TV.com will be making changes to the Private Message system the week of Jan 26, 2015. For more information click here

Dollhouse Forums

FOX (ended 2010)

Quite A Few Critics Have Said ...

  • Avatar of The_Dude14

    The_Dude14

    [21]Sep 22, 2009
    • member since: 06/15/04
    • level: 7
    • rank: Talk Show Host
    • posts: 132
    Lady_Lancaster wrote:
    The_Dude14 wrote:

    Is this a criticism of the actors or the writing?

    Seems to me that you can't fault Joss for what others do with the actors. If its referring to how Joss uses the recurring actors on his own shows, I can see how that's a knock on him, kind of, since it seems to be a common knock I see about Eliza with Dollhouse. However, that doesn't make too much sense to me, because outside of Eliza and Amy Acker, there hasn't been too much meaningful crossover (they are the only recurring characters I can think of, time will tell with Tudyk. The rest are one-shots). And honestly, I think knocking Eliza is pretty thin. Knocking Amy Acker, IMO, is ludicrous.

    Otherwise, you can't knock Joss for how other people use the actors. You can only knock the actors so much, as well. Thems the breaks of being typecast. I'm sure they want to take roles where they can showcase themselves in a different light, but the offers may not be there. Who knows?

    Something about the criticism, though, grates me because the first place I go when I read people knocking Whendonverse actors are Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof and it leads me to a kind of "How dare they"?

    The critics I read were talking about the actors. The main consesus was that none of them have proven talented enough to do anything outside of Whedonverse stuff and saying that those who had, with the exception of Julie Benz and ASH were terrible at all the other stuff they did.
    Thank you for the clarification.

    I choose to respectfully disagree with those critics... with heavier insistence on the "disagree" than the "respectfully."

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of michael_LB92

    michael_LB92

    [22]Sep 22, 2009
    • member since: 04/11/07
    • level: 24
    • rank: Golden Girl
    • posts: 5,963
    Critics should be people who have only done that thing being criticised.

    Like, because I've unstacked a dishwasher, only I can criticise someone unstacking a dishwasher. But if you've never done it, then you don't really understand it. So shut up.

    OK, that's a really stupid logic. Pretend I didn't post this.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Lady_Lancaster

    Lady_Lancaster

    [23]Sep 22, 2009
    • member since: 05/27/09
    • level: 41
    • rank: Sleestack
    • posts: 3,152
    The_Dude14 wrote:
    Lady_Lancaster wrote:
    The_Dude14 wrote:

    Is this a criticism of the actors or the writing?

    Seems to me that you can't fault Joss for what others do with the actors. If its referring to how Joss uses the recurring actors on his own shows, I can see how that's a knock on him, kind of, since it seems to be a common knock I see about Eliza with Dollhouse. However, that doesn't make too much sense to me, because outside of Eliza and Amy Acker, there hasn't been too much meaningful crossover (they are the only recurring characters I can think of, time will tell with Tudyk. The rest are one-shots). And honestly, I think knocking Eliza is pretty thin. Knocking Amy Acker, IMO, is ludicrous.

    Otherwise, you can't knock Joss for how other people use the actors. You can only knock the actors so much, as well. Thems the breaks of being typecast. I'm sure they want to take roles where they can showcase themselves in a different light, but the offers may not be there. Who knows?

    Something about the criticism, though, grates me because the first place I go when I read people knocking Whendonverse actors are Amy Acker and Alexis Denisof and it leads me to a kind of "How dare they"?

    The critics I read were talking about the actors. The main consesus was that none of them have proven talented enough to do anything outside of Whedonverse stuff and saying that those who had, with the exception of Julie Benz and ASH were terrible at all the other stuff they did.
    Thank you for the clarification.

    I choose to respectfully disagree with those critics... with heavier insistence on the "disagree" than the "respectfully."



    I didn't agree with what they said either. I thought it was very mean-spirited but, sadly, that is often the nature of the critical beast.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Lady_Lancaster

    Lady_Lancaster

    [24]Sep 22, 2009
    • member since: 05/27/09
    • level: 41
    • rank: Sleestack
    • posts: 3,152
    michael_LB92 wrote:
    Critics should be people who have only done that thing being criticised.

    Like, because I've unstacked a dishwasher, only I can criticise someone unstacking a dishwasher. But if you've never done it, then you don't really understand it. So shut up.

    OK, that's a really stupid logic. Pretend I didn't post this.


    Believe it or not, I completely agree with you. It's like being allowed to fly a plane just because you have an airman's jacket.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of buffyTVSrox

    buffyTVSrox

    [25]Sep 23, 2009
    • member since: 07/14/05
    • level: 33
    • rank: Borg Queen
    • posts: 21,459
    I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the critics on this one. Faith's dark disturbed nature and Tru's helpful protector nature are both totally the same as Echo and all her imprints. I mean, the same woman plays them = same performance = bad acting.

    I never believed Sarah as Buffy. No matter how many times she tried to throw in layers and depth and gave astounding performances, the only really astounding thing was how flat it all was.

    And forget Alyson Hannigan. Quirky is quirky, telling me there's different kinds is just an excuse!

