesame Street, forcing multiculturalism on our children.
Yeah.
That said, the reason I posted that link is because I think that needs to be countered. Celebrities use their popularity to promote issues, and I think it’s appropriate for people to know their stand and when necessary counter them on those issues.
I’m not suggesting a boycott or anything. I agree with folks here who think he did a great job playing Jayne, and that he’s a good actor with a fine sense of deadpan comedic timing. I’m a firm believer in letting the market be an arbiter of product quality, not the sole regulatory system to govern behaviour.
Also, if folks are concerned about financially supporting a douche-bag celebrity for their political views, consider donating a buck or two to an ideologically appropriate charity of your choice to offset your purchase: that direct donation is likely to far outweigh the amount your purchase contributes to their causes.
@Michael Crotalus sp.
Yes, you did mention Dr. Horrible. Quite right, I missed it.
What an amazing cause! Totally would have my money.
Another devout fan of Dollhouse here (of pretty much everything Joss touches, actually, as my nick attests to), and once you get past the “okay-but-lukewarm” first five episodes that Fox insisted on to introduce the concept and have a sort of “engagement-of-the-week” introduction it gets a lot better, and season two is a complete roller-coaster. And very much about important issues, just deliciously glazed with entertainment and twists.
Never seen Dollhouse. May check it out on DVD sometime, since I loved Firefly and Serenity. And hey, Jackaleyes, I worked at a women’s shelter and rape crisis center and helped write anti-domestic violence laws. So do I pass inspection in spite of liking Whedon’s work?
The very weird thing about offing Wash is that I seem to remember Whedon explaining it as a consequence of hating Tudyk for being an a**hole and just looking for an excuse to be rid of him. Then Tudyk shows up again on Dollhouse?
@Jud is it possible Joss was somewhat tongue in cheek with that comment? I always got the impression that they got along famously.
That sounds to me so over-the-top that maybe he was joking?
Yeah, I heard he only offed Wash because he was screwing wiht people’s heads, making them wonder who ELSE he was going to kill, making them realize how gorram serious Reavers are.
Dude was shitting you.
@#44: Maybe Whedon’s fault, maybe not. I think Firefly might have got a better following if the fucking idiot who decided to show the first episode FIRST, instead of halfway through the season, had been subjected to a couple of rounds from Vera before having the chance to make the aforementioned stupid decision. As it was, the episode that set the scene and established the characters, and why they were there, wasn’t seen until waaaay too late. As I recall the first episode actually shown was The Train Job; that would have been confusing as hell, I bet. I was lucky enough to see the episodes in the intended order and after that first episode, I was hooked.
Still wish they hadn’t squished Wash and Book, though.
Never seen any of his shit, but that video was fucking great.
Oops, finger failure there.
It’s been a long day.
#72 – Everything I’ve read about Tudyk tells me he’s a real nice guy. I think JW must’ve been kidding.
Dollhouse is by far the most feminist show Joss did. While other shows he has done has explored issues like the rape culture, Dollhouse took the audience into the belly of the beast and made them wallow in it, surrounded by the all-too-often-used apologetics and then blew it all up and shredded it all down.
I think that’s probably why it met with such a slow response, because dragging everyone “down there” every episode especially in that first season made it crazily intense and sometimes hard to watch.
I’m not sure it’s his best show, but it definitely wasn’t sexist.
Basically that critique is from a type of ignorance that doesn’t understand that to denounce something, you often have to show it: raw. District 9 wasn’t a celebration of the current problems in South Africa, Stepford Wives wasn’t a celebration of the dehumanization of women, Dollhouse wasn’t a celebration of sex trafficking.
The point of showing the sex trafficking, the not-quite-right justifications and the “you brought it on yourself” statements was to blow up sex-trafficking and how it connects to sex work and how the rape culture is built. I really wish he had gotten more than the two seasons to flesh out the concept because I think it connected a lot to the heart of the numerous feminist issues that Joss is out front on.
Seriously, Joss as that big and open of a sexist that he would write an entire show celebrating sex trafficking? The same Joss who has been deeply connected with NOW and Equality Now and who has long included strong feminist messages upfront in all of his series? Yeah, pull the other one, it’s got bells on. No woman needs to apologize for liking Joss, especially not for liking Dollhouse (a show that was entirely about deconstructing sexism, and I mean the entire point of almost all of it).
Golram.
Wow. I’m surprised the people here are so ignorant and violent. P.Z., I’m normally a big fan, but your fans are making you look like garbage.
