Dollhouse: Haunted - Echo is a dead person. Post comments here.

POSTED BY: Haken
UPDATED: Tuesday, May 5, 2009 22:42
VIEWED: 130445
PAGE 4 of 7

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

PIRATENEWS

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 1:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by FlatTop:

Topher: Loved it. Yeah, it's covering territory we've already been over, but now it's Topher's turn to have a dream date. We get to learn a bit more about him as a person.

Ballard: Conflicted only scratches the surface. The woman he loves does not exist. Raises all sorts of inner personal demons. Is there anyone out there that would actually love me? Or is my only chance at a relationship with someone that's been programmed to put up with me? Once Millie is gone, Now what?

Paul Ballard: He's got a hot sexslave in his bed. He's a guy. Suck it up.

Topher/Sierra: Great script. Good to see Sierra play with emotion for a change. Sad that Topher has no such friends, due to work obsession and Top Secret rules of death for disclosure. Were these the same laser tags units from Castle? Note to Sierra: EAT SOMETHING, it raises blood sugar.

Note to females in the Real World. The Sierra character is hotter than you think. Picture bikini biker stunt chick Jolene from MTV's Nitro Circus, probably a millionairess by now. She'd probably actually have sex while flying without an airplane, like My Crazy Ex Super Girlfriend. I'd do a biker backflip with her off the Grand Canyon anytime. Or not.

www.mtv.com/ontv/dyn/nitro_circus/cast_member/cast_member.jhtml?person
alityId=10629
www.jolenevanvugt.com
www.myspace.com/jolene_63

140-lb hottie Jolene Van Vugt tolerates Fuel Girl strippers in Masters of Dirt

Hot date at the Grand Canyon

Grand Canyon carnage

Point being, Dollhouse writers scored with Topher/Sierra, but was sex part of the script? Or is Topher a gay virgin?

RIVERDANCER

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:05 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
After that they're essentially dead and there is no real victim.

I think that's the exact kind of dehumanizing attitudes that this show is trying to address.

ZEEK

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 6:58 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
After that they're essentially dead and there is no real victim.

I think that's the exact kind of dehumanizing attitudes that this show is trying to address.

The problem is the premise creates almost the ideal situation for body trafficking. They throw in some flaws so that it still seems wrong, but if there wasn't coercion and there weren't glitches then the issues are all gone IMO.

Which is why the only person I take issue with is DeWitt. Though I have a feeling we're going to find out she's being coerced to continue her role in the Dollhouse by someone higher up.

SHINY

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 8:42 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by BigRichard:
it was heartbreaking to see that the only way he can have a 'friend' is by creating it. Almost like a small child who has to invent a friend at kindergarten because all the children there tease him/her.

Was there any indication that the friend was an artificially constructed imprint? Could it have been an actual friend, just like Adelle's rich friend? Heck, could it have been Topher imprinting his own personality into an active so he could play with someone who shares all of his interests? (probably not, or it would be that 'person's birthday as well, but an intriguing idea)

I'm also not so sure this technology is so cut-and-dry evil as so many are claiming. Yes, there is the potential for enormous abuse, but what if someone genuinely and in full knowledge of the uses of and risks to their body, wanted to rent out their bodies for some number of years in exchange for what they considered fair compensation? Is it rape if 1) the body's original owner consented to allow any client to have sex with his/her body, and 2) the imprinted personality was willing as well? There's also the question of whether someone could will their body to the dollhouse in the event of their non-body-mutilating death (would an imprint work on the body of someone who was brain dead?)

It is certain that this technology would lead to everlasting life at least for the super-rich, but I don't think Boyd's concerns about its impact on society and morality is really justified, as the technology (and availability of bodies) seems unlikely to become a widely available to just anyone, and if it's limited to the rich and powerful, well they tend to already be morality-challenged. ;)

---

I don't need a gorram back-spaceship driver!!!

BIGRICHARD

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 10:57 PM

Quote:
Quote:
Originally posted by BigRichard:
it was heartbreaking to see that the only way he can have a 'friend' is by creating it. Almost like a small child who has to invent a friend at kindergarten because all the children there tease him/her.

Originally posted by Shiny:

Was there any indication that the friend was an artificially constructed imprint? Could it have been an actual friend, just like Adelle's rich friend? Heck, could it have been Topher imprinting his own personality into an active so he could play with someone who shares all of his interests? (probably not, or it would be that 'person's birthday as well, but an intriguing idea)

I had actually thought of some of these things, and, I think it's entirely possible that the character was created by him, based on a mix of himself and a woman. Not entirely based on him because I'm not sure how that would work with the gender issues. I also don't think it's an actual friend, simply because he probably couldn't have got them in for the initial download. ALTHOUGH it could be based on a friend, OR, perhaps when he first invented the technology, he tested it on a friend, it downloaded successfully, but then something went wrong, and he lost the friend. That could be interesting.

