I think those were valid, well-thought out opinions. I adore the show and will continue to watch, but there are times I do roll my eyes at the more soap opera-ish elements. Critics watch 20+ hours of prime time a week. If for some of them, House has been demoted from "must see" to "watch sometimes," I understand. I get annoyed at someone like Sepinwall. I am second to none in my loathing of Thirteen but after Team Work he ranted about how they were shoving her down our throats and he wouldn't watch any longer. She had about 3 minutes of screen time in that episode (and none for several episodes before that.) He's been expressing dissatisfaction for a while but choosing that as an excuse for dropping the show did smack of jumping on the band wagon.

In Sepinwall's defense, three minutes of 13 can seem like an eternity. LOL Besides, she *was* shoved down our throats so much in the past two years and early part of this season that 13-overload seems like a really valid excuse to drop the show to me. Maybe it was having her back at all that was the straw that broke that camel's back. The break from her was nice, so having her return as Ms. Pratically Perfect felt like a set up for another round of all-13-all-the-time. In other news, Jesse's on Buddy TV's list of Sexiest Men. There's some media I can definitely agree with.

I still say they are being sheep this past week because it seems there have been about half a dozen critics piping up about how they don't like House anymore. I still say that's piling on. I know some of their criticisms are perfectly valid, and I agree with some of them, but their timing was odd to me. This season started out very strong with the premier and next couple of episodes. Then we got a couple of clunkers, a fairly good episode, and then a very good episode. If they were going to devote a column to how bad House is now, I would think that after the clunkers would have been the appropriate time, not this past week. I suspect that some of these guys haven't watched in ages but once they saw that someone had come out with a critical column they decided to voice their displeasure again, regardless of what's been going on in the show lately. I suspect that Chiara's post has a lot of truth to it concerning how critics operate.

Man some of it was harsh but it held some valid points to it. But if you think that was bad you should see what someone else wrote in another article (someone pointed it out to me in the fox forums) and that was way way harsher than this. That being said, I don't think the critics are pathetic sheeps at all. You don't have to be in movies or television to know a lot about the business. When I looked and followed all of these critics thay had an open mind about the new team and were curious on how this was all going to play out but it turned sour when they saw the final outcome. Since then criticisms were piling up from all sides as early as season 4. It started off mild but it just seemed to have gotten louder. So I don't think they followed one another I think they were seriously straining their patience just to hold on to the show and are at their point where they just can't anymore. I don't think they are following one another because all of these critics had different reasons to be disecnhanted and don't forget there are critics who still like the show. I go on to google and there are about over 40 or so critical reviews most of the time they are mixed. I do find it interesting/amusing though that these criticisms now are being met with furious rebutall. I think it is unfair though to like critics when they praise them and then turn around and slam them when they say something that the they don't like. But then again the true believers of the show or to use a political term "the base" would always love the show no matter how bad it gets but some could argue that they are being blind themselves and putting on blinkers. But from what I have been told there were some original viewers who have left as well so I dunno. You can start a show with the people who stick by it through thick and thin but you can't survive in the Hollywood buisness of marketing & advertisment with your base either because what the base sees/believes is at odds with the the casual viewers/moderate viewers which help make up the ratings and the overall success of the show (which are measured in trends) and are vital to a shows success. Just like in politics keep your base while you reach out to the rest of the electorate (swingers, independants, moderates). It's like walking a tightrope. But the critics whether we like it or not have more influence on people than we like to admit especially the ones who have a lot of respect and have been in the business for a while and the more respect and admiration they have from people the mpore power and influence they have. Someone mentioned earlier in the thread that movie and televsion critics are not the same animal which is true. Big difference is money and advertisments and knowing a few people in the buisness, corporations rely on advertisments, it is like their lifeline unless they are funded by government. Advertisers in television look for focus groups and critics and if they detect a trend then they get jittery about it and not go all in. Unlike in movies the corporations don't have to worry very much about advertisers while it is important to them they concentrate more on the box office and the DVD/CD and merchandising of the movie and not advertisments on other random items which is a little unfair because the movie corporations can bring in loads more money and can afford to spend more money than those in the televsion business. It's a harsh business but that is how corporations/showbiz works

Just like in politics keep your base while you reach out to the rest of the electorate (swingers, independants, moderates). It's like walking a tightrope. An interesting way of putting it. But I think the biggest problem that the House brigade has is how it handles its base (which is apparently composed of serious splinter groups that are splintering even more)...and how it's been handling the media. As an original viewer (heck, I have the unaired pilot DVD) and someone who works in part as a critic for a living (not of TV, but the skills aren't that different), I found the jettisoning of Cameron poorly written and executed. I feel the same disappointment as the critics. And I think calling them "pathetic sheep" is more than just a bit harsh and misguided. But I don't think the media effect would be quite so pronounced if TPTB at House were better at managing their fandom. The Cameron thing wouldn't have been quite so off-putting if they'd just settled the whole thing without resorting to coy and misleading information after the spoilers broke. You can't put the genie back in the bottle after its out, so you might as well work with it. Jacobs and Shore have been caught lying (or at the very least misleading) fans numerous times over the past couple of years. Their credibility is strained. Compare that to a show like Criminal Minds. It's been lambasted by critics (unfairly, IMHO, but it's not everyone's cup of tea), but none of its very devoted fandom cares about what the media writes about it. Why? Because its showrunners, though they are every bit as independent in their writing as House is, don't treat their fans in so cavalier a fashion. It's almost a symbiotic relationship. And in an era when media, fandom and the creative teams behind the shows are connected in ways that they haven't been before that counts for something.

I get annoyed at someone like Sepinwall. I am second to none in my loathing of Thirteen but after Team Work he ranted about how they were shoving her down our throats and he wouldn't watch any longer. She had about 3 minutes of screen time in that episode (and none for several episodes before that.) He's been expressing dissatisfaction for a while but choosing that as an excuse for dropping the show did smack of jumping on the band wagon. I had the same feeling because when I read that I thought that 13 had hardly had much screentime this year. Wasn't she even missing in 1-2 episodes? I don't loathe her the way others do and Fourteen doesn't bother me either. I do agree last year, it was a little overkill. I love Huddy so anything related to House and Cuddy, I am a happy camper. But I have not liked how they have handled the relationship this year and Cuddy seems like another person to me and not a particularly likeable one. If I am having issues with it, the ones that never liked the relationship must want to scratch their face with a brillo pad. My main gripe though is where or where has Hugh gone? Is it me or is his screentime get less and less and why? I can only think they are saving him for the 2nd half of the season. If the ratings stay decent (they are about the same as last year) and they continue to do well in the coveted age group, they are going to tell their story the way they want, for better or for worse. We are only 1/2 through the season and I am more than willing to see where they are going to take us the 2nd 1/2. I've never paid any attention to what TV critics have to say and have never heard anyone say that they either chose to watch or not watch a TV show because of a critic. This will sound a bit snarky but how seriously can anyone take a TV critic anyway? I know people who stopped watching House because of boreteen but I've never met anyone who was influenced by a critic. Further, there are plenty of shows on TV that are hated by critics but have high ratings and I doubt that advertisers are that concerned about what the critics have to say about the show. Also it seems like I'm always seeing articles from critics griping about how TV audiences don't like certain shows, i.e. we are just too stupid to appreciate Friday Night Lights or whatever. House is a very successful show that is closer to the end of its run than the beginning. In a few years, HL will retire to England with his many millions. When a show is closer to the end than the beginning, it's just not as 'hip' anymore and attracts criticism. I've seen this cycle with every television show I've ever watched. Therefore, I'm not too concerned about bad reviews. House's ratings are high enough for the show to be on the air for a few more years which is probably all that HL and TPTB want anyway. Amen. I agree with this.