To all who shouted down and insulted Jackaleyes: Is your claim that you cannot criticize something without having experienced it? This is patently false, and stupid – I have never smoked, but I *do* know that it’s bad and that people who do it are either knowingly doing something very bad for themselves, or are too ignorant to know that.
Are you claiming that watching Dollhouse made you donate to Equality Now, or that Dollhouse featured ads for Equality Now prominently, or even showed it directly in the show itself? Interestingly, there is not one mention of Equality Now on the entire Dollhouse wiki page. That’s very odd, don’t you think? Jackal’s question was very simple: Was it the *show* that made you donate to good causes, or change how you think about sex trafficking? Because, if it was not the show directly that did it, then you’ve completely missed Jackal’s point.
Jackal’s last piece showed that it was not ignorance but extreme care for humanism – Jackal said they’d remove their criticism if it was the show(s) that actually affected you. You successfully said that it did, even if it didn’t really and you were just lying and being a-wipes and high school children, and then continued to insult Jackal. That’s really awesome. Way to know how to argue, punks.
Kieranfoy @#75
SPOILER
Yup, I listened to the commentary (I know, I know supernerd) and he killed off Wash to raise the tension so the audience could believe that more of the cast could be about to meet their demise.
Kyle @80
The show itself was a critical dissertation on the patriarchy and came down very heavily on the issues of sex trafficking, violation of bodily autonomy, and a host of other feminist issues. The whole show was a thorough takedown of sexism and probably one of the most feminist works he has ever made and it’s obvious that sex trafficking is presented in a “Stepford Wives” mold specifically to fucking destroy the justifications used to prop it up both internally and externally as a society that gives market to such a trade. Often rather blatantly as with some of the character’s backstories.
It’s basically on par with arguing that Stepford Wives was pro dehumanizing women and fully supportive of the patriarchy.
Many of us noted the bizarre nature of the claim and how far it strayed from the actual series and noted that making that claim without even seeing the show and furthermore acting as if the burden of proof was on the fans to prove him wrong rather than him to find out was a bit odd. Some may have answered brusquely, but it wasn’t a statement that really deserved respect.
Now, on another deeper point, many feminists have raised problems with Dollhouse precisely because it shoves people’s noses in the patriarchy and literally spells it out in horrifying detail. I.e. it was heavily triggering and tough to watch, especially in early episodes for many women who have been on the front lines working against things like the sex trade. It didn’t have (especially in the first season) as much escapism as his works usually do and was refusing to pull punches.
To that critique I deeply sympathize and I think it’s why it never got as rabid following from the Joss faithful as his other shows. It was like Mad Men in rubbing your nose in the sexism, but worse, because the critiques were of modern day, modern time.
can we fight christian stupidity with something other than misogyny please?
The Google Ad completely stole the video’s thunder.
“Restore your grand piano!”
As long as we’re posting videos we took a bit of PZ’s bearlike features and ability to say “socially inappropriate” things as the inspiration for the antagonist in our funny little video:
http://www.v48hours.co.nz/screening-room/2010/auckland/snugalugkins/
What the critics of Dollhouse seem to be missing here is the simple fact that this is a fictional series. It doesn’t have to have links to feminist organizations in it’s wiki or throw the anti-sex trafficing message in your face in the DVD’s extras, because it isn’t a documentary or a piece or feminist opinion writing. It’s a work of fiction designed to be enjoyable to watch first, and to give a message SECOND.
And that makes it far from sexist.
Kyle Szklenski #80
Oh look, a sanctimonious tone troll has come to chide us and make us see the error of our ways.
For some things, like TV shows, yes. Jackaleyes made specific criticisms based on second-hand information from a dubious source. It rather reminds me of the people who claim Huckleberry Finn is a racist book because a black character is called “Nigger Jim.” That tells me those people have never read Twain’s book. But I don’t have to guess about Jackaleyes, he admits he’s never seen a minute of Dollhouse.
Analogy fail. You “know” smoking is bad because years of anti-smoking propaganda* have told you this. You have no first hand knowledge confirming or denying the propaganda. Jackaleyes was told by people who had actually watched the show, thereby getting first hand knowledge, that he was wrong about Whedon’s message in Dollhouse.
The question is does Wheedon support Equality Now. He does. Whether or not his propaganda is successful is another topic which hasn’t be touched.
How is this interesting? Did Wheedon write the wiki page? Has he edited or even read the wiki page? Does he even know of the wiki page’s existence? Sorry, my interest in your non sequitur is lacking.