As for the other topics which Zeek and Bitemite and so on are still talking about, I definitely see both sides of the argument. I have no problem with your view Bytemite, I simply disagree that it's ALL bad. I don't really agree with what Zeek is saying about "if the subject agrees to all sex before hand, it's ok", I think that's an odd way of putting it, as the very use of these people as 'sex dolls' is wrong, in my opinion. However, if the dolls ARE getting their memory back (I don't agree that it's ok to wipe them if they're not getting their own mind back in a set amount of time) and there is no sex involved, and no danger to the active, then I have no problem with the program particularly. This is, again, assuming the dolls are willing. If it turns out that these dolls are all there against their will, that's another thing I dislike about the Dollhouse. So again, I say, I think the science and technology is good, but the Dollhouse is bad.

As for those who went on about "imagine it was used on you", assuming the technology wasn't used the way it is in the Dollhouse, if I had a set time of 2 years, I was only helping people (even just being someone's platonic friend) and I signed up for it, I don't have a problem with it being used on me. It's almost like being in the army and being away for 2 years. This is all, of course, assuming the technology's flaws are ironed out.

ZEEK

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:16 PM

Why is sex different than anything else? As I said if they're screened for STDs and most likely the female Dolls are on the pill. Then what's the harm? I'm assuming here that anyone becoming a Doll is not a virgin, but I think that's not too far fetched and assumption. If sex itself is not wrong then why is this any different then if they had a sexual partner in their normal lives? They're basically saying it's consensual even if the consent is given far in advance.

PHOENIXROSE

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:27 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by asarian:
in real-life, a pretty girl like Sierra probably wouldn't give him the time of day (or, if she would, he didn't bother to find out the regular way, did he?)

I don't disagree on any particular point, but he didn't ask that the active be female. It could have been any of them; Boyd opted to use Sierra. I don't think Topher cared, he wanted a friend, not a sexual romp.

I enjoyed this episode well enough. It made me giggle, and it raised some interesting possibilities. It wasn't the best of them, but I think it was good.

Please don't let this show get canceled...

[/sig]

RIVERDANCER

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:34 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Zeek:
if there wasn't coercion and there weren't glitches then the issues are all gone IMO.

IMO you're a complete peckerhead lacking any heart or empathy, showing time and time again that you don't give a damn about anyone's soul or humanity. But you're entitled to your opinion as a complete peckerhead, have at it. I would advise against using it as a defense when you inevitably end up on someone's really, really bad side, though.

BIGRICHARD

Tuesday, April 28, 2009 11:55 PM

Zeek, if you see sex in that way, then you can sign up to have your body used thusly.

I personally see sex as a more intimate, personal thing that should only between two people who are ...I guess, in love. Call me old-fashioned (I'm only 20 though...) but that's what I think, and so if sex is involved (which, in the dollhouse, it is) I agree with the others that it's a bad thing to use people like that. Mind you, if you want to be used like that, go for it, that's up to you.

PhoenixRose makes a good point about Topher. Sure, maybe he knew Sierra was free, but I think it's more likely he just needed someone, as DeWitt says it happens very often, and nothing that happened couldn't have happened between Topher and a male friend as well. In fact, would people make as much of a fuss if it was with a male friend?

ZEEK

Wednesday, April 29, 2009 2:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by RiverDancer:
IMO you're a complete peckerhead lacking any heart or empathy, showing time and time again that you don't give a damn about anyone's soul or humanity. But you're entitled to your opinion as a complete peckerhead, have at it. I would advise against using it as a defense when you inevitably end up on someone's really, really bad side, though.

If I end up on someone's really really bad side for an opinion then I'm not too concerned about that person. If they can't get over the fact that people are different then I'll just feel sorry for them and move on.

Quote:
Originally posted by BigRichard:
Zeek, if you see sex in that way, then you can sign up to have your body used thusly.

I personally see sex as a more intimate, personal thing that should only between two people who are ...I guess, in love. Call me old-fashioned (I'm only 20 though...) but that's what I think, and so if sex is involved (which, in the dollhouse, it is) I agree with the others that it's a bad thing to use people like that. Mind you, if you want to be used like that, go for it, that's up to you.

So, which is it? Is it OK for me or anyone who views sex differently to be used by the Dollhouse or is the Dollhouse inherently wrong? You've gone both ways in one post. It's fine to say you personally wouldn't want to end up as a doll, but that doesn't make the Dollhouse itself bad. I personally don't like dancing, but I don't go around saying clubs are evil.

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE