The Creative Types: David Shore, Katie Jacobs, et al

Oooh. rockstarmama quoted me and I thought I had deleted that post before anyone read it. :oops: I don't want to hang out with either Katie Jacobs or David Shore. I don't even particularly want to meet them. But as long as they head the team that gives me House, I'll put up with them.

deleted because it was boring and unimportant.

I'll respond since I started the "me too" KJ hate train. I'm going to censor myself right now cause I want to keep it civil. I appreciate you bringing it to my attention that how I speak my truth offends you. I am happy to accomodate you because well ... I can. Perfect. That's all I wanted... keeping it civil (whether it concerns KJ or myself in this case). I wasn't offended, I was concerned about the tone, which I might have misinterpreted, if the 'hate' as in 'I hate peas' was what you meant from the start. One cannot tell in this medium very well. I find KJ's wardrobe odd and think that she often tells the media what they want to hear (which is kinda part of her job), neither of which makes me hate or even dislike her. I don't know anything about her, except seeing her in House press related videos and reading interviews with her. Do we even know anything personal about her, except who she's with? I'm finishing up an online doctoral degree after almost 4 years so I recognize that civility is the only way to keep the dialogue going. You're right. It's difficult to glean intent in a virtual medium. That's why it's important not to ascribe certain adjectives to the opinions of others. I think the best question to ask when you can't ascertain someone's intent is "why do you feel that way?" Because nine times out of ten, it's probably something that no one has thought of or voiced before. Back to KJ. I wonder if I dislike her in a peas kind of way because she reminds me of Cameron whom I hate in a peas sort of way. For some reason, I've always seen Cameron as KJs alter ego. Finally, and I'm sure this is totally unfair, but I hold KJ responsible for how the House women are drawn and articulated. It's unfair because I know the process is a collaborative one and she probably doesn't have any more input then the other executive producers. For example, I am still holding out hope that Cuddy's craziness is related to the other shoe dropping. One that will address House's irrational and dangerous behavior and his basic belief that the ends justify the means - see the Medical Board of California article on House MD that I posted in the ethics thread. I think KJ should provide a very basic guide to where they're going with S4 House. I am an avid reader of other people's opinions, including those about House the show and I find that people are becoming disturbed by House the character's increasing craziness. I think they're going somewhere with this and wish KJ would speak to that like DS did when he said that S3 House would run into legal troubles over his drug use. I'm talking general themes here beyond the survivor game. And then there's the medicine but that's for another post :)

Back to KJ. I wonder if I dislike her in a peas kind of way because she reminds me of Cameron whom I hate in a peas sort of way. For some reason, I've always seen Cameron as KJs alter ego. Finally, and I'm sure this is totally unfair, but I hold KJ responsible for how the House women are drawn and articulated. It's unfair because I know the process is a collaborative one and she probably doesn't have any more input then the other executive producers. This sort of answered a question or impression I had, that KJ and Cameron seem to be dopplegangers in fandom and that there seems to be an unwarranted level of rage directed at them. Say the name, reasoned debate is not possible, just rage. But, as I thought about it, I realized that while I don't feel the same amount of rage, I do feel a degree of resentment about the representation of women in the series and it is growing as House is becoming more and more obnoxious about his disdain for women as a whole. Is David Shore going through a midlife crisis or something. In the last episode, he tells Cuddy she is a second rate doctor at best, a bureaucratic nightmare and she responds with the humorous retort, "Am I blushing." Funny, but I can't help thinking that if there were a strong woman's perspective in the writer's room, she might have slapped him down effectively and yet still be funny. I guess I do expect Katie Jacobs as a woman producer to fight for the women characters to be represented as more than sex objects. In fact, I see it as part of her job to bring depth to all the characters on screen and with the women she has fallen short. IMHO :?

In the last episode, he tells Cuddy she is a second rate doctor at best, a bureaucratic nightmare and she responds with the humorous retort, "Am I blushing." Funny, but I can't help thinking that if there were a strong woman's perspective in the writer's room, she might have slapped him down effectively and yet still be funny. I didn't feel for one second that we, as the audience, were supposed to believe what House was saying. And I thought her retort was funny. I guess I do expect Katie Jacobs as a woman producer to fight for the women characters to be represented as more than sex objects. In fact, I see it as part of her job to bring depth to all the characters on screen and with the women she has fallen short. IMHO :? Katie Jacobs is a woman. Is she not entitled to represent the women characters in the way she wants? If she's presenting anyone as a sex object, I'd say it's House. Personally, I have no problem with any of the women characters and how they're portrayed, both on the show and by the producers.

I didn't feel for one second that we, as the audience, were supposed to believe what House was saying. And I thought her retort was funny. I said I thought her response was funny, but I don't know why you think that we weren't supposed to think he was serious. He looked serious, his tone was serious, his question was serious, no quip, no wink...what was funny about what he said. I didn't see his humor. Quote: I guess I do expect Katie Jacobs as a woman producer to fight for the women characters to be represented as more than sex objects. In fact, I see it as part of her job to bring depth to all the characters on screen and with the women she has fallen short. IMHO Katie Jacobs is a woman. Is she not entitled to represent the women characters in the way she wants? If she's presenting anyone as a sex object, I'd say it's House. Personally, I have no problem with any of the women characters and how they're portrayed, both on the show and by the producers. Of course she is, but I am entitled to be disappointed that there seems to be a singular view of what makes women worthy (not only in this show, but in almost all shows, movies, etc.) and my perspective is not being rolled out in front of millions of telelvision viewers every week as a opposing viewpoint.