Until you can show a relationship between Wheedon and the wiki page, the oddity is unsubstantiated.
No, that was not Jackaleyes’ point. You might want to reread his post #24, this time for comprehension.
I’m trying to parse this poorly written statement and I’m not quite sure of what the first sentence is trying to say. Do you even know what the first sentence is trying to say? If so, could you rewrite it for us lying a-wipes. Most of us are only literate in English, German, French and other normal languages, not Rant.
Yep, we’re really going to change our ways because some asshole insults us in his first post. Way to know how to argue, asshole.
*Propaganda may or may not be true. It’s information deliberately spread widely to help or harm a person, group, idea, movement, institution, nation, etc.
Actually, no, it isn’t. The question is “Is Dollhouse a mysoginystic show that objectifies women for the sake of ratings and boobs, or is it even-handed in its crticism os the sex trade and objectification of human beings?”
The whole “Does Whedon support certain groups, and do you?” line of questioning is a red herring. The show is the point, not Whedon or you and I.
I’ve never seen Dollhouse, but I just read the Wikipedia article and wow, it’s just like watching every episode in full blistering colour. I’m now officially an expert on the show. Ask me anything.
Interesting @49 followed by @80. Do I smell a sock puppet or just a plain old tone troll?
Also, Island Brewer wins the otrame internets for turning mikerattlesnake into Michael Crotalus sp. I think I am in love. (Always did have a soft spot for a smartass)
My main objection to Joss is that he never likes having any of his characters be happy. but then, I read romances because I know they’ll end well, so what do I know?
Becca @91
Yup. He’s definitely the Karen Eiffel type of writer and pretty much cops to it.
I still love his work, but it’s pretty much a cliche at this point that Joss will kill someone the audience loves and/or introduce tragedy into the life of whoever seems to be having the most ups at the moment.
I’m almost waiting for him to do a happily-ever-after storyline once just to fuck with us.
I could live with that.
I’ll agree that “Does Joss/the audience donate to certain charities” is a complete red herring, but… I dunno, I say let them go wild with that line of argument.
Because hey, lookie here: http://wipethefuture.com/index.html
“You’ve had a long day, you’re tired. You’d like to relax. You’d really rather not be disturbed. This world is too real and too sad, and things are too broken for any of us to fix it. No one wants the weight of the world on his shoulders. But here comes the plot twist… Just as you kick back, remote in hand, your entertainment catches you off-guard. These characters and their stories hit too close to reality: a girl without identity, contracted to unassailable powers, wiped of self, then sold to fulfill anther’s fantasy. Is this science fiction or a reminder of the 640,000 souls who are truly missing?
Joss Whedon’s Dollhouse has captivated and inspired us. It has moved us to tears and then spurred us to action. We may root for Echo and Sierra, Victor and November, but what of the countless, the nameless, the real ones? This site is for them.”
Why look, there are some people who were so affected by Dollhouse that they are working to raise awareness of human trafficking, and are working to end it. And their website uses the analogy and lingo that the show presented pretty consistently throughout. Which I knew about because I follow some of the cast and writers of Dollhouse on twitter, and they spread that link around like wildfire (or possibly another site–this looks different than the one I remember, so they either redesigned in the past few months, or another of the fan sites was doing some work to end human trafficking).
I wouldn’t say Dollhouse changed my opinion on human trafficking all that much–I was against it before, and I’m still against it, but I did enjoy wresting with some of the issues the series played with (I especially loved the way the show played with identity). Dollhouse is a deeply flawed show (when it’s bad it’s BAD, and unfortunately the early going is particularly rough), but it’s also a fascinating show and one of the most challenging shows of the past few years. Pretty much all the characters were deeply broken, morally compromised people, and the show was very critical of them, and the show frequently made you confront just how awful what the Dollhouse was doing actually was (Sierra/Priya especially got the worst of this… the rape in season 1 by her handler and her backstory in season 2 spring to mind immediately).
And as anyone who actually saw the show knows, the Dollhouse tech leads to the apocalypse. It’d be hard to make a less subtle “human trafficking = bad” statement.
Wow that’s pretentious! Even if I believed a fiction prime-time show could actually accomplish anything, I don’t think I’d want a Fox show to have that much power.
Huh. You’re faced with an impassioned plea that people realize that all the atrocities in the show take place in real life, and a heartfelt statement of support for the victims, and what do you think?
That it’s pretentious. You heartless bastard.
