Talk:Dollhouse (TV series)

R.U.R. link

I have put this at the top, because it satisfies the need for verification of a link with R.U.R. It saves having to go through the whole discussion.

The proof of the RUR link comes in the episode "Getting Closer" from the second season. Caroline Farrell asks "So you are Rossum?" the answer comes back "Rossum is just a name. From a play. Although technically, you're not robots, it seemed to fit." However, I really don't see what the problem is.

There is a discussion of it here: Czech Mate: Whedon, Čapek, and the Foundations of Dollhouse Baldwin Clere (talk) 17:37, 3 July 2017 (UTC)

Several people now have tried to draw a connection between the Rossum Corporation in the show, and R.U.R. Let us be clear here - until it is proven by reliable sources that there is a definitive link between the two - for example, Whedon was choosing to reference the play - we cannot mention the other play. Aside from being original research, the larger problem is that it's actually a violation of verifiability. It's unverifiable that the Rossum Corporation in the show is meant to be RUR. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with MrMarmite; I was incorrect in placing this as a wiki link, but I maintain that it is valuable information for viewers of the show to possess. I propose to create a Rossum Corporation page that includes a section mentioning R.U.R.. This page would then link the Rossum page, where the mention of R.U.R. as similarly-named and -themed prior art would neatly solve any issues of synthesis or original research. I'm not convinced that anyone mentioning the play is trying to say that they are the same company; I personally, at least, simply see R.U.R. as a likely inspiration of Whedon's and a handy additional lens through which to view the series. Certainly the fact that there is a play that includes a company with a similar name and contains similar themes of personhood is perfectly verifiable, and information that ought to be as easily available as possible to anyone who is curious. — Jonas (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

How is that verifiable? Let's see the sources. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 23:58, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I think I must not be clear on your question, because it sounds like the answer you're looking for is right here. — Jonas (talk) 18:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

You wrote: "I personally, at least, simply see R.U.R. as a likely inspiration of Whedon's and a handy additional lens through which to view the series. Certainly the fact that there is a play that includes a company with a similar name and contains similar themes of personhood is perfectly verifiable". It's your own view on the subject, which is tantamount to original research. Find a verifiable secondary source to prove the connection, and we're in. You can't just go around drawing links between things that isn't necessarily there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:47, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll expand on this a bit more. By your logic, I could in theory create a link from Rossum on this article to Emmy Rossum since they share the same name. Who knows, maybe she was an inspiration for the show. It would be a ridiculous thing to do, though, because I have no definitive proof of that. Consider the article Daniel Faraday, a character on Lost. They have a link at the top to the real person that inspired the name, but that's only done with a source to something the creators of the show said. Similarly, on John Locke (Lost), there's a link to the original philosopher for which he might be named, but there's also a citation needed tag next to it. Though that connection may be a bit more obvious, a source is still needed. This link is a lot more tenuous and controversial, and a source is therefore needed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:53, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Annyong, we've discussed this before, and I went to cool down for a few months. I still think you're wrong. Here's the issue. There are, as I have pointed out, many thousands instances on wikipedia of phrasings like "X, presumably a reference to Y" that are not cited. There are vastly more such instances if we look at straight wiki-links that imply a reference without citing it. Would I be happier if they were cited? Hell yeah. But do they have to be? I don't really think so, no. If a particular association is commonplace and not being contested, then for the moment we should provide it as a service to our readers. Qualifying it, of course, as a possibility, not a fact. Otherwise we will have to start to deleting ridiculously self-evident stuff. Is "Bollywood" a reference to "Hollywood?" Probably it is. But can you cite it? Ethan Mitchell (talk) 00:21, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Just because everyone else has it doesn't mean that it's necessarily acceptable. There's a difference in significance. Saying that Rossum is a reference to RUR isn't necessarily true; that's not a connection that just anyone would make. And again, there is the possibility that Whedon simply meant nothing by it. Could we really draw a connection between the Blue Sun Corporation (Firefly) and, say, Blue Sun Diesel ( http://www.gobluesun.com/ ), a biodiesel company (if they had a Wiki article)? Probably not. And you're right, if the association is commonplace isn't being contested, then we could link it. But I am contesting it. So isn't it better to err on the side of caution and not link it? And just for argument's sake, I could draw a connection between Bollywood and Hollywood using this link: "The term "Bollywood" is a combination of Hollywood and Bombay". — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:41, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No question, a reliable source would be needed to justify mentioning R.U.R. in the article. All we have here is a suspicion of a connection. For all we know, Whedon might have chosen the name Rossum because of R.U.R.; he might have chosen it because at the moment he needed a name, he'd just met a cab driver named Rossum; or he might have been told to use that name by an avatar of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. I have an opinion on which of those I think most likely, and I have a preference for which one I'd most like to be true; but so far, I don't have a reliable source confirming or refuting any of them. --Pi zero (talk) 02:56, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

