Hi folks! Great to find this site. I’m jjr on another site. My take on the emmy phenomenon is that much of who votes for what is inexplicable, but Hugh’s choice of eps don’t help him. In season one, he chose Detox over Three Stories, even though Three Stories was as great a showcase for Hugh’s range and emotional power as it was for Shore’s writing. Watching that ep, you knew that no other actor could have stepped in and delivered a similar performance. The ep also allowed the audience a peek into House which helped the accessibility of his character to the layviewer. Detox was a good ep with a great performance for the withdrawal, but doesn’t have the emotional power of Three Stories. In season two, Hugh chose No Reason over Autopsy. Autopsy had an emotionally gripping story and again gave the audience a peek inside House in a way that increased his accessibility to a wide audience. The ethical dilemma was compelling and House’s choices understandable, if unusual. The parallel to his own state worked really well and helped with audience sympathy without in any way selling out the character. No Reason, on the other hand, was a writer’s showcase more than an actor’s showcase. The plot, even for dedicated viewers, benefitted from a second viewing (you DON’T want to leave your emmy voters scratching their heads over what exactly happened), and the sublteties of House’s interactions with his imaginary constructs would be lost on most general viewers who don’t know the characters well. In season three, Hugh chose Half Wit over Son of a Coma Guy. SofCG’s main story was nicely stand alone with a compelling ethical dilemma in which House’s choice, as in Autopsy, was understandable to a layviewer. Combined with the rare peek into his psyche with the buraka story, House is at his most accessible. Though the set up required some swallowing, the end packed a heck of a wallop, beginning with House’s “Wilson, get out” and not letting up until we hear the thud of the body. That ending makes a huge impact and makes the ep very memorable. Hugh gets to play a range of emotions and has a great guest star to play off. Half Wit also had a great guest star, but House’s emotional interactions were mostly contained to the regulars. Since those interactions were predicated on House faking cancer to get high, most casual viewers would find his actions offputting rather than gripping. House is not a very accessible character in this ep. You have to follow the show closely to look past the lying and wonder about depression or pain control. And if you’re not wondering about those issues for House, you have little sympathy for his dilemma on whether or not to walk in the bar. You wonder why he would imagine his team wouldn’t bop him on the nose and throw him out. That doesn’t make a compelling ending. Overall, I think someone in Hugh’s camp needs to stress that the emmy voter is looking at the one ep and the one ep only, so everything you need to sell about the character has to be on display in that one hour. The structure of House and the character don’t give Hugh many opportunities to invite the audience past House’s prickly exterior, particularly last season, so he needs to capitalise on the eps that do.

Stealing that devil's advocate hat :D Hugh Laurie seemed very very happy indeed with his golden globes, and David Shore indicated the emmy nomination mattered to Hugh. I doubt he's yet at a point where he doesn't care about peer acknowledgement of a great job. I think the difficulty with ep choice may be a result of his difficulty with watching his own work. He may be relying on other people's opinions more than he usually would. I have no doubt in general he has great instincts on what works and what doesn't.

I could quote your entire post jair (waves hi) but I'll just say WORD and realise it won't be the last time I do that. I think it's also a question of the content of the character. Alan Shore is a fairly archetypical 'defence lawyer with occasional social/moral/etc indignation'. Tony Soprano is a mobster with an occasional attack of conscience. There are few hidden layers. House, on the other hand, is anything but what you see at first sight. He's often described in the press (and also occasionally in the show) as a misanthropic bastard, but Hugh Laurie's genius is that he portrays him as a fundamentally flawed but also deeply conflicted and emotional person. It's a poignant portrayal of one of the most complex characters I've ever seen on television. It must be difficult, if not impossible, to compress all of Greg House into one episode and expect the Emmy voters to latch on to the nuances of the character. I think he might win next year or the year after, but I won't be surprised if he doesn't.