@Kieranfoy: @Janusi: Buffy wasn’t cancelled for no reason after a season or three. The rest that they were whinging about were.
Thus, not applicable.
Still should have mentioned it, though.
And I would totally go see a Serenity prequel (though Whedon already did part of that, in one of the episodes). Or even a sequel. (Saw the damn series in the wrong order anyway: first the movie, then the shows on DVD. Made the former sort of confusing, not knowing whether it was set before or after). Gotta hand it to Whedon, having the chutzpah to take the term “space western” literally, and just go out and make one.
About Stephen Baldwin the Christian Celebrity Mendicant: Job is a complex book asking why, in a universe supposedly run by a just God, bad shit happens to good people (God’s reply, when he evertually shows up to give it, boils down to “‘Cuz I’m God, bitches, and I’m waaaaay bigger and smarter and generally kickass than you — so just STFU”). Yeah, we here assembled figure we’ve got a damn good answer to that, but the culture in which Job was written? Not so much. Contrast Job with the simplistic moralism of Proverbs and you realize the guy who wrote Job was being just a bit radical.
Awesome.
Damn, forgot to finish my point: equating a washed-up, loud-mouth celeb like Baldwin with a tragic hero like Job is typical of the disprespect with which the fundies treat even their own book.
Eamon,
What? Job was a pathetic, servile lickspittle; that’s hardly heroic.
Who is Joss Whedon and why should I care? Note: I am way over the age of consent.
I think certain charitable contributions should come with a legally mandated death sentence. The moment someone clicks the PayPal button to contribute to Stephen Baldwin’s personal begging cup, an Obama Hitler bin Laden Communist death panel is immediately dispatched.
@101 – Gads! I’m practically illiterate in common culture, and I (sort of) know who Joss Whedon is.
(also, I know how to use Wikipedia) (and I liked Firefly, when I remembered to watch it)
He’s a director, writer, producer-kind of person who creates intelligent, challenging, and literate tv shows – some of the most creative on tv. or so my tv-literate family tells me.
(I did like Dr. Horrible, even if Whedon can’t seem to allow any of his characters to be happy)
I didn’t like buffy that much. I do enjoy some Roseanne now and again, and he wrote on that show for quite awhile.
As far as his writing being crap- 99% of television is. At least he isn’t inserting sexist tropes into his crappy shows, if the norm was no-big-deal lesbian relationships and female characters who talk to each other about things other than dudes and who aren’t brainless or sex objects I would be about 1000x happier about the state of pop culture. I can see the value in what he does without being a fan.
“To all who shouted down and insulted Jackaleyes: Is your claim that you cannot criticize something without having experienced it?”
I don’t know much about atheism, but I think their approval of baby rape is awful.
Baby bbq, not rape.
get your shit straight.
Nah, that’s the one thing we don’t do.
That, and Morris Dancing.
And listen to the Lord’s Prayer in Swahili.
“Baby bbq, not rape.
get your shit straight.”
No, NO I’m sure I’m right…I read the wiki :-p
I tried the link. What the hell, right?
Kyle @80:
No, why does that seem odd to you? Why should an organization related to the theme of a show necessarily be mentioned in the article about the show?
On the other hand, Equality Now is mentioned on Joss’ Wikipedia page:
Sounds like new status symbols where you don’t have to do anything to qualify, like the two old ones, never having watched Sound of Music, and never holidayed on Mallorca (the last one is particular for Scandinavians).
Why are people still watching, so as to make it financially viable, predictable crap with gratuitous violence? No thinking involved? And the plots thin as widow’s piss so they understand it?
And haven’t watched any of the stuff mentioned, the trailers summed it up nicely; don’t waste your time with this shit!
For anyone who likes
superiorawesome “fanfic”:My Own Kind of Freedom
(A Firefly Novel by Steven Brust (!))
Speak for yourself, Kieranfoy. I am not only an atheist Morris dancer, but most of my teammates are also atheists and we even have a team activity we call “Atheist Movie Night.” We had one tonight, in fact!
Nurse Ingrid speaks truth. Do not underestimate the awesome power of atheist Morris dancers. Especially when they’re brandishing their sticks.
Signed,
A (happily gay-married) Morris widow
Dollhouse had the problem of being a mess that just was’t very good. The Boyd revelation violates the show’s own physics so hard that it’s clear that the overarching story is just random shit happening.
But Season Five of Angel is one of the highlights of American TV. I would give any new Joss Whedon vehicle a few episodes of my time. I won’t give him two seasons of my time over a clunky vehicle like Dollhouse again, but the man has made a lot of cool stuff.