Depends on who you talk to. I know a lot of people who follow critics but the difference is they look at a whole range of critics before making a choice and the people who you talk to can have an influence on you as well. There are a lot of people who follow critics and take them serously particuarly the causal viewers/moderates/independants but again it depends on who you talk too. Critics, media and average people/audiences are a complex bunch of people like politics. Now in terms of critics vs their audience there has always been a hate/love relationship. I have seen shows like Friday Night Lights and the Wire and I love it because of the quality. There has always been this clash between critics and the audience (elites vs average joes) just like Hollywood has had a history of conflicts with middle America. The history is long and deep. Now the ratings of House has dropped but not to the point that it is in danger of any cancellation, its steady at average 13 million but not as good as previous seasons. They had no competion on a Monday nights and even that doesn't really help due to the fact that can't even crush their compeition any more (even if it is againest repeats and children christmas specials like they use to do.) They moved the show to Monday nights due to NCIS and their dominance in the ratings lately of a tuesday nights which is due to the buisness swavy people over at fox HQ. Murdoch has always been a businessman first and a conservative second anything that can help him reign in the big bucks is always good for him. You would be surprised how many people do care about what critics have to say, one advertiser told me that they look at these things just as closely as they do with the ratings. They try to detect trends and see if that trend matches the ratings and then they start to do the math. This is something I had to learn when doing marketing/commerce. Critics, trends, ratings, corporations and advertisers are strongly interlinked with one another. Sometimes they are in lockstep and sometimes they are not. That's just buisness. While it does look like a cycle the fact that the ratings/critics have been in lockstep with eachother lately is not a good sign but it could bounce back. There is always something called a silent majority and the word of the mouth which has a lot more power and influence then critics because this is the bunch that are silent but still have criticisms/praise or whatever. Plus people who have been disenchanted with the show can easily pass it on to others which can have a domino effect but again it depends on who you talk too since there are a range of different opinions. ETA: But I don't think the media effect would be quite so pronounced if TPTB at House were better at managing their fandom. The Cameron thing wouldn't have been quite so off-putting if they'd just settled the whole thing without resorting to coy and misleading information after the spoilers broke. You can't put the genie back in the bottle after its out, so you might as well work with it. Jacobs and Shore have been caught lying (or at the very least misleading) fans numerous times over the past couple of years. Their credibility is strained. In politics we call it media spin. And I for one has to say that they are crap at it. Whoever is their PR manager should be fired. They have been misleading the viewers about cameron and chase since season 4. JM was the last person to speak on her departure when everyone else had the chance to before her and what she said was the complete opposite to what everyone else was saying and she should know because she was the one who got kicked off. So the way it was handled just stunk of corporate politics - a game which they shouldn't play unless you are well equiped for that area. They kind of mislead the people about the idea that they didn't know who was going to be in the final team especially after news broke out that OW, KP, PJ were contracted to be in the final 5 which blew them out of the water straight away and the fact that they were the most recognizable people gave a lot of hints to the people. Their track record doesn't help them either because everytime they say something now even if its genuine they will be met with skepticism by the base and the public would be see it as just a cynical ploy. They are having a lot of trouble contolling/managing their base I think is because they too are split and maybe in the future there could be a revolt but doubt it. It's rare. Also I think its because of how they treat their fans which one has to admit is something no one should be proud of because they are entilted with some respect since they are the hand that feeds them. Mod Note: Please don't reply to yourself. Simply add to your previous post. I've edited your two posts together. Since you edited your post once, I know that you know how to use the edit feature. Thanks.

I do find it interesting/amusing though that these criticisms now are being met with furious rebutall. So if I disagree with a critic (and I've disagreed with critics often) I"m just a fangirl who can't express my opinion without being accused of "furious rebutal?" I might as well as why it is some people feel compelled to dash on the board and repeat: "See? See?" every time one of the negative criticisms is mentioned, but never comment on positive ones. Honestly, that attitude is why I didn't mention that Stephen King listed "House" in his top TV he's watching in 2009 in his Entertainment Weekly column because he specifies he's watching it on DVD and I was certain someone would follow that up with "well, once he sees what it's airing now, he'll hate it." But that would get into "boards and boards," so let's move on. I've never agreed 100 percent with any critic, anywhere. What I find curious now is that a lot of the issues they're raising -- the character is either changing or not changing, weak supporting characters, weak arcs -- have been there since the very beginning. The Vogler arc sucked. God knows that Foreman, Cameron and Chase were paper thin for the first 20 episodes or so and only developed slowly, the people whining about 13 are mirror images of the whining about Cameron (and I'll still take 13's issues over that mawkish, stereotype of a sweet ingenue falling for the gruff mentor anyday that was Cameron for the first two seasons). So a lot of the things critics are harping on now have been there since the start, but they're reacting as if they're new. I'm not some starry eyed fan who can't recognize the flaws. There are many and -- hey -- they've always been there. Every season has had a combination of outright clunkers, middle-of-the-road episodes and some bright shining stories. (Amazingly, not even groups of fans or critics agree as to which ones belong in each category. I've seen One Day, One Room held out as an example of the best and the worst.) But here's the thing. It appeals to me. I enjoy it. I shrug off its flaws because it touches me in emotional aspects that other shows (which I know intellectually are better "art"). I don't need a critic to tell me what to enjoy or not enjoy. If I like the same thing as them, fine. If they don't like it, that's fine too. At the same time, there are plenty of critics who are still on board, and still enjoy the show. Check out the previous page where one critics lists it as number 26 of the best shows of the decade -- even as he acknowledges its flaws. Why dwell on a handful who claim they're quitting the show (then run right back when it's an episode they like), and ignore the others? Does pointing out the positive comments mean there's "furious rebuttal?" Or just it does mean that criticism is not a monolithic entity with only one opinion? In a completely different topic ... Lisa Sanders takes on Sherlock Holmes in the Diagnosis column of NYTimes magazine, asking if the description fits Asperbergers, and mentioning other characters based on those traits at the end of the article, including House. (Although the print version called him "Geoffrey House," which made me giggle. It's been corrected in the electronic version.)

