TVSquad

Moron? Again? Your insults are just like Eliza's acting, one note.

I don't mean to be impolite, but not to let the other commenter be just one-note:

Your analysis is short sited, and biased to, what I assume to be your favorite show, Ghost Whisperer. To say that Dollhouse is a knock off of GW shows a complete lack of understanding of the complexities and philosophical questions raised by Dollhouse.

I'm not going to say that Dushku is going to win any awards for her portrayals here, but considering she's taking some chances by taking a roll where she'll have to play a completely different character each week, I'd take her work over Hewitt any day of the week.

Sorry, it doesn't betray anything. My comment was neither meant to be a deep analysis or even a promotion of Ghost Whisperer. And frankly, my hyperbole should have made it clear I was speaking rhetorically. That you or anyone else could divine *anything* other than I hold Eliza's acting skills to be somewhat unfulfilling is beyond me.

I actually enjoy the episodes that deal with the Dollhouse and their moral and ethical questions. What I can't stand are the episodes where Echo gets imprinted with a personality and then she has has to, a'la ghost whisperer or that other stupid ghost show or like tru-calling, has to work to resolve that "other's" problems.

It's not that I don't find the idea interesting, it's just that Eliza really can't act as someone other than herself. The actors that portray Victor, November and Sierra are much capable in this regard. Their paroxysms, november's in particular, come off as believable and fluid... while Echo, just seems like Echo, who seems just like Tru, who seems just like Faith who seems just like whatever her character's name was from Bring it On.

If they're so enamored with this idea then please, please use Victor or anyone else for those episodes, why not make it the episode where the principle actors take a week off?

I hear what you're saying. I've got to say that Miracle Laurie instantly became my favorite actress on the show during the pilot.

I understand well enough what you’re saying (and I too have viewed or glanced other works that have dealt with the concept), but I still believe you were being hasty and a bit shortsighted in ruling the show’s contention as wrong.

You’re parsing life out into its “physical state” vs. its “substance”, adhering to the former and dismissing the significance of the latter. Yes, life can be interpreted in terms of the perpetuation of a physical body, and in those limited terms the ending of said body could be viewed as a definitive end of said life.

However, life can also be interpreted as the collective experiences of a person and how they have shaped and molded that person in their emotions, views, and choices (the aforementioned substance). In this case the show is not wrong in proclaiming the process shown as being (at least a form of) “eternal life”, since it extends the natural time-span in which said substance would be able to experience and impact the living world indefinitely, and arguably Boyd’s concerns about what broader implications such a development could have remain valid (though maybe overly fatalistic).

Sorry, the above comment was meant for Wes, who posted below.

“I absolutely *hated* how they kept throwing around the words "eternal life" like that's what this actually was. It wasn't, and -- unless you believe that what constitutes your *life* is akin to transferable data…”

What is life if not the whole created by your memories, thoughts, experiences, and emotions? And what is eternity if not the ability to continue developing, experiencing, and influencing through such things indefinitely?

You can make arguments about the concept of a "soul", but then how do you distinguish the soul from the above?

I disagree. I think that with a 13 (ha) episode run, we're seeing an introduction to a lot of different ideas and concepts that can (and hopefully will be) opened up for greater examination in future seasons.

In fact it opened this question within your comment: Does a collection of memories constitute consciousness? The character tonight seemed to be a perfect live extension of her dead self (minus the month since her last scan)? Why is this not "like" eternal life?

Sho: (Hey again, by the way!) The distinction is exceedingly simple. Suppose that we clone you and then put the clone on ice. Then I prepare to murder you and explain that, once you're dead, the clone will be thawed and introduced into society as you. If you aren't worried -- because you assume that you'll just wake up again shortly after your death (as opposed to simply not fearing death at all) -- you're misguided. Yes, it's *sort* of like eternal life in that your personality will endure, but *you* will obviously still be dead. You don't even need to refer to souls to grasp that the same physical consciousness isn't enduring (especially since, in "Dollhouse," things had happened to the real woman that had not happened to the imprinted personality).

Maybe it's not so obvious (it occurred to me immediately, but I wrote papers on similar topics in intro philosophy courses... and saw the same ideas explored to better effect and ad nauseam in the modern "Outer Limits" series), but it should still come up in even a brief foray into the subject.

Dorv: I'll grant that it's "like" eternal life, but it's not eternal life -- and there's enough of a distinction between actual eternal life and the faux variety that some acknowledgment of it would have been nice. Instead, they just kept pushing the eternal life idea, even going so far as to rephrase it in ways that made the distinction even more obvious.

Accidentally posted this as a reply above, so I'm reposting it here:

I understand well enough what you’re saying (and I too have viewed or glanced other works that have dealt with the concept), but I still believe you were being hasty and a bit shortsighted in ruling the show’s contention as wrong.

You’re parsing life out into its “physical state” vs. its “substance”, adhering to the former and dismissing the significance of the latter. Yes, life can be interpreted in terms of the perpetuation of a physical body, and in those limited terms the ending of said body could be viewed as a definitive end of said life.

However, life can also be interpreted as the collective experiences of a person and how they have shaped and molded that person in their emotions, views, and choices (the aforementioned substance). In this case the show is not wrong in proclaiming the process shown as being (at least a form of) “eternal life”, since it extends the natural time-span in which said substance would be able to experience and impact the living world indefinitely, and arguably Boyd’s concerns about what broader implications such a development could have remain valid (though maybe overly fatalistic).

Wow you keep throwing the word shallow around. It leads me to wonder if A: It was on your word of the day toilet paper. Or B: You don't understand the show and have such a high opinion of the depths that is you. Either way throwing around generalizations like that is well shallow. If you don't like it I hear they have Anime on Adult Swim on Fridays watch that instead.

I thought the same thing, especially since she thought someone was trying to kill her. I figured she kept going back for new scans so that she would have the most current information after she died.