A Firefly fanfic by Stephen Brust?
There is a God!
Also, to all you Morris Dancers, I can only say you must be the evil Phillip of Burgundy in disguise. Die!
@48 wrote:
… or for me, any of the pop culture icons. Though, I still enjoy the string bending sounds of Nugent. While, I find the man repugnant, and I would probably punch him in the nose-if we met, The Amboy Dukes find time on my turntable; as does some of his more misogynistic bullshit, later.
Stan Rogers, in the introduction to his song “The Idiot”, explained about Morris Dancing:
The Idiot
tag failure-should read:
then…
How can anyone be “washed up” if they’ve always sucked?
I find it hilarious that at StephenBaldwin.com, under the “thoughts” section, there are but two entries. One is an address and the other is a few bible quotes. Very telling…
Stephen’s Two Thoughts
Now, now, be nice. Two thoughts is better than none, and higher than the average.
Besides, Baldwin’s “Get funk-ay with the LAWD!” shtick is great unintentional comedy.
@#15,
Ewwww. That is really disappointing, I used to like him too.
Adam Baldwin doesn’t play just thugs. He gave an emotionally strong performance in My Bodyguard too, with Ruth Gordan.
Him being Republican or conservative I can handle, but this guy seems to be really enthusiastic about every rabid right-wing talking point you can name.
How can I say it? Not just driving toward a cliff, but stomping on the gas pedal toward a cliff. Supersize your Wrong.
And humorless, which is weird, given how funny Jayne was.
Plus there’s a lot of the usual gas about how acting civilized is a threat to civilization.
Anyway, I guess I should get used to the idea that an actor is a director’s sock puppet, and not be sad when the illusion breaks.
@Mulltitool:
What do you reckon the odds are Jayne would give Adam a facefull of lead if the two met?
I do that one.
Oh snap, I got to the AGW Denialism in Baldwin’s blog before I said “You’re a fucking moron” and went back to my traffic safety course.
So all these atrocities are happening throughout the world and what do you think should lead the public perception of important world issues?
A prime time television show. You ignorant bastard.
@Goeffmovies: Where the hell did you pull that idea? Obviously a TV show isn’t the prime leader. I never said anything like that.
I said you were coldhearted to dismiss their obvious concern by calling pretentious.
@Kierfanfoy
If it wasn’t obvious, I was openly mocking your argumentative style. You’ve made a false assumption about my motivation, and ignored the larger argument.
We could engage in a huge debate where I quote Postman and McCluhan but to say that it’s a waste of time to go to that trouble, when all you’ve got are appeals to emotion is an understatement.
Of course I’m appealing to emotion, because the emotion was all I was criticizing. There is no larger argument; there’s just you being an asshole.
I wasn’t dismissing their concern. I was questioning their method. I’m not dismissing the concern of American missionaries who kidnapped Haitian children. That’s just not an effective way of doing it and it’s not cold to say that.
You’re still missing the point. Time to look in a mirror.
I’m not missing a point, you are. They’re telling people that what happens in the TV show happens in real life, not kidnapping people to brianwash them.
One is a human rights violation, the other a plea that people see a show as more than just TV. One is cruel and immoral, the other nice.
And you’re STILL an asshole.
What happens on TV does NOT happen in real life.
It’s both irrepsonsible and immoral to suggest so.
You’re STILL a moron.
So now human trafficking is fictional, and I’m an immoral moron.
Wow. Anything else you’d care to share with us? Is the moon actually made of green cheese, but the astronauts didn’t notice?
So slavery never happened, because Roots was televised?
Wow, that’s a weight off my shoulders. no more white liberal guilt for me!
geoffmoron-
So…fiction has zero ability to speak to power and publicizing an issue through a medium of fiction has zero ability to affect and make people think in a new way?
Boy is every single fiction writer I have ever met in my life going to be surprised about that.
News flash, moron, speaking truth to power, speaking up for the powerless comes in a thousand ways to get the word out there.
Fiction to mobilize empathy and get the comfortable out of their privilege without making them all skittery with a confrontation, confrontations to afflict the powerful and radicalize the base, personal narratives to get the raw stories out there and humanize the events, scientific studies and news stories to give it “weight” and “authority” against the denials of the bigoted, etc…
There’s no one right way to speak up for something. Some person running a blog somewhere, a TV show that reaches millions, marches, direct actions, etc… All of these pieces build the culture.
And frankly, TV ends up defining a lot of culture, especially in the eyes of the privileged. Getting those stories even in a fiction context on the air, having those issues explored instead of kept silent does a lot in the West and especially America to move the muddled middle of privileged people to actually consider an issue as real or at least to think about it a little more. It’s why gay people spent so much time cheering and pushing for more queer characters in film media like television because humanizing them there was critical for a lot of people to humanize real life gay characters. They weren’t a “scary unknown”, they were “Ellen”.
And if you don’t understand that component of activism, then you know less about activism than you do about anything else and you certainly don’t know enough to bitch at Kieranfoy.
In short, fuck you and the horse you rode in on you disingenuous deliberately ignorant fuck.
Meh. I can handle it. Imma mayunly mayun!
I want to invent a new game. It is called, “Guess the actual subject of the Thread!”
It is sorta like “Name that Tune,” but instead of using more to less notes, you start for the end of the thread and read the posts backwards, high number to low, trying to guess what the original point of the thread was…
OK, I’ll start. My guess is the original point was something about, “Cheese processing in Nebraska.” Am I right? How close am I?
Hey, leave me out of this one….
We may be going in slightly tangential directions, but they’re important directions, and they ARE relevant directions.
But we are still discussing cheese though, right?
No, clothing.
Hats, to be precise.
Damn it!
I suck at this game!
Yeah, you should have guessed from the utter ASShat we had on a few hours ago.
Stephen Baldwin washed up? Doesn’t a person have to be successful at something before they can be washed up?
Hey, wait a second, what the hell does Stephen Baldwin have to do with Cheese processing in Nebraska?
Or, was that cheese cloth in Minnesota?
Hats in New Brunswick?
This is just like the time I played Jeopardy with that Schizophrenic …
keiranfoy & geoffmovie:
Here is what happens when we use imprecise language. Apparently, Dollhouse was an exercise in a particular kind of propaganda (as a neutral descriptor and not a slur) — that’s the proper term. Folks are supposed to respond in a heartfelt manner, if it’s any good.
Now, what I think geoff is trying to say in his half-ass way (with the ambiguous reference to McLuhan), is that the medium of TV subverts any propaganda message broadcast — that no matter what you try to say, you’re wedged between the real meat of the matter, the commercials that are a superior kind of propaganda, objectify everyone, turning the entire world into a meat market. That cutting a narrative into 48 minute bits around that fact in a 2d representation is inherently advancing a propaganda that on the surface it’s denying.
I don’t know if that true. The best artists wins. If the crafters of commercials are more competent, then Wheedon loses — but I think that’s probably in question. The very fact that the show got cancelled quickly suggests that he may have been succeeding.
Is PZ allowed to take a day off?
Off-topic poll:
Should creationism be taught alongside evolution in Maine’s schools
1. Yes
2. No
3. Creationism should be taught, but not as a science.
4. Both should be taught in philosophy, not science
What a dumb question. I voted for number 2.
“No” at 78%! Although I hope they don’t interpret that to mean that creationism should be taught instead of evolution.
@Kyle Szklenski #80:
Dude, you really are barking up the wrong tree here. I’ve been trying to make the same point you just did for something like five goddamn years, and I still haven’t made a dent. More power to you if you succeed where I have failed, however.
Perhaps defending someone who decided to decide he wasn’t a fan of a show based on a Wikipedia article wasn’t the best choice, though. I could understand not being interested in the premise, but letting the Whores of the Web (aka Wikipediacs) critique your nighttime viewing for you? They put [citation needed] on well-known facts for Thorssake!
Please crash this poll:
“Would you watch a comedy series about Jesus Christ?
Yes, it might be interesting
No, it sounds offensive
Maybe, it depends on how it’s done”
at http://www.news24.com/
Currently on:
Yes, it might be interesting 17 %
No, it sounds offensive 69 %
Maybe, it depends on how it’s done 14 %
thnx
Somebody pass the popcorn.
@Deriamis: He’s barking up the wrong tree because he’s defending a moron who disses a show based on Wikipedia entries that state that some people found a show offensive. The moron seemed to think that if a show didn’t make everyone who watched it run out and join Anti-human trafficking organizations, it objectified women and glorified human trafficking, and that’s just fucking stupid.
How are you three missing that point? Complaining about shows you don’t watch is dumb.
Damn, Deadbunnygangsta. Nailed it right out of the gate! Now all I need to do is get that time machine working and top-post this before you get to comment #1.