And thus, I say, "ha". Wonder if Whedon read this talk page, and specifically decided to fix it? "Um... Rossum is, is just a name. Actually, from a play. Although, technically, for us... it seemed to fit." I see someone even already added it, with reference. I just needed to point out, "ha". —Preceding unsigned comment added by AdamField (talk • contribs) 18:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Series 2 Episode 11 42:00 min

Caroline:"So you're Rossum"

Clyde:"Erm, Rossum is just a name, actually, from a play .Although technically it seemed to fit" —Preceding unsigned comment added by Excelis4 (talk • contribs) 17:33, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Complaint

Im not positive that this is wring, but is everyone shure that the role of Whiskey/Dr Saunders is originally supposed to go to a woman in her 50's? How could she have been their most popular doll at that age as most of the assignments require beauty? Thats simply not possible, is it? Its original research at best.

Whats going on here? I changed the plot portion to more correctly reflect the err plot. Whats up? Its certainly not a locked page, and the plot is incorrect. It doesn't even give the name of the main character, ehich is Caroline, if you simply give those details, one might well think that she is there voluntarily, and the enterprise is legit. The whole point is that it is an illegal)or would be if people knew it existed) organization, and it is a conpiracy. Lets discuss this, if you like. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.72.148.192 (talk) 04:45, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

I believe you are misunderstanding. The body, Whiskey, was the number one doll. 50 year old Sanders was the doctor. When Sanders was killed her 50 year old personality was imprinted on Whiskeys young body. They were not orignally the same person. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.177.47.137 (talk • contribs) 04:40, October 3, 2009

Question... why are you typing with a drunken slur??

But yes, the role of Dr. Saunders has been states as originally planned to be played by a much older actress. A simple answer to the other issues is that in these original scriptings she might not have been intended to be a Doll. Also, Caroline is not the main character. Caroline's body is, but the Caroline is not home; only Echo is. Heck, Echo (in Caroline's body) meets Caroline (in another body).

Anywho, Caroline also is there voluntarily. She signed the contract. All of the dolls are willing employees, or at least the bodies of them. It's tricky. But this isn't the place to discuss the show, just to discuss the article.--Human.v2.0 (talk) 01:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Needs established that Sierra isn't there voluntarily. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 09:10, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, I forgot about that. It really does need to be clarified that she is the only known Doll to have been placed in the Dollhouse against her will. Still, as far as I recall she's the only one we know of in that situation. --Human.v2.0 (talk) 16:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer not to use that type of language, as some of the actives fall in between "completely voluntary" (November) and "completely involuntary" (Sierra before Belonging). For example Echo signed up to avoid criminal charges. I think each character entry should mention the circumstances their recruitment, if known, while the plot section should just mention that, although all the actives are supposedly volunteers, this is not always the case, without going into details. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 03:04, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Sierra was in the dollhouse voluntarily. Even though if it was half voluntarily. Topher asked her if she wanted to leave (scene in the medical facility) and she said yes. She asked for help and this is what Topher provided. You can say she said yes without knowing what she was saying yes to, but then again Caroline signed away 5 years without knowing either. Secondly Sierra came back to the Dollhouse "voluntarily" after having killed a man. Whether it was to grieve like November did with her daughter OR whether it was too avoid scrutiny from the law. In either case she gets into the chair voluntarily at the end of Belonging. Meowies (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I have a problem with strong language such as "completely voluntary" because it misleadingly imples there was no duress, and that they knew what they were getting into. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 05:13, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Season 1 Ratings Average

I just made a change to the average for season 1, as 4.6 million seemed odd as the only episode that actually reached that was the pilot episode, from looking at the episodes page. 4.6 million is the average for the live + DVR viewing numbers, so I wanted to adjust it for the proper ratings. I just took the numbers from the episode page to get the new average. Hope everyone is fine with that. Drovethrughosts (talk) 23:55, 1 November 2009 (UTC)

I fixed your edit. 86.168.12.237 (talk) 13:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Original research on Boyd?