    And I wouldn't have even noticed the change between Fred and Illyria if it weren't for the hair and makeup change.

    [/end truckloads of sarcasm]
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Lady_Lancaster

    Lady_Lancaster

    [26]Sep 23, 2009
    • member since: 05/27/09
    • level: 41
    • rank: Sleestack
    • posts: 3,152
    buffyTVSrox wrote:
    I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the critics on this one. Faith's dark disturbed nature and Tru's helpful protector nature are both totally the same as Echo and all her imprints. I mean, the same woman plays them = same performance = bad acting.

    I never believed Sarah as Buffy. No matter how many times she tried to throw in layers and depth and gave astounding performances, the only really astounding thing was how flat it all was.

    And forget Alyson Hannigan. Quirky is quirky, telling me there's different kinds is just an excuse!

    And I wouldn't have even noticed the change between Fred and Illyria if it weren't for the hair and makeup change.

    [/end truckloads of sarcasm]


    *Nodding seriously* Yes, I totally agree, Doug - how on earth ANY of them got any jobs at all is beyond me ... Critics always get it right and anyone who says otherwise is just plain unfair to these good people who work so hard to say such bad things! *tuning into Station Sarcasm.com*
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of michael_LB92

    michael_LB92

    [27]Sep 23, 2009
    • member since: 04/11/07
    • level: 24
    • rank: Golden Girl
    • posts: 5,963
    buffyTVSrox wrote:

    [/end truckloads of sarcasm]

    Oh wow. I actually believed you for a second and wanted to eat out your eyes.
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of Lady_Lancaster

    Lady_Lancaster

    [28]Sep 23, 2009
    • member since: 05/27/09
    • level: 41
    • rank: Sleestack
    • posts: 3,152
    michael_LB92 wrote:
    buffyTVSrox wrote:

    [/end truckloads of sarcasm]

    Oh wow. I actually believed you for a second and wanted to eat out your eyes.


    Well, that would be in keeping with the "Buffy" theme AND give the critics something else to talk about! *grin*
    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.
  • Avatar of hamstrman

    hamstrman

    [29]Sep 26, 2009
    • member since: 06/09/05
    • level: 15
    • rank: Ginsu Knife
    • posts: 141

    **My descriptions of character roles contain SPOILERS regarding other Whedonverse shows, among others. Do not read on if you plan to watch one of their shows and have not yet seen it.**

    Nathan Fillion as Mal, Caleb, and Captain Hammer are so absoltely different and include different levels of tone/seriousness, hero vs. villian vs. antihero, etc. Haven't watched Castle, but I hear it's again very different.

    Summer Glau, don't even get me started! She used to be a ballerina before she was an actress (OK, not a role, but just impressive IMO). On Angel, she was very good at portraying elegant and subtly sad. Of course on Firefly she was looney tunes and great at kicking ass (mostly ballerina moves/flexibility as Joss has said). Never saw Terminator: The SCC, but on that she was a cyborg, so even though it was a fighting role, she'd have to be good at playing a character that was often intentionally flat and without understanding. And no one mentioned THE 4400!! She was so good on that as Tess! She could control peoples' minds!! And isn't the argument over whether the Whedonverse characters have one dimensionality and can't act well? Just to play the roles she has played are crazy impressive.

    Alexis Denisof is another example of a greatly evolved and deep character in Wesley. First, he's not even British. And going from goofy comic relief to becoming more confident to becoming hardened and untrusting to flat out crazy was the greatest character evolution I think I've seen (alongside James Marsters). Playing Sandy on HIMYM was fun to watch as he played a total smarmy jackass. Should be interesting to see what he can do on Dollhouse.

    Alyson Hannigan does play a somewhat similar role on HIMYM to her more confident period on Buffy, but evil Willow was just awesome to watch. She sold the hell out of that. Oh! And socialite Trina Echolls on Veronica Mars! I almost forgot about that one! Her movie comedy is pretty painful, despite her great TV comedy skill, but I understand that's not necessarily her fault. She apparently just picks roles in terrible moves with bad writers.

    James Marsters has not been in much, but Spike is another one of those versatile characters. He started as a great evil, but having fun, kind of character. Very good villian. Then he became metaphorically impotent and frustrated. His obsessiveness and hero portrayal were also a change of pace and his relationship with Drusilla and Angel/Angelus made for a wide range of emotions seeing him pre- and post-vampire. He was also a great BranIAC on Smallville. Very stoic, devious, and more goal-oriented than "evil". Playing artificial intelligence, I think, is difficult.

    Now on to ELIZA: I actually agree that she was great as Faith on Buffy and even better on Angel. Faith's inadequacies and redemption brought depth to the character to some extent, although it wasn't very versatile. Her Dollhouse role shows shades of the same and while her character has a lot of depth, she is just pretty bad at giving it the acting skill it deserves. Just watching the season 2 premiere as well as the season 1 finale where she gets all existential was well-written and great conceptually. But just listening to her speak the words was cringeworthy. Didn't Eliza have the idea for the show in the first place? So maybe she should stay in the story pitching discusion room and away from writing or acting. I almost never turn my back on an actor, but it's kind of bringing the show down a few notches from its potential greatness.

    You must be registered and logged in to post a message.