And of course she's in the latest Harry Potter film along with Emma Thompson and all the great character actor luvvies of English cinema. I'm sure if HL wasn't so tied up in House he would have been roped in somehow (and Stephen Fry if he didn't do the audiobooks). Now there's a question - if HL had been cast in Harry Potter, who would be be?

I think HL would've made a great Lupin, what with those big sad eyes of his.

As much as I love David Boreanaz, I find every other character on Bones boring and/or annoying. I just can't watch a show where I only care about one character. dragging this one back around for a second: i love "bones" and actually like most of the characters and storylines, but i find that david and emily are the only two that have any real chemistry. the others have *passable* chemistry, but they don't really do much for me the way that those two do. that said, stephen and david had just as much chemistry as those two. which is kind of amazing to me. i love david, but he's never been someone that did much for me acting wise. he's good, but not great. he and stephen together, though? they bring it. i could easily watch the booth and gordon gordon show and never get bored. ever. Though I loved her in Vera Drake, I don't know much about her -- does anyone know if she's part of their social set, as well? I would assume so, given all the joint projects. i don't know who she actually crossed paths with first, but she did appear on emma's late eighties sketch-com and i'm under the impression that they were friends before that. i think she may have come into the fold that way. because it's all about emma. she's responsible for half the people i enjoy meeting and working together. {g} and speaking of imelda, there's nothing cuter than the outtakes on the "i'll be there" dvd of her and craig ferguson. they're adorable as he mocks her for being so tiny. hmmm...imelda, stephen, the cast of "bones", craig...please nobody ban me for being off topic in the hugh thread!

stephen and david had just as much chemistry as those two. which is kind of amazing to me. i love david, but he's never been someone that did much for me acting wise. he's good, but not great. he and stephen together, though? they bring it. i could easily watch the booth and gordon gordon show and never get bored. ever. So much WORD. I was really pleased at how much chemistry that those two had. I always thought that DB was a good actor, he could handle a really dramatic part like Angel, but I think he's acceptionally good at comedy. Seriously, he has great comedic timing. Just as I could watch the House and Wilson show and be happy forever I could totally watch the booth and gordon show forever and be happy. Oh, Stephen why did you have to go away? :cry:

So much WORD. I was really pleased at how much chemistry that those two had. I always thought that DB was a good actor, he could handle a really dramatic part like Angel, but I think he's acceptionally good at comedy. i so agree with this. and i didn't intend to discount his acting at all. he's great at what he does, but he's not a guy i can picture moving that far outside of his wheelhouse, you know, i.e. your hugh lauries and tony shalhoubs and those that can kind of do it all even if they don't fully realize they can. and, you're right: he's *funny*. he can do the comedy. i kind of compare him to duchovny in that. duchovny's a good actor, and he's even surprised me at times, but he's so *funny*. i'd rather watch him be funny than watch him emote. i enjoy the angsty booth, but i love the funny, sarcastic booth. or the booth that's just flabbergasted by gordon's methods of psychoanalysis. Just as I could watch the House and Wilson show and be happy forever I could totally watch the booth and gordon show forever and be happy. i'd be content with either spinoff... house and wilson can move away and buy a bar. gordon gordon can move to seattle and booth can pop in for visits. okay, my head hurts and i can't think of any spinoffs beyond "frasier" and "archie bunker's place" that would fit those four characters. Oh, Stephen why did you have to go away? i have faith that he'll be back.

gordon gordon can move to seattle and booth can pop in for visits. Speaking as a Seattle-ite, I am obviously very pro-this. I'd equally rally behind the zany crossover that has Gordon Gordon somewhat implausibly befriending Greg House while G. Man is in Seattle attending a conference at....um....Seattle Grace. Or whatever.

We wuz robbed, we wuz robbed!! Who should have been the Emmy host.

LIFE IS UNFAIR! That would have been made of so much win that win would've had to have been re-defined to better exemplify the winningness of how much that would've won. Just one question-Who is this Steven Fry the article mentions?

I don't know....if Hugh was the host and didn't win for best actor....that would kind of suck. I think Seacrest is all kinds of lame, but I really never watch the Emmys for the host. The fact that Conan was so delightful was really just a bonus.

Wow......If HL had been the host..........I would've actually watched the damn thing!!

In the end, Fox decided to go with its "Idol" star over its "House" star because execs felt Seacrest would draw a larger TV audience and because viewers might be confused seeing Laurie in an unfamiliar role. Oh, please, please. Hugh Laurie was found by a poll last year to be the 4th most popular TV personality in America, and Ryan f***ing Seacrest will bring in a bigger audience? I'ts like Attanasio was saying in that panel discussion a while back - there's Smart Fox and Dumb Fox. Looks like Dumb Fox won this round. It's kind of worrisome that Fox executives think it would freak audiences to see "Dr. House" in a different role. Type casting anyone? Will the same kind of nitwits not want to cast Hugh in new roles after House has ended? Sometimes it seems that there is an IQ test that must be taken by anyone who wants to be a studio exec in Hollywood. Anyone who scores too high is eliminated from consideration. :roll: