Someone linked to Ausiello over in the media thread and there is an interesting line in KJ's interview. How did the actors find out their characters were being fired? By reading the script? Jacobs: No. We wouldn't do that. But David and I also knew that if we sent a message to the set that we wanted to meet with them, then they would know automatically that . But, unfortunately, this became the way that we did it, because we felt that it was really important — even before the actors' representation knew. First we would talk to Hugh and let him know — because we always include him in the business of the show — and then David and I would go visit them in their trailer or we would call them on the phone. It was horrible. It was really horrible. Is that usual on a series, to cut the star in on decisions of this sort? I can only assume that HL also has a lot of input on these decisions.

I posted it and also posted over there that I think there's something kind of shitty about it. Why does he need that information first? I recognize that he has an amazing amount of input and obviously has a lot of power, but if he's going to be the first person told and have any kind of input at all then give him a title and a pay bump. Because otherwise, it's just an actor who looks like he's running the show, whether he really is or not. And I would at least like to think that there's some balance and it's not all about what pleases and displeases Hugh Laurie. Oh God, bailey, I so want to love this idea; it's such an elegant theory. I worry though, considering the kind of tripe that's popular on American TV (who are those Nielsen families!?) that it might result in an avalanche of claptrap. I guess I take the Thomas Jefferson view - I believe in democracy, but I'm appalled at what people do with it. Yeah, it's kind of a slippery slope. I think it would ultimately result in less choice, not necessarily because the public would vote to put twelve different American Idol clones on the air but because the networks would choose to produce cheaper and less interesting programming because they know that we want to watch *something* and people will convince themselves that they have to make a choice and then stick with that choice. I think there needs to be variety on television. I like that there's some reality, some high concept drama, some procedurals, some traditional sitcoms and some single camera sitcoms. I like that there are choices. There have always been the same basic genres, there were just so fewer channels and outlets. With more choices of channels come more need for programming and more watered down quickie shows. "Friends" is popular, so let's have twelve knock offs. "House" is popular, lets try to find some House-like characters to base shows around. The knock offs are usually not very good. For every successful remake like "The Office" there are twelve unsuccessful remakes like "Coupling". It's just hit or miss. But, as long as there are executives who want to make their mark and have good ideas and want to target a different audience there will always be a "Freaks and Geeks" or "My So Called Life" that will slip through and even if they don't succeed (on television, at least) at least we get to see them. I don't think either would have made it if the public had voted.

I wouldn't call it shitty. Sounds to me more like they're including him in their thought process and getting HL's feedback. Since he's working with the actors and those characters day-by-day on the set, he may have a different feel for the give-and-take between characters than they're getting in the writer's room. After all, there's a lot that happens with real chemistry between actors than appears on the written page.

I wouldn't call it shitty. Sounds to me more like they're including him in their thought process and getting HL's feedback. I have zero problem with him giving feedback or being included in the thought process, what I have a problem with is the picture painted by Jacobs which, again, I think is bullshit. There's zero reason for her to tell Michael Ausiello that Hugh learns who is fired before the party being dismissed finds out. I'm not really sure that the lead actor *needs* to be advised of the "business" of the show. Plus, even the vaguest implication that any final decision might come from him, imo, does a diservice to the show, him and their authority. Previous to that, I had a VHS dub that might be the same as the one so eloquently described by Amysusanne. Heh. It really is bad and it probably is the same copy. I really, really, really wish I could remember who gave me that copy but I can't. They also sent me other things, unrelated to Hugh, but at some point I got them confused with someone else, emailed that person, was met with a "what are you talking about?" and realized that I'd become one of those people who no longer remembers what she did the day before. I've become a ditz. That was the source of the Part 3 segments which were so grainy and hard to watch. I tried making a copy for someone a couple of years back (before the better copies made their way into circulation) and it was so bad that the DVD recorder wouldn't recognize it as an actual recording. It thought it was dead air and kept cutting out. I wound up putting part one on DVD and the other two parts on VHS and, I'm pretty sure, the person I sent it to didn't have a VHS player and...let's just say there were a lot of man hours put into a project that wound up being useless. Incidentally, my copy from Amazon arrived today. In a manilla bubble mailer. wtf? I've never received anything from Amazon in a bubble envelope. It was so generic and strange. Did they outsource to some dude with a storage unit full of manilla bubble mailers?

Attention Stephen fans: Stephen's HIV documentary will be on the Sundance Channel Saturday, Dec. 1st. Check local listings for the time - on DirecTV it looks like part 1 is 2p eastern/11a pacific time, followed by part 2.

