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. I'm pretty sure the pilot had a House/Cuddy exchange where House commented on Cuddy's breasts and Cuddy commented on how subtle House's big cane was. Cuddy's breasts and rear have always been emphasized in her outfits, though she didn't always bust out at the seams (a peculiar trend, since it doesn't make her sexier, just--busting out at the seams) :?: . I agree that this is a choice that has always been made about Cuddy in particular and not other female characters. The showrunners seem very on top of who is wearing what and why. Jennifer Morrison always knows exactly why her hair is the shade it is for that season, and it's always character oriented. I assume the sexy maryjanes had equal thought, and the lack of vests this year a reason. I don't love the way all the female characters are drawn, but I don't see why Katie Jacobs would draw all the heat, and especially not for wardrobe, which is varied for character delineation.

Honestly, I just kind of block out what KJ says at this point, because I don't think she's all that reliable as to what's going on (for whatever reason). Her latest interview with Ausiello I rolled my eyes about, first because it's Ausiello and he was the same person who got the fans in a tizzy by promoting Michael Michelle's character as a Big Romance for House a couple of months ago. He always seems to want to promote House as a lost member of Grey's Anatomy ("who's House gonna hook up with, squee!"). Then of course he was claiming that KJ was saying how the now aborted two parter was going to advance either Huddy or House/Cameron. Okay, so which one? Those are two totally different directions, so right there I'm suspicious. And second, haven't we heard this song from KJ every year since the show began? It's always been either House/Cuddy or House/Cameron right around the corner according to her, going by my memory. If I believed her every time, House should've married and divorced both Cuddy and Cam by now. I don't know - she strikes me as flaky or something in her comments. I think she was also the one who talked the most about the new team, but how the old team would be integrated back by episode nine and all that stuff which obviously hasn't happened, and gave false hope to the fans of CCF. I've been more apt to trust DS, Lawrence Kaplow, etc. in their more measured comments throughout the show's run. KJ seems a bit too forced with her "kittens and rainbows" perspective to me, which is not bad except I think she's tended to try and promise things to all fans at all times. JMHO. I do like her directing, but from indications (including her own comments) it seems to me that KJ is more involved in the business/production end of the show: casting, editing, music, etc. Not the writing. And that may be what accounts for the comments, because it strikes me that she is not that knowledgeable about what the writers are planning or their intentions.

Then of course he was claiming that KJ was saying how the now aborted two parter was going to advance either Huddy or House/Cameron. Okay, so which one? Those are two totally different directions, so right there I'm suspicious. Based on MA's wording, I don't think she said anything at all about it specifically advancing one or the other. I haven't read part two of his interview (is it up somewhere?) but I read part one and there was nothing in there like that. The way MA writes it up in the AR it seems to me that she made a coy remark about advancing one of House's relationships or something about shippers and MA, as he usually does, made the assumption that either H/Ca or H/Cu was going to happen. That's him, not her. I've been pretty critical of her remarks the last couple of weeks because of *her* choice of wording and random asides, but in this case I'm pretty sure that's just more Ausiello BS.

Isn't Katie Jacobs married to Paul Attanasio? Together with David Shore, these two came up with the idea for "House," using the NY Times Sunday Magazine's medical mysteries column as a jumping off point, if I recall correctly. As the Diane Kristine interview noted, KJ and Attanasio were also responsible for creating that superior but short-lived hospital drama "Gideon's Crossing" which starred Andre Braugher (I keep expecting him to turn up on "House" sometime). I am impressed with the fact that it seems that she can juggle the intense demands of playing a major part in running a wildly successful television show including managing relations with sensitive artists and writers, raising three youngish kids, and maintaining a long-term marriage to a dynamic creative force like Paul Attanasio. I like that she has not caved in to the Hollywood glam cliches or pressures. She strikes me as an inventive, sensible, funny, and talented modern woman.

Andre Braugher (I keep expecting him to turn up on "House" sometime). I would dissolve in a squee-ing puddle of fangirl if that ever happened. I believe Andre Braugher is one of the best actor's I've ever seen on TV.

