House ranks number 3 in the list of most DVR'd shows this season. http://tv.yahoo.com/slideshow/193/photos/1

Alan Sepinwall of the NJ Star-Ledger gives the raspberry to Fox for it's choice of Emmy host. In view of the writer's strike, I agree that the ability to think on one's feet and ad lib with grace and humor really should be a requirement for this year's award show hosts.

He's still bitching about a hosting decision made more than six months ago? Some people just can't let things go, can they. And God forbid that there's still a writer's strike going on in September this year. Let's not even consider that possibility, shall we?

I like Alan, but he's smart enough to know that not only is he to take everything that "insiders" tell him with a grain of salt, even when what they're telling him is based in fact there's still so much more at play. Was Hugh a serious consideration or just a name that came up in brainstorming? Could he do it with his "House" schedule? Did he *want* to do it? Was the cost worth it versus the cost of getting Seacrest? For that matter, wtf? I know that everyone on the planet says they hate Ryan Seacrest, but everyone on the planet claims to hate Celine Dion too and she keeps making her millions. He's an easy target, but that's his gig, he's a hugely popular Fox personality and we know from the whining *within* the fandom that if Hugh Laurie had hosted there was still no guarantee that it was going to be any better than with Seacrest hosting. And while I'm certainly willing to believe that there are plenty of people at Fox that are stupid enough to say "I don't know about that accent..." it's bullshit that that's the reason he didn't host. That's just something that makes for an entertaining "oh, those guys at Fox are so stupid!" story to pass along.

You're right...that was a little harsher than anything else in the column. Not that the entire column isn't a little weird. He's moving into Lisa De Moraes "angry for no reason" territory. wrt Duchovny...I'll never really get that criticism. Not just about him, but about any actor it's applied to because it's so arbitrary. You like the actor, you give them passes. You don't and the every flaw on the show is their fault. Duchovny didn't create Hank. He didn't make him up. He's not writing him each week. He's *playing* him. And he's playing him very well. So he's unsympathetic? Okay. Talk to the writers about that. He called out the writers on all the other shows that did irritating things this year. Duchovny might have an EP title, but he didn't create the character or the show.

I rather doubt HL would even want to host one of these things somehow. One: Putting my own anti American Idol/Survivor/Dancing With The Stars/"reality" show bias aside for the moment, it's a fact that these things are wildly popular. Like it or not, it makes a degree of "ratings" sense to use someone like Seacrest. Two: That said, the numbers for awards shows have been steadily declining, and if Seacrest or any other host can't carry the ball during the strike period, the popularity of their other venues is completely irrelevant. Quite honestly, the best moments of any award show are rarely the scripted ones. The written banter doesn't knock my socks off; the host ad libs, the winners' memorable speeches (prepared or not), and the clips often do. If the strike forces a change in the format of these shows, the host had damn well better be entertaining in order to hold the viewers. Three: I doubt you can even get a job as an entertainment writer unless you have a hefty dose of snarkiness in your nature. More's the pity, but think Walter Winchell not Edward R. Murrow. It's a power trip, pure and simple. Extracting the information, and disregarding the egos is the only way to read this stuff. Frankly, Sepinwell, De Moraes, Ausiello, and the rest all pretty much suck it. Four: The snipe at Duchovny was weird. Why Sepinwell holds him personally responsible is a mystery to me. He perhaps shows a degree of what, envy? Does Alan have a paunch and unfortunate hair?

Alan's actually a pretty nice guy from my dealings with him, many years ago, on usenet. He's smart and funny and just...nice. I don't know why this column has such an edge. He loves television and isn't generally a snob of any kind. Who knows what his deal with Duchovny is. If he has any long standing dislike of him I've either missed it all together or willfully tuned it out entirely. I rather doubt HL would even want to host one of these things somehow. I have no idea one way or the other, but he has experience as a host, just not a host of an awards show. At least I don't think he has. I'm sure Stephen could give him some advice on the subject should he ever be seriously asked at a time when he could actually do it. I don't know that the Emmys themselves would necessarily be a turn off for him or that he wouldn't want to host them (or something bigger) somewhere down the line if he's asked at the right time. Imo, that's the biggest issue with his allegedly being considered this past year: I just don't see how he could have shot "House" and worked on the Emmys at the same time. I know that people can do it, but most of those people aren't appearing in 95% of the scenes of a weekly one hour drama series.

In other news: the year end issue of EW has a sidebar which proclaims Wilhelmina Slater to be Best Cutthroat Bitch. Their Honorable Mention? Cutthroat Bitch. 27% of readers responding picked "House" as the best drama. "Lost" won with 37%. There's probably more in EW, but my attention span only allowed me to read polls and sidebars. The real stuff comes later. The "Best Of" issue of people has a side bar with stars recommending their favorite shows. Jesse, awesomely, says his fave is "Flight of the Conchords".

If the host doesn't have much to say about the format of the show itself, and I don't think they do, HL is better off not to have hosted the last Emmy show. It was awful. The round seating made no sense and looked bad. Then Ray Romano, who is not even on TV now, talked for ten minutes about nothing so that by the time the presenters at the end of the show came on,like HL, they were running so late that all they had time for was to read the nominations. I don't blame Ryan, I think he did the best he could with what he was given, but I'm not sorry Hugh didn't host that show.

Please define xenophobic and exlplain Chloe Sevigny, who that is and what the remarks were. I have no idea what you mean-what small mindedness?In spite of not being the most savvy person, I usually know what you guys are talking about.Sorry and thanks in advance!

but I also wonder about any xenophobic reactions. (Omigod, a Lou Dobbs Special) I *really* doubt that would happen in any serious way. It doesn't matter who hosts the Emmys, we're all going to bitch about it. Billy Crystal's one of the most popular Oscar hosts ever and he still gets shit. Letterman's one of the most popular, beloved comedians out there and he was panned. Even Ellen and Jon, who both have very mainstream audiences, were criticised in some way and Chris Rock had no lasting impact. Hugh's going to be open for criticism should he ever actually host something like that. That's just the way it goes. His being British is only an issue if someone runs out of things to complain about. Everyone everywhere has something that bugs them and everyone and their brother now has an outlet to express that annoyance. And if they're not actually bothered by something they'll create something. In the grand scheme of things, nobody gives a shit unless they can sell it. mainstream outlets Who? And in what context?