It's interesting to me to see how everyone reacts to the same pieces of news and interviews! I totally respect everyone's opinion on the letting Hugh in on who's being fired thing...but I guess I just don't see what's so bad about it. I didn't take it that he had the final say...just that they were giving him a headsup since he's the one who shares more scenes with these people than anyone else...I guess like what namaste said. I think I agree that it probably wasn't necessary to tell him before telling the fired people but I'm also not getting a "better check with Hugh to make sure it's ok" vibe. It doesn't strike me as all that odd that Hugh gets that kinda info first since he's the star but I think that probably shows how little I know about and understand the way TV shows work. Sounds to me like he's involved enough to get a producer credit like you're implying amysusanne (at least I think that's what you meant!!)...and I think he should have one if he's spending a lot of time contributing to the production of the show beyond his acting role. I don't really think there's anything wrong with that. But I might just be misunderstanding those of you who think something's a little crappy about it. In other disappointing interview news (cause that's always good times!)...I read on an LJ that that Star Trek quote from Hugh about the show...you know the "Please help me" line that keeps getting recycled...is actually from Stephen's autobio! I totally didn't know that! Actually it didn't disappoint me to learn that cause I think Hugh's incredibly thoughtful and funny in his own right and the fact that he borrowed a line from his every bit as thoughtful and funny friend just doesn't register with me as annoying...but I think it may have hit a nerve with some others. Oh well. Can you imagine how many lines get borrowed and recycled within that whole little circle of friends though? I mean really... And in other news...my DVD hasn't arrived and I'm not bitter. At all. Really. Spoffles...who needs to see them in DVD quality anyway??

I don't see what the big deal is about Hugh knowing before them. Does it really matter? Is he finding out the results of their AIDS test or something? I try not to feel sorry for the members who get cut cause I think the fact that they even landed the roles is pretty great for an unknown actor. Beats waiting tables. But I do feel sorry for them anyway.

I'm not really sure that I fully believe what KJ is saying about the process. When she says it was decided as late as possible I think that was earlier on then she would like us to believe. I can't see the writers waiting to see from week to week which characters interact best with Hugh/House as they dwindled the candiates down. It seems more likely that as far back as when they were casting only the final five (Cole, Taub, Kutner, Amber & 13) ever had a real shot. They were made acceptable characters so that the audience wouldn't be certain of the final choices and then spotlighted and cut until TPTB got to where I think they knew they were going all along or at least very early on say by the time episode 3 or 4 was written or started shooting. The casting itself is a give away. Its just not likely that Kal Penn was ever not staying. Getting him was a coup and that's that. Whether Hugh found him charming to work with or abhorant he was never going anywhere. These are actors its not Match.com. So he was cast as Kutner and not say Brennan (or Cole as KJ mentioned). No female but AD and OW ever had a shot and of the two OW slightly higher profile (former FOX star) just fits this show's casting profile more. I also don't see them bothering Hugh with the weekly kill. Doesn't this man have enough to think about. He trusts DS and KJ, et al. I'm sure they laid it all out for him in one meeting early on. Then individually let each actor know where they stood. I mean can you imagine an actor and their agent not knowing what they were going to do from week to week for 4 months or longer depending on how early they were cast. How do they pitch themselves for other work or do they do nothing while they wait to hear. That would be very bad business and career management. They started shooting around mid July and probably started shooting Games around the end of Sept. The press leaks of the final 3 came out the first of October. They all knew way before that, most of them probably from the word Go.

I don't know why we shouldn't believe KJ on this one as to how the selection process was conducted. I had read that they originally set up 8 actors with tentative deals, indicating that the final selection wasn't set in stone. The producers have said they didn't make the decision in advance, the actors themselves have said it, and the original cast have agreed that was the way it was done. Kal Penn had signed on to teach a course at Penn and has now had to opt out of doing the second half of it because he got the role. LE has spoken about how tough it was to say goodbye to each person as they found out they were being cut. I admit I thought at first that it was all decided in the beginning of the arc, but I don't believe that now. It just seems ridiculous that they would go to so much trouble to do a pretend elimination process when the average fan wouldn't even know what was going on in the background process anyway. On a more important note, what bothers me about Hugh's Star Trek quote is that he got it wrong. This came up back on that other place and to21b contributed the following lines from City on the Edge of Forever: Edith: "Whatever it is, let me help." Kirk: "Let me help. A hundred years or so from now, I believe, a famous novelist will write a classic using that theme. He'll recommend those three words even over 'I love you'." Do I remember correctly that Stephen Fry (and possibly Hugh, too) have mentioned watching and liking the original Star Trek? I can't remember if that was in an interview or maybe even Stephens "Moab is my Washpot" I'm not surprised to hear Hugh and Stephen quoting each other. Those two guys have been picking each other's brains for 25 years. I loved that scene in the BBC celebration of SF's 50th where HL and SF are individually discussing when they had thought it was time in their careers to move from sketch comedy to more serious acting. They cut back and forth between Hugh and Stephen telling essentially the same story, in the same words. They were literally finishing each other's sentences, even though they were telling the story at different times and in different places. That was very cool.