Just making an observation. Didn't realise people can be so touchy about these things. I have just never seen this type of reaction before while watching the show. Critics say things all the time and while there has been some reaction to it I haven't seen this much passion over it before. But then again we Australians are too laid back for our own good so I do find these things very amusing.

As usual, Namaste speaks my mind. If TV critics were so persuasive and powerful, Hugh Laurie would have had three Emmys on his mantle already. The current spate of negative criticsm is unimpressive now because it does seem to represent a bandwagon effect: "House" is in its sixth year of a remarkable run and the critics expect it to show signs of weakness and weariness because that is what many other shows of its age do. So, unsurprisingly, they find what they expect to find. Given the miniscule air time devoted to Thirteen this season, quiting "House" because of that character seems downright silly to me. I am tired of the "bromance," but I have absolutely no intention of stopping watching this superior show over that. "House" offers so much else that is emotionally satisfying, amusing, enlightening, and downright thrilling that I wouldn't dream of missing an episode.

If TV critics were so persuasive and powerful, Hugh Laurie would have had three Emmys on his mantle already. The current spate of negative criticsm is unimpressive now because it does seem to represent a bandwagon effect: "House" is in its sixth year of a remarkable run and the critics expect it to show signs of weakness and weariness because that is what many other shows of its age do. So, unsurprisingly, they find what they expect to find. Critics have more influence on casual/moderate viewers who follow them and these critics have people who follow them otherwise they wouldn't be in the buisness. Critics never had influence on the acedemy but they do have influence on the people who watch tv. I for one do not believe they are doing this because its a bandwagon effect if that were true than all the 40 reviews that I have read would be singin the same tune. As someone who has read these critics for years since they first started their careers in the ciritical buisness I for one do not believe that they are doing this simply because it is in its sixth year because these criticisms started as early as season 4 but it was only a very small minority and they did not expect it to see some king of weakness otherwise they wouldn't have been so open minded to the change or in their matter they wouldn't have kept on watching and writing about it Given the miniscule air time devoted to Thirteen this season, quiting "House" because of that character seems downright silly to me. I am tired of the "bromance," but I have absolutely no intention of stopping watching this superior show over that. "House" offers so much else that is emotionally satisfying, amusing, enlightening, and downright thrilling that I wouldn't dream of missing an episode. I remember 13 getting a fair bit of screen time early this season before getting fired and the rehired again and I will not be surprised if they go back down that route again. Now you might see it the way you as does Namesate and I totally respect that and I am sure the critics do they are not telling you what to watch they do critic these things but they don't shove it down your throat and force you to think the way they do either but again the casual/moderate viewers will not think the way you and others do. I am one of those moderate viewers so I know I am always at odds with the base and even the base is sometimes split. But I am one of those people who gets fairly amused with the amount of passion behind it like I said before there wasn't this much reaction to the critics before and they have been complaining (some not all) for a while now. If people here don't really care what the critics think or write then why are they are going all in? I would just assume that they just brush them off and ignore them so again I am very amused but this. Maybe this is why I don't like getting to attached to tv shows.

THEN WHY ARE YOU HERE? It's called passing the time. I cruise the net a lot and this one of the many places that I stop at after looking through my political, law, historical and social websites for research for the law department but again I am not attached to it. I haven't been here for years actually.