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

We know that Doris Egan interacts with fans to a certain extent through her LJ, but she's never referred to fan reactions as impacting her choices in writing. She seems to be more influenced by other writers from multiple genres than anything the fans say. In other fandoms, show runners and writers often do a lot of blogging and interacting with other fans on show websites and the like, but those seem to be the exception rather than the rule. (And recall Aaron Sorkin's experience from the other place where interaction with fans pissed him off.) There's also this comment from House writer Garrett Lerner from an interview with Sara M. at the other place, in this case dealing with his experience from "Roswell:" GL: Yeah, I really enjoyed his recaps, but I enjoyed them so much I thought everybody could appreciate getting slaughtered. SM: And they didn't. GL: I did it only twice before I learned my lesson, but I would take the recap and read it to the other writers and they would basically just get angry. I stopped that pattern of behavior pretty quickly and realized I should enjoy them in private. I'm one of those people who would prefer that writers and show runners stick with their own vision, rather than trying to please others, whether it be TV executives of vocal subsets of fans. I may not agree with everything they do, but at least it's not writing by committee.

I'm one of those people who would prefer that writers and show runners stick with their own vision, rather than trying to please others, whether it be TV executives of vocal subsets of fans. I may not agree with everything they do, but at least it's not writing by committee. To a degree, I agree with you. I think it is very true for ships (e.g. I didn't want Chase/Cameron and I don't think it worked great. But it was okay.) I don't think fans should dictate plot lines, friendships or relationships. But I do think knowing whether people like or dislike character and, in terms of House, miss some characters or are delighted that they are almost gone, can be helpful. How they incorporate that knowledge in future scripts is up to them.

I was involved in one fandom for a time, in which it was well known that show runners frequently visited a particular fan site. They would do short Q&As and explain plot points etc. It all started out quite innocently, but the site itself tended to cater to a certain element of fandom, mostly male teenagers and young men ... not to a broad spectrum of all fans. Rather one of those cases where like fans hang out together and talk about things THEY were interested it and dismissed or dissed things that did not interest them, even if it did interest another element of fandom. Over time, the image they had for the show began to be reflected in the actual writing and the direction of the show and the emphasis began to change. More nubile women and shootouts and explosions kind of thing - less relationship exploration and emotional resonance. Whether the show writers were purposefully hanging with a crowd that reflected the direction they WANTED to take, or whether they took that route because they hung with said crowd and got a screwed view of fandom is a question that may never be answered, but the show lost a lot of fans who had been there in the beginning, and who watched for different reasons. However, I suppose it might have gained more fans in the critical "male age 16-25" demographic. I don't know. I stopped watching... not being male or that interested in women in revealing outfits. A similar thing happened on X-Files when Chris carter finally got Mulder and Scully together (after saying he would never do so) because he thought that this was what fans wanted. Well, it certainly was what SOME fans wanted, but many did not. In both cases, some fans were very happy - and some felt disenfranchised and TPTB expressed surprise that not everyone was happy with the directions things had gone because they had only been doing "what the fans wanted." Fandom is not totally cohesive. And online fandom is only a small sliver of total fandom. What brings us to a show might be very different. What some people love about a show, others might hate. Personally, I will never see the "wonderful chemistry" between House and Cameron that some claim cannot be denied. In the same way, I know some people find Wilson totally annoying, though I love him dearly. They problem with show runners reading on-line forums is that such forums distort the truly complex aspects of fandom. Hanging at a forum that emphasizes House/Wilson will give you a completely different feeling for fans than hanging at one that focuses on Cuddy and House or House and Cameron. Even the general "House" forums are not a true representation, as I find they tend to be frequented by those who are all about shipper pairings or who is hot this week, or whether so and so needs a hair-cut, or OMG is Cameron cuter as a brunette or a blonde! - one of the reasons I chose forums that are more focused on in depth discussion about underlying themes etc. If a show moves away from the direction I enjoy I am disappointed. Several of my show DVD collections are incomplete because the shows shifted away from the things I enjoyed and branched in a direction I did not find entertaining any more. However, if that is the decision of the writers independently of fan influence, I am usually okay with that. But when shows start catering to what they think fans want, I get worried. That suggests the writers no longer have faith in their own vision. They have lost their own sense of direction and creativity - and that is never a good thing. Personally, I have NEVER seen a show go in a direction I appreciated due to fan influence. Maybe what I like is too far off mainstream, but generally once "fans" have their say, my favorite shows go in directions I cannot follow. And if they DO cater to my tastes, they usually manage to mess up a good thing by "forcing' something that seemed natural before. I worry about the H/W dynamic for this reason. I love that she show is exploring these two in more depth this season, but it would be very easy to cross the line into something that feels "forced" and that could lead to a strong backlash. I do not feeling "manipulated" even if the manipulation is something I like... if that makes any sense. As far as I am concerned, the further away from fandom influence the TPTB stay, the better! :!:

Because I liked the characters of Chase and Cameron, and because I liked the chemistry of the old team, I'll admit that I did put faith in Katie Jacobs' September 10th comments from "Television" magazine: Quote: Executive producer Katie Jacobs confirmed that they will rejoin the show in full capacity. Perhaps House will finally have to swallow some pride to get them back. "I don't know about that. I honestly don't know how it's going to all pan out. That'll be around show six or seven. We're a long way off that yet but I don't know. I guess so." What's interesting about putting faith in that quote is that the "confirmation" is the writer's interpretation of what KJ said, and what she actually says is much less concrete than that. Her words are "I don't know about that. I honestly don't know how it is all going to pan out. That'll be around show six or seven. We're a long way off that yet, but I don't know. I guess so." There's nothing set in stone from those comments, other than they are expecting to bring C&C back, but don't yet know how--and even that expectation is still a guess.

I was delighted to read the Maureen Ryan/David Shore interview and I continue to believe that David Shore is brilliant! I am really looking forward to seeing his vision of House continue to unfold. I have a great deal of respect for Shore for not caving to the demands of various segments of the fan base because there is no way to please everyone, and that would surely lead to the demise of the show. Also, thank you to Elompanti who posted some of Joss Whedon's similar quotes in terms of what fans think they want. I didn't watch Buffy, nor am I a part of any other internet fandom besides House, but I think what he said makes a lot of sense.

I would think that show runners and writers would need to be very, very careful about looking at fan forums (fora?) for the same reason they don't look at fan fiction - if they've never been to a site, they can't have stolen any ideas from it.

I worry about the H/W dynamic for this reason. I love that she show is exploring these two in more depth this season, but it would be very easy to cross the line into something that feels "forced" and that could lead to a strong backlash. I do not feeling "manipulated" even if the manipulation is something I like... if that makes any sense. I think everything you said, Langniappe, makes perfect sense. I think listening/not listening to fans can be a very tricky thing. It can a great resource if used correctly (TPTB likely wouldn't know that they had the assest that they did in Wilson if it weren't for the fans- and the little shout outs to H/W shippers were funny as hell when they fit the story), but it can also be very dangerous if they start relying too much on any one aspect of the show to hold the interest of the entire fandom.

As far as I am concerned, the further away from fandom influence the TPTB stay, the better! I absolutely agree with this, and with the idea that just because a producer makes a guess about where the series might go that they should have freedom to do something completely different should that seem more fruitful. It is their show, it is not a democracy where fans have any kind of a vote in creation (though they can of course, vote on the results with their remotes). After all, you're watching a show here run by a guy who is, in some aspects at least, basically House himself. Expecting some kind of tricksterishness seems reasonable. :-) The House folks have done a terrific job in bringing us an original, thought-provoking and intelligent show. Sometimes we don't see just how much care and thought they put into it until a reveal comes further down the pike (he wasn't changing his nature, he was on anti-depressants). Anyway, I think it's great for us fans to have our say and enjoy our passionate debates, but I hope TPTB do not start to cater to any segment of the fanbase however vocal or targeted their agenda. Writing by committee leads to pap.

