Incidentally, my copy from Amazon arrived today. In a manilla bubble mailer. Me too. It was a red letter day at my mailbox, for sure! Lots of Hugh is the best thing ever. That was my reaction, too. I just figured that a) it was a courtesy thing, so he wouldn't be blindsided, and b) that he might need to have a little extra time to figure out how he wanted to approach the acting side of things with that character based on the end result. I read it, despite the source, as a totally positive thing. I just quoted the first paragraph of sherlockjr's post because quoting the whole thing would be odd but nonethless, absolutely, what sherlockjr said, both on Hugh (he seems like he's a de facto producer and co-director, but would likely balk at being credited as such). And yes, I was disturbed about the creep that stalked him and shot those photos in the mirror at his workout gym. And yes, I looked at them too, but it felt extremely voyeurish and I don't like that feeling mixed up with my otherwise excellent feelings about HL. I think I'm done with paparazzi pix.

Maybe I'm just an old cynic (wait no maybe about it). But for me that's just publicity and reading out of the team playbook. Oh, no doubt. They've known. They knew the final five before they started dismissing people. And I don't really care that Katie Jacobs has never seen "Harold and Kumar" (or "Stuart Little", for that matter, though I don't think that example helped her point the way she thought it would) because plenty of people who have a say in "House" have. They know he's a "get". And, really, she's not stupid. She knows he was a get too. On top of that, they know Olivia Wilde has been an "it" girl for the past couple of years. I'm willing to believe whatever they might tell me about how they started out wanting two and wound up deciding on three because of the way it went, blah, blah, blah, but I'm not really too convinced that it wasn't clear very early on that Kal and Olivia were going to make the cut, however many they were really casting. I just quoted the first paragraph of sherlockjr's post because quoting the whole thing would be odd but nonethless, absolutely, what sherlockjr said, both on Hugh (he seems like he's a de facto producer and co-director, but would likely balk at being credited as such). I'm not sure I believe that. Hugh's a professional and he's been in this business for more than half of his life. He's not stupid when it comes to business and he's not so stupid, imo, that he doesn't know that this is his jackpot. If "House" carries on longer than most of us think it would or should, the producer credit will wind up on the table and I think he'll take it. 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'm not crazy about it, but I do understand it. What I don't like at all and don't understand at all is why the audience should be told that. There was no reason for her to throw that in and I do think that it added a different tone to her comments. Without that, it's a story about how two producers handle the "firing" of actors on a weekly basis. With it, it's the story about how two producers check with Hugh Laurie, their employee, before they do their jobs.

As For Kal's teaching gig yes I heard that but who knows how far ahead he was scheduled to teach so the fact that he had to drop the second half for House doesn't tell me how early or late he knew he was staying. Kal Penn's teaching gig was announced back in March., IIRC -- it was well before the opening came up on "House," and I assume he already had everything in place to commit to the semester. I seem to recall that most speculation when he was cast during the summer was that he wouldn't be a finalist because of that commitment. Also in that interview, KJ noted that logisitically it was difficult to talk to the actor about to be fired, because once they called for the actor to come to their offices for a meeting, everyone on the set knew. They can meet with HL anytime without causing suspicion.

That was my reaction, too. I just figured that a) it was a courtesy thing, so he wouldn't be blindsided, and b) that he might need to have a little extra time to figure out how he wanted to approach the acting side of things with that character based on the end result. I read it, despite the source, as a totally positive thing. I too didn't interpret KJ's remarks as Hugh having any input. From what she said they already made the decision. And it makes sense that HL would be told first, as House is the character making that decision. HL has to have some idea of who House is going to hire or fire in order to play it.

It seems that the Hugh is not safe from cameras this week. I stumbled over two new pics of him here. They seem harmless, so I'm not going to feel too guilty over posting the link. :innocent:

And it makes sense that HL would be told first, as House is the character making that decision. HL has to have some idea of who House is going to hire or fire in order to play it. I completely disagree. Hugh having to wait the half hour it would take them to walk over to the dismissed newbie's trailer and talk to them isn't going to make any difference in his portrayal of his character. For that matter, he can read the script and prepare just like the rest of them do. That has nothing to do with my opinion of how Katie chose to portray the hows and whys of their process, that's just my opinion of the work in general. Obviously, in the real world (and their set is very much in the real world) people know who is going to be fired from their job before they do. People know who is sleeping with who and who has backstabbed who and spends their two hour lunch break drinking in their office. That's just work. That's every job. But I really do think that in her statements she gave off the impression that There are three executive producers actively running the show and that one of them is Hugh. And, again, I don't like that she told us that he knew, for example, Edi was going to be written out before Edi knew. It seems that the Hugh is not safe from cameras this week. I stumbled over two new pics of him here. I have no idea when those pictures were taken, but I saw them on another livejournal earlier this week and the poster seemed to think they were taken earlier in the year.

So I gave one of HL's Israeli family members a fridge the other day. She asked how can she thank me, and I asked her to remember me fondly when the next big family gathering comes :P

Oh, okay. I hadn't seen them. Never mind then. No, no, no...I didn't mean that they shouldn't have been posted (and I don't know that her info is even correct), I was just throwing it out there because there's a good chance that it wasn't taken all that recently, i.e., his paparazzi encounters are a little more spaced out. I haven't looked at the lj in a couple of days (to see if she definitively posted a date), but it's the one that journal lists as their source.

I completely disagree. Hugh having to wait the half hour it would take them to walk over to the dismissed newbie's trailer and talk to them isn't going to make any difference in his portrayal of his character. With all due respect, you can't possibly know that. There were no such details in Katie's comments and we have no idea when they told HL vs. the newbies. Could have been five minutes before, could have been a month before. Like I said, I just don't see any problem with it. It's sad for those actors that they didn't continue on as cast members on one of the top shows, but that's life. As you said yourself, in the real world many people in a company know who's going to be let go before the person who's actually been let go is notified. At least in this case, they kept the decision from everyone but the "upper echelon" of KJ, DS, PA and the other executive producers, and HL (not being an EP but being the most important cast member). I'm certainly not going to presume on Edi (or any of the other cast members) behalf that HL knowing they were gone would be horribly offensive to them.

Quote: 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'm not crazy about it, but I do understand it. What I don't like at all and don't understand at all is why the audience should be told that. amysusanne I'm not trying to be difficult here (promise!) I'm just trying to make sure I get what you're saying...it's cool to you if Hugh is kinda producerish in his role on the show but not cool that the actual producers tell us that? Is that what you mean? If so I kinda see what you're saying. I just wanna make sure that I'm reading you right.

With all due respect, you can't possibly know that. There were no such details in Katie's comments and we have no idea when they told HL vs. the newbies. Could have been five minutes before, could have been a month before. I'm not sure that any writers or producers, no matter who they are, would give an actor that much information months in advance. I don't think they'd risk affecting the way he chose to play the character in the episodes leading up to that. He doesn't need to know, while he's working through episode 7, what's going to happen in episode 8. Backstory helps, but the future could screw with the acting mojo a bit. He doesn't need to know the endgame when he's preparing for the present. And you're right, I don't know anything definitively, but I also don't think that what she was saying implied that they knew and advised Hugh a month in advance of the character's dismissal. It's far more likely that everything happened in the same week, just prior to prepping the episode where they would leave. Anything else would contradict the entire image she's trying to put across and what she's spinning in that interview. I highly doubt that they told Hugh weeks before they told the actor. amysusanne I'm not trying to be difficult here (promise!) I'm just trying to make sure I get what you're saying...it's cool to you if Hugh is kinda producerish in his role on the show but not cool that the actual producers tell us that? Yes and no. I'm absolutely not crazy about Katie Jacobs throwing in, for little reason, that Hugh is involved on the business side because it was irrelevant to both her point and the entire subject. That's my main problem. The TV Guide readers didn't need to know that. As for what she actually said, I'm not crazy about the idea that Hugh, as the actor, might have some sort of executive decision making power in the same way that plenty of folks have complained in the past about how House was developing too many of Hugh's habits and hobbies. It's a fine line. I'm not crazy about the image it conjures up. If the two primary executive producers are going to go to Hugh to tell him/run by him what they're plans are and he's going to give his own input that could change their decisions then just make him a producer already. Make him an equal. I don't mind actor input and I think actors should (and do) have input, but what she said and how she chose to say it didn't work for me. edited to reply to hughsblues' post.

But I really do think that in her statements she gave off the impression that There are three executive producers actively running the show and that one of them is Hugh. And, again, I don't like that she told us that he knew, for example, Edi was going to be written out before Edi knew. I would agree if she'd said that they asked for his input. She didn't. She specifically said that they informed him. Yes, maybe they could do so after speaking to the kill of the week, but we don't know the specifics of the timeline. It seems to me that we're getting upset about something that really isn't as controversial as some seem to think.

I would agree if she'd said that they asked for his input. She didn't. She specifically said that they informed him. Yes, maybe they could do so after speaking to the kill of the week That's my problem with it. If not for that, any similar comments she might have made about Hugh and meetings with the producers probably wouldn't have rubbed me the wrong way at all. What she said, though, was this: First we would talk to Hugh and let him know — because we always include him in the business of the show I don't think that the way she worded it implies that they just gave him a heads up. If she'd left off the part about including him in the business of the show it would have just made me roll my eyes, but adding that little bit of clarification, imo, changes it from the two of them letting him know to the two of him having a sit down. It seems to me that we're getting upset about something that really isn't as controversial as some seem to think. It's not controversial at all, really. It's annoying and, imo, bad form on her part to have told MA that as well as just bad form to sit down with another actor before telling the actor that it directly affects.