So an anon IP added some text on Boyd potentially being a doll, and I reverted it. And then they added the text again. Can someone take a look at that edit and comment on whether or not it's original research? Seems to me that changing the sentence to "When Echo regains Caroline's memories, she discovers that one of the two founders of the Rossum Corporation at one time had been using Boyd's body as a host and thus Boyd himself is most certainly a Doll seemingly installed in the Dollhouse to become Echo's handler." is OR. The show hasn't definitively stated that Boyd is a doll, so it's pure speculation until stated otherwise. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:32, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

In The Attic, Clyde speculated that the other founder had probably switched bodies, however this has not yet been established as a fact, it's also possible that "Boyd" is still in his original body. We'll probably have a definitive answer when the next episode airs in a couple days. As for the 5th body comment, that refers to the other Clyde. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 07:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Dr. Ewen Cameron's Mind Control Experiments

I wonder if this show is inspired by the horrific experiments of Dr. Ewen Cameron, in the 1950s. Cameron, funded by the CIA, subjected 77 subjects to hundreds of electroshock treatments and used LSD and other drugs in an attempt to "depattern" them, erase their memories and personalities. He then tried to implant new personalities by playing tape recordings. DonPMitchell (talk) 19:08, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Citation style and synthesis issues

I thought I would point out that the citations styles denoting the episode that certain events occur in ("E-12", etc.) are confusing and not in line with out regular style guidelines for citations. Additionally, this moves into a very gray area in regard to synthesis, taking two different episodes and deducing connections. I would ask that the citation styles be altered to conform with our style guidelines, and that events in each episode be cited by external sources.
I will wait a few days, and then take action myself. - Arcayne (^{cast a spell}) 19:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Reliable secondary sources are generally preferred over primary sources, however according to Wikipedia:No original research#Primary, secondary and tertiary sources, "Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source can be used only to make descriptive statements that can be verified by any educated person without specialist knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source.". In other words, primary sources are adequate for plot summaries. I recommend adding the {{citation style}} and / or {{refimprove}} tags and tagging any alleged instances of improper synthesis with {{syn}}. -- Gordon Ecker (talk) 10:05, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Far too much information revealed about the series finale

The purpose of Wikipedia articles is to provide general information about certain things; when it comes to television shows and/or novels it is not the purpose of an encyclopedic article to "spoil" (as internet lingo dictates) literally everything about the show. While I've tried to fix this problem before, whoever it is that has honestly gone back in and typed whole paragraphs detailing the ending, every plot twist, and the fate of every character has redone their "spoiling."

If this author has a wish to write detailed episodic information relating to plot revelations and characters' fates, that author needs to relegate their postings to the individual episode entries, or save their work for the official Dollhouse wikia website.164.106.234.73 (talk) 15:43, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Per WP:SPOILER, Wikipedia does not censor spoilers. An article is meant to discuss all aspects of the show, including plot points and things like that. If you don't like it, don't read it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:48, 9 April 2010 (UTC)

Is this show part of the Buffy/Angel Universe?

Josh Wedon created all three shows Amy Acker played a scientist in the first episode of Dollhouse and in the last year of Angel (before she was turned into a goddess) even thought Eliza played Faith in Buffy and Angel and Echo in Dollhouse it would not be the first time a director/creator used the same actor for multiple parts. -- Marc Chase — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.33.195.254 (talk) 18:17, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Whedon used many of the same actors from his other shows (a common idea), but it's not part of the Buffy/Angel universe. They would have to share the same characters for that to be the case. Drovethrughosts (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Joss Whedon also had a number of actors from Firefly/Serenity who appeared in Buffy, Angel and Dollhouse, but playing completely unrelated characters in different fictional universes. RGCorris (talk) 23:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Dolls (Actives) are named through NATO Phonetic Alphabet designations for letters

While it's never been established within the story itself, the given names of the Dolls (Actives) are actually the phonetic designation of the letters using the NATO Phonetic Alphabet standard. For instance, "Alpha" is letter "A", "Echo" is letter "E", "November" - N, "Sierra" - S, "Victor" - V, and "Whiskey" - W. I'm not sure the relevance for including it in the description. Michaelopolis (talk) 18:13, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

This is already included in the article here. Drovethrughosts (talk) 18:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Dollhouse (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.dollverse.com/index.php/Dollverse-Blogs/49-Casting-process-rumours.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100131044226/http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05 to http://abcmedianet.com/web/dnr/dispDNR.aspx?id=051909_05

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Dollhouse (TV series). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110716073932/http://www.singtel-ustv.com/content/epitaph-one to http://www.singtel-ustv.com/content/epitaph-one
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110708094853/http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/fox-tvs-dollhouse-transitions-1006/ to http://broadcastengineering.com/hdtv/fox-tvs-dollhouse-transitions-1006/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100119075856/http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/telefile/2010/01/todays-twop-news-january-15-20.php to http://www.televisionwithoutpity.com/telefile/2010/01/todays-twop-news-january-15-20.php
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100723100759/http://www.ugo.com/tv/exclusive-dollhouse-comic-book-first-look to http://www.ugo.com/tv/exclusive-dollhouse-comic-book-first-look

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 12 September 2017 (UTC)