Thanks Lilly for the link to the KJ interview. I don't think fans should dictate plot lines, friendships or relationships. But I do think knowing whether people like or dislike character and, in terms of House, miss some characters or are delighted that they are almost gone, can be helpful. How they incorporate that knowledge in future scripts is up to them. Well said Poeia. They can't and shouldn't cater to every whim that fans have. But they also should be mindful, ratings aside, of characters for example, that aren't working....cough....cough....13. And since this DS interview came to light, I can't help thinking about that Simpsons episode where the producers of Itchy and Scratchy decided to add a new character because they were afraid the show had started getting stale. So if DS and KJ or anyone else involved with House do happen to read here, I have three words to say to them: Poochie the Dog.

A similar thing happened on X-Files when Chris carter finally got Mulder and Scully together (after saying he would never do so) because he thought that this was what fans wanted. Well, it certainly was what SOME fans wanted, but many did not. In both cases, some fans were very happy - and some felt disenfranchised and TPTB expressed surprise that not everyone was happy with the directions things had gone because they had only been doing "what the fans wanted." Lagniappe, I agree with much of what you say about showrunners and fandom intersecting too closely. However, I think the example you've used to illustrate your point is very misleading. Prior to House, the X-Files was the only show I've actually gone online for and been considered a part of "fandom." I spent many years in a few different communities during the run of that show. During that time, I ran into many posters that were "shippers" and just as many that were not. However, I never ran into any that were into the notion that hey, maybe Mulder and Scully should get together, and then Scully could get pregnant with what might be an alien baby--we can tease that for a whole season!--and then we can bring on these super soldiers after we've abducted mulder and then, best of all, let's wrap up this 7 year story by not wrapping it up at all and make people either completely confused or lose interest all together. Yeah! That sounds awesome! No. No fan wanted that. And, to be honest, I've never seen an interview with Chris Carter where he expresses any sort of remorse (or, indeed, any indication) that he followed "what the fans wanted." I'm not challenging you, but I simply haven't seen that acknowledgment at all. And, in fact, they would have been a whole lot better off by listening to fans of all persuasion who said vocally, you know without Mulder, there really isn't much of a show at all. But they listened to their own internal drummer and carried on before irrevocably driving the show into a self-dug ditch. I don't necessary think showrunners should dictate their storylines based on what they've read online, but in some sense, a devoted study to what their most engaged fans say can act as a canary in the coalmine for how certain storylines are coming across. We are, after all, the cheapest focus group available. In no way do I advocate the idea of writing by committee, but it would be absurd to think that writers, currently, aren't be influenced by other factors beyond "fandom" including the biggest gorilla of all, ratings.

I believe that Cheryl Heuton, one of the creators/writers/producers of Numb3rs, is a member over at the other place and posts on the Numb3rs thread there. It's interesting to see her posts there. I don't think anyone should go with what the fans want to see. They should tell the story they want to tell, but I also don't think it would be too harmful to listen to your viewers. Most notably(for me) was how Cuse/Lindelof handled a unpopular addition to the cast of Lost last season.