I'm not saying that he couldn't have been better served by a different episode this season (although most of House's impactful storylines required a knowledge of the show in general and specific storylines to pack the full whallop) but I do wonder how these awards will be able to effectively award actors who are producing more and more challenging work in shows that require more from the viewer than a 60 minute judging panal could ever provide. I agree it's frustrating that throughstories actually penalise a show, since those are so wonderful (usually!) for character development. I think Lost is an example of a show which really suffers from Emmy's need for a stand alone plot. House, being a hybrid, as RSL so nicely put it, between procedural and soap, has a moderate amount of difficulty with finding really good stand alone eps. But I think the stand out eps like Three Stories and Autopsy functioned very well as stand alone, even though each had a certain amount of through story. I think whoever helps with ep selection does have to recognise why these particular shows work better as emmy material than a show like No Reason. That's the practical side of the biz. It's not actually oppositional to appreciating and developing character, since I don't think No Reason was better at that than either of the two other eps. I liked No Reason and I'm glad David Shore takes risks. But it wasn't as successful a risk as Three Stories, so don't send it in as lead actor emmy choice.

Since Hugh has stated over and over again that he can't stand to watch himself I kinda doubt that he selects his own Emmy episodes. Or if he does it would have to be based on what he remembered of filming an episode, which sounds like a very poor way to do things. I'd be willing to bet that someone like David or Katie picks the selections. Does anyone know what the voting process for the Emmys is? I think marykir said something at that other place about people volunteering to sit on the selection panels and that usually there are fewer than 100 people doing the voting. If that is true it really shocks me. I had always assumed that everybody in the Academy could vote, but if just a small group is doing the deciding for everyone it would explain how screwed up the Emmy selections often are and why the whole process is so capricious.

I had always assumed that everybody in the Academy could vote, but if just a small group is doing the deciding for everyone it would explain how screwed up the Emmy selections often are and why the whole process is so capricious. The Hollywood Foreign Press Association has less than 100 members. I don't think the amount of voters matters since he has won there twice(though I have a theory on why they love him there) Hey and at least these voters watch the submissions, unlike the Oscars where most voters don't even bother to watch the movies.

The Hollywood Foreign Press Association has less than 100 members. I don't think the amount of voters matters since he has won there twice(though I have a theory on why they love him there) Hey and at least these voters watch the submissions, unlike the Oscars where most voters don't even bother to watch the movies. Yeah, I know that the HFPA is a small group, and I've heard that fact used as a criticism of Golden Globe awards. I'm just saying that I'm very surprised to learn that the Emmys are chosen by small, self selected panels of volunteers. It's just not the process that I thought was going on. BTW, what is your theory on why the Golden Globe voters like Hugh?

He's foreign. The HFPA loves big names and foreigners, especially Brits. I really didn't need to ask you that one. :lol: I could see it coming, and I can't refute that opinion at this point since I'm generally not into awards shows and such and I'm not familiar with the Globes' history of selections. Hugh's a Brit all right, but a big name? He is now, but not when he won the first of his Golden Globes. At that time he was a virtual unknown in the States. I do know that the Television Critics Association also gave it's best drama acting award to Hugh twice, and he was voted the SAG award by his fellow actors. I doubt that's because HL is a Brit. Oh well, I suppose it may be pointless to discuss these awards in a rational manner since the whole process is so subjective and illogical at times. No matter what happens, the whole process always leaves a lot of unhappy fans each year.

Hugh's a Brit all right, but a big name? He is now, but not when he won the first of his Golden Globes. At that time he was a virtual unknown in the States. I wasn't referring to Hugh with the big names comment, I was referring to even bigger names like Tom Cruise. I hold the SAG's in much higher regards. I wish the Emmy's would be awarded for a whole season's work instead of one episode. There are shows where you can literally pick out the episodes that are written as Emmy bait. On the Everybody love Raymond extras they even admitted that they wrote Debra's big PMS episode as pure Emmy bait for Patricia Heaton. It worked.