There's probably a better thread than this one to put this on?... I did look around. I thought it would have wider appeal than the strike threads (which I have to admit I don't look at myself very often) Doris Egan (aka St. Doris) is doing a Q&A with fans. Details here *fails to think of any questions that don't make me sound like a HW obsessed nutter* There's already a link to it in the RL section. The deadline for submitting questions is past. -sauty

The latest Diane Kristine "House" article includes a link to this interesting breakdown of the writing process, courtesy of blogger Jill Golick and writer Pam Davis. Among other items: Davis also told us about the final script stage when the writer goes to David Shore’s office. Shore loads the script into his computer. He has a second monitor pointed at the writer who watches and collaborates with Shore on the final changes. Davis says Shore’s changes always deepen and improve the work. Sometimes Shore gives notes on a scene and leaves the room. Then the writer gets into his chair and reworks the scene while Shore plays a game of pool. Didn't Katie Jacobs point out the pool table during the behind-the-scenes tour on the Season Three DVD?

Paul Attanasio has a deal for a new pilot for Fox. I don't know if he actually has any involvement with House at this point or not.

RE: Attanasio's pilot "Courtroom" The description includes this: "One-hour project will mix drama with a darkly comedic bent, much like "House," which Attanasio exec produces for Fox." So even if he's not directly involved with it, well, apparently he's still into the ideas behind it...

Misere posted a link to Maureen Ryan's blog entry about her interview with David Shore. Heavily edited to include what I want to discuss... MR: I happened to mention that I’d be talking to you today in a Web chat last Friday, and I told people to send in their “House” questions. I didn’t expect a lot of them, but I did get quite a few – and a lot of them were from readers who were unhappy with the Chase/Cameron situation. “Where are they? When will they be on screen more?” It sure seemed like some fans were missing those characters. DS: When you use a character a little less, you don’t want to hear, "Well, it’s about time you did that." It’s good that people want more. We are trying to give all the characters , all the characters have their fans and we’re trying to give them what they want. There are no plans to change fundamental roles, we’re not bringing them back into team so fast. <snip> DS: There’s also … I’m going to say something you’re readers aren’t going to like, but as someone running a television show, you have to be very careful – people think they want something and they do want something, but it’s not what they need, shall we say, and it’s not what the show needs. It’s great that they like those characters. The most obvious is people saying, “I love the show, can’t you just make House a little nicer?” No. That’s sort of the most egregious example. No, you like him because he is who he is. And if he wasn’t who he is, you wouldn’t like him as much. He wouldn’t be the same person. And the show as a whole falls into that. And so yes, I changed it. A little bit. And you have to be really careful with these things. It’s a real challenge. You want people to want more of things. You have to be careful on what you deliver. I just want to say how sad it is that David Shore doesn't (or doesn't want to) see the difference between wanting to see actually see a character that matters to someone and wanting something like a nice House. There has been a lot of discussion here about ways in which C&C could remain involved (in Diagnostics and the TV show) without being fellows forever. But no one I have read is saying "I won't be happy unless they make Chase an attending in Diagnostics or until have Cameron does X." They are saying that they miss character(s) whom they care about more than they do about Thirteen, Taub and Kutner combined (and, in my case, you can thrown Foreman in as well -- although the way I learned to hate Foreman by the end of S3 means I'll care about the four of them LESS than about the three new characters) and that they would like the writers to find viable ways to keep them on the show rather than in their current "blink and you'll miss them" status.

DS: When you use a character a little less, you don’t want to hear, "Well, it’s about time you did that." It’s good that people want more. We are trying to give all the characters , all the characters have their fans and we’re trying to give them what they want. Couple of comments/questions about this (I've a lot more to say about the article, but its not very polite!). 1) Trying? - apparently either not very hard or effectively. 2) If Foreman/OE's or 13/OW's time were reduced are you afraid you might hear the "good riddance"? 3) I also suspect you're milking the viewers loyalty to catch glimpses of C&C because you're afraid that if they were gone a big part of the viewership might take a serious look at whether or not they are willing to put up with the current negativity/anger/misogyny/incompetence of many (arguably the majority) of the show's characters. House wasn't particularly "nice" in s1/s2 - but the tone of the show was generally optimistic, even uplifting on occasion (Autopsy, e.g.). s3 onwards that hasn't been the case - part of why I'm currently reassessing whether or not I'm going to continue watching House is that I get enough negativity in my daily life, I want something more positive in my escapist TV (I also don't care for show runners telling me what I need to be watching - I'm quite capable picking & choosing what I want, & voting with my feet).

I know my view isn't in the majority here, but I'll say that David Shore was right. I didn't realize how stale the show was getting (to me) until the changeup in format and having new characters to play House off of gave the show a whole new energy and vibe. I think he would have faced the issues within the next year or two regardless of asking "how long will these people remain as fellows?" Sooner or later that had to be addressed. Obviously not everyone is pleased with how he addressed it, but I think he did the right thing in taking action before people were bored with them.

But no one I have read is saying "I won't be happy unless they make Chase an attending in Diagnostics or until have Cameron does X." I've pretty much seen everything. I would very much like to continue reading certain livejournal communities, but I just can't. It's all so angry and random and, at the same time, specific. Some folks want House and Cameron to hook up so bad that it clouds everything, while other folks have very specific expectations about what Chase should be doing. Likewise, just as there are those pissed off about the lack of Cameron and Chase, there are other sides that are pissed off because they don't think Cameron or Chase should be in the positions they are in and should, essentially, be written out all together. As uneven as I've found the season, I'm not *angry* about any of it and seeing so much bile spewed about it is exhausting. I know my view isn't in the majority here, but I'll say that David Shore was right. I didn't realize how stale the show was getting (to me) until the changeup in format and having new characters to play House off of gave the show a whole new energy and vibe. I think he would have faced the issues within the next year or two regardless of asking "how long will these people remain as fellows?" Were you at TWOP when it was a basement thread? I think you were, but so many people came and went that I really can't remember. I recall actually having the conversation about the length of fellowships and the lifespan of those three characters under House during those days, though. I think it came up again when we got the full forum, maybe around season two. The general idea was that it would be unbelievable to have them continue working for him past the end of the second season. I do think there are ways to bring them back into the fold while both giving them more screentime and making it believable. I think that the shortened season could actually be a bit of a blessing as far as utilizing all nine characters, but I guess we'll just have to see how it plays out. Your opinion probably isn't the majority (though I agree with most of it, personally, even if I think some of this season has been sloppy), but I really don't think there is a majority, just a bunch of different people with different ideas about where the show should go. I haven't gone back to the blog since I left work, but when I read the article there were five or six comments that seemed a bit all over the place and a comment that commented on how all over the place fans were. Shore's gonna piss most of the groups off no matter which direction he takes and given that the ratings are still excellent for a fourth year show and most critics seem into the changes, he has motivation to move forward with his own vision. Frankly, the only thing I found wrong about anything he said was that I think he copped out on the comments that Poeia highlighted. I think he wussed out and took the easy route of the most basic question (a question which, unfortunately, plenty of people really have asked, so it's still valid) instead of pissing off who I imagine were his real targets: the shippers. Because ultimately it's the shippers that have historically been unhappy when their preferred ship came together. It's a slippery slope for writers. You're damned if you do and damned if you don't. I figure that he's already pissed people off with more benign comments, so why not just go balls out and get it all on the table?

Yes, amysusanne, I was there back when there were just a few of us hanging out in the drama thread (I even recall the "is Wilson real? Or just a figment of House's imagination? discussion). Perhaps that's one reason why I always assumed that the fellowships would end, because fellowships are temporary. And yes, the fellows could have advanced to just full time positions within the diagnostics department, but then you still have the issue of House not having the fresh blood to bounce ideas off of and work off of, so they still would have needed to bring in fresh faces eventually or they'd risk real staleness. Perhaps making the shift to start the fourth season was too early in some ways, but I think the fifth season would have been too late. But definitely, the fandom is very varied in terms of its responses to almost everything, not just shippers. Consider that while some people think we're missing the lightness of the first season or two, others are bitching that it's all too light and there's not enough of House's inner turmoil.