Does anyone know if showrunners do some kind of marketing research to see how the show is going over with their audience, or do they just go by the ratings? I find it hard to believe that people like DS and KJ log on to forums like this one to judge how well they're doing. Oh, I'm sure they are aware of us, and probably are tickled that the show has a vocal ‘fandom’, but I think they are also well aware of how small our numbers are. I would bet that they are much more worried about pleasing the other 20 million or so viewers than doing what folks on this forum or on LJ might want, or do we have more influence than I think? The ratings themselves are based on a small group of Neilsen "Familes" and those numbers are extrapolated to get to the audience of millions ratings reflect. Here's an article on just how many actual people the ratings are derived from. This is from TVSquad Sept. 2007 Nielsen Media is apparently looking to almost triple the number of homes over the next 4 years that report Nielsen ratings, according to an MSNBC article. Currently the company has 12,000 households with 35,000 people and it is looking to increase it to 37,000 homes with 100,000 people. 35,000 people which if my math is correct is less than a quarter of a one precent of 20 million. Small as our internet numbers may be it doesn't mean that we are not representative of viewer's thoughts and feelings about the show, characters and storylines and that TPTB don't take us serious as such. Success or failure doesn't come from trying to please 20 million viewers, they can't, but from pleasing those 35,000. But since they don't know who, what or where they are, forums and viewer mail are probably as good as any way of taking the pulse of the audience. Market research/focus groups, usually a group of around 30 participants, are often done before a show airs to get audience feedback, it may be a factor if a pilot goes forward or stops right there but once a show is on the air I don't think they bother and its sink or swim. Ultimately while the showrunners and writers may find what they hear or read about audience reaction to a show interesting I think for better or worse, as bailey sited w/ X-Files, they go their own way and hope the audience even if they aren't all happy with the outcome will be interested enough to follow along with the overall story. Some people will fall away, new viewers will arrive at different points and stalwarts will hang on ever word even as they stew with disappointment or erupt in rapture. With a show like House entering S5 DS and Co. probably feel secure enough in their intentions to not be too concerned either way. A true final judgement probably can't be made until a show has completed it run. ETA, An after thought re X-Files that was one of only two previous fandoms that I was in prior to House. IIRC the last year happen in part not from listening or ignoring fandom but because while Duchovny's contract was up both Carter and Anderson were contractually obligated for one more year, the network preferred half or 2/3 a loaf to none and so they had to go ahead. That's the only outside force that can have a real effect, a signed contract. Then of course Duchovny came back to help wrap up the show so the only disgruntlement I heard/read from fans was why didn't DD get on with it to begin with and save everybody the time.

I find the idea that the show runners & writers aren't influenced by fans/audience, online or otherwise, very puzzling. I think they have to given the vagaries of the Nielsen system & IMO they are just more or less open about admitting it. Online responses, whether fan sites, the Other Place or stuff like Assielo is a useful proxy for various segments of the audience (though not necessarily the audience as a whole). IMO there's a pretty clear example recently of demonstrable online fan influence with the furor over killing off (literally) two characters in SGA by the previous show runners - fans erupted & bombarded both the new show runners, who were taking over in the middle of the debacle & scify, which airs the show. The result - both characters were written back in, one actor agreed to return, one didn't, but the door is open in the story-lines if that ever changes. Will the final outcome be good or bad, who knows (I happen think the characters should never have been cut in the first place for the simple reason that it resulted in some seriously crappy writing to get rid of them & even worse for the new characters), were they right to cave, again who knows, but SGA is a very tightly organized fandom & when the main fan site became a hot bed of pissed off fans, scify & the new show runners paid attention. It actually runs deeper than that in SGA - the main show runner runs a blog where he has some fairly interesting discussions with the fans who seek him out about why the show is making certain choices, partly IMO on the theory that this way no one gets blind-sided in the future (he also puts out new spoilers 3 - 4 times a week during production season). Its also common knowledge that he visits various fan sites (& so do other people involved in the show), including personal ljs of fans - there's a notorious incident where he commented on his blog about a discussion on a BNF's lj about the need to "tidy away the pRon" (that lj'er is a fairly well-know McShep writer). Fan feedback can also actually have some utility - at a con a fan asked "why does character X always do y?". Turns out the writers hadn't realized they were (subconsciously apparently) writing this behavior repeatedly over three years (the actor playing X hadn't noticed either, though others in the cast had & publicly told him he was an idiot for not doing so) - upshot, the writers started thinking about this & developing the behavior further as a part of the character's makeup & ensuring future consistency. In that instance, IMO fan feedback has some fairly positive utility. Are fans dictating story-lines here, no, but they are important barometers of what's actually ending up on the screen - which isn't always what the writers think it is or will be (witness the Tritter mess). Re the current DS interview - a lot of this is about managing expectations. I don't think that KJ interview was in any way ambiguous about C&C coming back into the fold this season, the ambiguity was about the exact mechanics & whether this might be ep 6 or 7 & maybe even 8 & House's reactions. Given its ep 13 & they are not back & I've now got DS basically telling me "tough luck", my anger is in part over having wasted time watching this season. If they had told me straight up not to expect them back (or cut the characters at the end of s3), I would have moved on then. Now I've got this festering rage that I've been strung along (& can't trust a word out of KJ's mouth), and no, I don't "need" to watch this show (& I'm not going to. I'm just not that invested in House & the other characters). The JW quotes simply illustrated to me that JW & DS are cut from the same arrogant cloth - neither of them are geniuses & they make mistakes, otherwise we wouldn't have had the Tritter idiocy or the last couple of lousy years of Buffy in service of their "vision". When it gets down to it, all DS's "need" argument does is illustrate that they've lost a part of the "want" factor for me where I feel emotionally lost if I don't watch. That's not the case anymore for House, I get that emotional/moral/intellectual fix from BSG & the moreish candy from SGA & Torchwood, for example. Not House, there's not a lot of joy watching angry characters like 13 & Taub or incompetent ones like Cuddy & I'm having too much deja vu from the repetitious "House & Wilson have a crisis yet again" or mimicking reality shows (poorly). Does DS care; probably not, but this isn't about making DS happy, its about how I chose to spend my leisure time. Which won't be watching House.