I said I thought her response was funny, but I don't know why you think that we weren't supposed to think he was serious. He looked serious, his tone was serious, his question was serious, no quip, no wink...what was funny about what he said. I didn't see his humor. There wasn't anything funny about what he said, but House is hardly a neutral observer re: Cuddy. What I meant was that I don't think the audience was necessarily supposed to agree with House. But this is getting OT, so I'll drop it. Of course she is, but I am entitled to be disappointed that there seems to be a singular view of what makes women worthy (not only in this show, but in almost all shows, movies, etc.) and my perspective is not being rolled out in front of millions of telelvision viewers every week as a opposing viewpoint. I don't really see her promotion of relationships, sex, UST, etc - which certainly is something that draws TV viewers - as portraying women, specifically, in a bad light.

I don't really see her promotion of relationships, sex, UST, etc - which certainly is something that draws TV viewers - as portraying women, specifically, in a bad light. I guess one of things that bothers me is that the character Lisa played in the West Wing as a high-class call girl dresses more conservatively than Lisa Cuddy and that is bothersome to me.

I'm finishing up an online doctoral degree after almost 4 years so I recognize that civility is the only way to keep the dialogue going. You're right. It's difficult to glean intent in a virtual medium. That's why it's important not to ascribe certain adjectives to the opinions of others. I think the best question to ask when you can't ascertain someone's intent is "why do you feel that way?" Because nine times out of ten, it's probably something that no one has thought of or voiced before. I'll be sure not to use any adjectives from now on :wink: even though I can't remember that I used one to describe your opinion. Your doctoral degree certainly puts you higher up in the civilized dialog chain than me, so now that I feel properly put in my place, I'll better shut up. But I'll make sure to ask "Why do you feel that way?" from now on, hoping it doesn't make me sound like some screwed up wannabe psychologist. :wink: Since the risk of misinterpreting someones tone of voice online is clearly what got us into this... sarcasm is humorous for me, and this was said with a smile, so don't go ripping my head off for it, please. Saw something about David Shore here. How serious is this guy that DS should not have written a piece for a Canadian newspaper while the strike is going on and does anyone know where to find DS's article?

I guess one of things that bothers me is that the character Lisa played in the West Wing as a high-class call girl dresses more conservatively than Lisa Cuddy and that is bothersome to me. Yeah, but is that really indicative of women on House? It seems to be something specific to Lisa Cuddy. The other women - Cameron, Stacy, Thirteen, CTB - aren't dressed 'provacatively'.

I guess one of things that bothers me is that the character Lisa played in the West Wing as a high-class call girl dresses more conservatively than Lisa Cuddy and that is bothersome to me. Yeah, but is that really indicative of women on House? It seems to be something specific to Lisa Cuddy. The other women - Cameron, Stacy, Thirteen, CTB - aren't dressed 'provacatively'. Given LE's interview comments on the subject, maybe it's her suggestion or her choice. She said she wanted to be a hot hospital administrator and pretty much dismissed any downside to having a professional woman wearing those kinds of clothes in TV-land.

Given LE's interview comments on the subject, maybe it's her suggestion or her choice. She said she wanted to be a hot hospital administrator and pretty much dismissed any downside to having a professional woman wearing those kinds of clothes in TV-land. Yeah, that's pretty much my point in regards to Cuddy's wardrobe being used as an example of the showrunners somehow portraying women in a bad light. I don't see how the wardrobe of one particular character can be used to say that there's some kind of systematic representation of women as 'sex objects' when the other female characters are not dressed that way.

Given LE's interview comments on the subject, maybe it's her suggestion or her choice. She said she wanted to be a hot hospital administrator and pretty much dismissed any downside to having a professional woman wearing those kinds of clothes in TV-land. Yeah, that's pretty much my point in regards to Cuddy's wardrobe being used as an example of the showrunners somehow portraying women in a bad light. I don't see how the wardrobe of one particular character can be used to say that there's some kind of systematic representation of women as 'sex objects' when the other female characters are not dressed that way. The contrast really stands out, in fact, and I don't think her wardrobe, or the emphasis on her sexiness, was there in S1. It's been escalating. Of course, if TPTB felt it was inappropriate or sending a message they didn't want or doing a disservice to the representation of women on TV, it's up to them to change it.

The contrast really stands out, in fact, and I don't think her wardrobe, or the emphasis on her sexiness, was there in S1. It's been escalating. Of course, if TPTB felt it was inappropriate or sending a message they didn't want or doing a disservice to the representation of women on TV, it's up to them to change it. See, I don't really notice this difference. I've heard enough people say it, that I started to believe it, but then I went back and watched S1 again recently. Sure, there's some style differences in her clothing, but she still had the same plunging necklines and lacy bra peeking out back in S1. And House was still sexually harassing her just as much. And this is becoming about Cuddy and starting to get OT, but I still don't see her wardrobe as a valid criticism of the showrunners or KJ, in particular.

My point of view about David Shore, Katie Jacobs, et al. I just don't think I really have one. In fact I'm not used to know who is who in the crew of tv shows (except for some). I must admit that if something is wrong with this show (and sorry to say that there's some things really not very good in House), it's (for me) their fault. But if something is great, it's because of the actor :roll: (I mean JS, HL et RSL because I'm not impressed by the others). Beside, KJ sounds like some shipper fan à la Shonda Rhime from GA :sweatdrop: DS loves Foreman and I dont get it. So as a Chaser, and as someone who really like JS squills I feel a little alone because they never really showed any interest in this character. I'm not used to read their interview because I know I will be more frustrated than happy.

View Full Version: The Creative Types: David Shore, Katie Jacobs, et al