Re the current DS interview - a lot of this is about managing expectations. I don't think that KJ interview was in any way ambiguous about C&C coming back into the fold this season, the ambiguity was about the exact mechanics & whether this might be ep 6 or 7 & maybe even 8 & House's reactions. Given its ep 13 & they are not back & I've now got DS basically telling me "tough luck", my anger is in part over having wasted time watching this season. If they had told me straight up not to expect them back (or cut the characters at the end of s3), I would have moved on then. Now I've got this festering rage that I've been strung along (& can't trust a word out of KJ's mouth), and no, I don't "need" to watch this show (& I'm not going to. I'm just not that invested in House & the other characters). The JW quotes simply illustrated to me that JW & DS are cut from the same arrogant cloth - neither of them are geniuses & they make mistakes, otherwise we wouldn't have had the Tritter idiocy or the last couple of lousy years of Buffy in service of their "vision". When it gets down to it, all DS's "need" argument does is illustrate that they've lost a part of the "want" factor for me where I feel emotionally lost if I don't watch. That's not the case anymore for House, I get that emotional/moral/intellectual fix from BSG & the moreish candy from SGA & Torchwood, for example. Not House, there's not a lot of joy watching angry characters like 13 & Taub or incompetent ones like Cuddy & I'm having too much deja vu from the repetitious "House & Wilson have a crisis yet again" or mimicking reality shows (poorly). Does DS care; probably not, but this isn't about making DS happy, its about how I chose to spend my leisure time. Which won't be watching House. If the entire reason you watch a show is because of two characters, then, (and I don't mean to be blunt, and this is going to come off incredibly angry on screen and it's not meant to be, honestly) you're missing the entire point of the series. House is about how this one character interacts within his world, given his personality. And there are only so many ways that you can spin that story with only the same six people. Permanent change had to come, and there was only one place you could play with that change and not have the series crumble beneath you - within CCF. Maybe DS & co. haven't handled the situation perfectly (what good is having a "mysterious" character when you reveal all her secrets in the first 12 episodes?) and yes, they have said things in the media and not followed through, or perhaps we misunderstood them - because C&C did play interesting roles in Whatever it Takes and Ugly. We as fandom need to come to terms with the fact that House is not, and should not, going to revert back to how they were pre-Family. Let's move on. Besides, we have no idea what's going on behind the scenes. How do we know that there aren't huge discussions regarding fan reaction? I'm not saying let's put our faith in DS as though he were some sort of deity, but we should not expect them to grant us our every wish, especially when your wish is most likely not going to be my wish. Trust me, if I was given my way with the series, every episode would begin and end with Huddy!sex. Thankfully, I don't have my way. :lol:

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