Talk:House (TV series)/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

Princeton

There are some connections between Princeton University and the show (the shots of Frist, McCosh Infirmary, the names of the wings being the names of the dorms, pictures of Butler college in House's office). Should there be a small section on this? Are these relevant, or will they be deleted (like they have been, after I'd written them)? Jinnentonik 04:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

"Exterior shots of Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital actually are of Princeton University's Frist Campus Center, which is the University's student center. Filming does not, however, take place there.[16] Filming takes place on the Fox lot in Century City. Exterior shots of the university campus are filmed at UCLA."
"Laurie plays Dr. Gregory House, a maverick medical genius who heads a team of young diagnosticians at the fictional Princeton-Plainsboro Teaching Hospital in New Jersey."
Those both are from the article. I think these two quotes already mention Princeton enough considering the show prominently says that the hospital and clinic that House takes place in is in Princeton. Gdo01 04:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

House & Wodehouse?

There is a similarity (intentional?) between the name House and that of P.G.Wodehouse, the British author of the books on which the Jeeves and Wooster comedy series is based. Hugh Laurie, who plays Dr.House, acted as Bertram Wooster in that series.

I wouldn't be surprised if there were references to it, because there's already been a reference to Blackadder, but I'd say in this case he's just named House for its similarity to Holmes. --Galaxiaad 02:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

His leg is fine now

at the beginning of the new season, we find that House's leg is healed due to the use of ketamyne, should this be mentioned, because i think so--Aaronpark 2:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

We still don't know how effective the treatment was. The ending of the episode indicated that he may have slight pain that could get worse as the ketamine wears off. I think that for the next few episodes the pain will be gone but once the writers need to mix things up, they will write House being in pain again.Gdo01 02:19, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

maybe the article should say that he is at least temporarily healed, in order show that this element may ave changed--68.200.60.150 00:30, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The publicity photos for season 3 show him with his cane, so I'm guessing that the treatment may not last too long.... --awh (Talk) 04:18, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

That's right. He went into his closet and got his cane in this lastest episode. I'm kinda thinking it's not just the pain, but also from his operation on the child with illusion when he found out he was right and cured the boy he was ready to be back in the same state of mind he was in before. Le Raine


maybe it should state that at the beginning of the 3rd season his leg was better--Aaronpark 19:55, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Some mention of the event should be included, with spoiler warnings where appropriate. --Paulus 03:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes Only if spoiler warnings are used, however. We don't want to ruin the series for anybody. Vjasper 20:14, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Play the nintendo DS?

I'm pretty sure the game he was playing wasn't Metroid Prime: Hunters, but instead Trauma Center: Under the Knife.

It did look like MPH, but I don't think it was released at the time...and it didn't look the demo either. Blue Mirage 03:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

It was Metroid Prime: Hunters...it shows the morph ball rolling around.The Culprit 00:49, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I've seen him playing Metroid: Zero Mission on the SP, but with cliche sound effects (stuff you expect in arcade games one episode). --Viridis 09:37, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Confirmed, he was playing Metroid: Zero Mission on the SP, but I don't believe it was Metroid on the DS.

Sherlock Homes Comparison

Do we really need this? I find it unconvincing.

The show's creator commented in interviews that House was largely based on the Sherlock Holmes character, so it's noteworthy in the article. Iwhaiwnfi 02:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Hugh Laurie mentioned this on the Tonight Show when the show started. He clearly drew the compairison between House and Homes.

Fansites, Episode Guide

Just a few comments. I'm looking at contributing to editing this website. There are some good fansites out there and they were removed (anyone know why?). I am planning on setting up some more external links that are "fansites" and not "official-websites". Some fansites are very good. I was thinking that as long as it doesn't get out of hand, people can come and post their own fansites.

Also, there should be a detailed account of every episode number and name (no reviews or previews, just a name) so people will know. If I have time, I can do this as well. Housefan 12:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

There's already an episode guide for this site: List of House episodes.

I've have a link on the page to episode reviews at TV Squad, but an admin has since removed it. I'm not sure why this link was removed while others are allowed to stay. TV Squad is no more or less commercial than several other links listed under 'External links', so I'd like to know the difference. Gudlyf 13:17, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Product placement

I deleted this section, because it's descending into farce; while iPods and GBAs have featured fairly prominently, do we really need to know that one episode mentioned a TiVo? This and every other show. It's gone unless somebody can be bothered stripping it down to the properly significant items. Kinitawowi 19:55, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Concur, it could probably simply be mentioned in the Trivia section that the show uses a great deal of product placement.

--- What about his shoes? It seems like they also show really big zoom-ins on his shoes. Staus 04:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

the name never changed!!!

The name never changed. It is still called "House, M.D.". Look at any of the advertisements that Fox airs. They still call it House, MD!!! Dposse 21:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

  • In the logo just, everything else is known as "House" Sfufan2005 21:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Check out the official homepage at http://www.fox.com/house/, and you won't find "House, M.D." anywhere on the page. Maelwys 01:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

why haven't they changed the logo then? Dposse 02:08, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, on the website they have. Can't say for the TV promos, haven't noticed them recently. And if they indeed haven't changed them... than I still can't say why, since I'm not part of the production team. ;-) Maelwys 11:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed the same thing. Here are two of the promos for season 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arLbzIIlro8 and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=brIqvTa7oXU. They call it House, but the logo still says House, MD. So I'm not sure what the deal is. --Galaxiaad 00:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

From what I can see, the only place where the show isn't listed as "House, M.D." is on the Fox page. Other references, and the show itself, all use the "M.D." after the name. I can post screenshots if necessary, but every episode of the show I have seen (and I have seen all the episodes that have aired so far (in the US)) has the title of the show as "House M.D.". I think that the title of this article should be changed accordingly, as should the image of the title screen. I can take a screen capture from my DVD set, if that would be best.

P.S. With regards to Fox referring to the show simply as "House" (verbally), I fell like it is just like Comedy Central advertising for "The Daily Show" -- the full name is "The Daily Show with Jon Stewart", but it is referred to casually/colloquially as just "The Daily Show". The full name is still correct, however (and is used in the Wikipedia article, as well). --Twilightsojourn 21:28, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Taking a look in the archives, I found a link to NBC Universal Television Group, who co-produces the show. At their official website they list the shows they're associated with. This list refers to each show by their full name, such as Law and Order: Special Victims Unit instead of Law and Order:SVU. This lists twice refers to House without the "M.D". SuperMachine 16:53, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
Also, on House's "show info" page on Fox's official site, they never use "M.D." in the show's title. Here's the opening paragraph:
"From executive producers Katie Jacobs, David Shore, Paul Attanasio and Bryan Singer, HOUSE, an innovative take on the medical drama, solves mysteries where the villain is a medical malady and the hero is an irreverent, controversial doctor who trusts no one, least of all his patients."
Looking around the rest of Fox's site, the show is always referred to without the "M.D." and the logos and graphics don't contain the "M.D.". SuperMachine 17:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
The NBC site also refers to "Queer Eye For Straight Guy", which is an abbreviation of the title. In addition, they are providing a link to the Fox site, which only refers to the show, as you pointed out, as "House". Again, though, I haven't found any other (semi-)official source where it is referred to as simply "House", without being colloquial. Shouldn't the show itself be used as a guide? Also, I think the example provided by The Daily Show should be taken into account. --Twilightsojourn 02:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
If the NBC site had referred to it simply as "Queer Eye", I'd tend to agree that they were abbeviating titles. However, in this case it appears that the "the" was inadvertently omitted. For every other show the use full titles such as "The Office: An American Workplace", "Law and Order: Special Victims Unit" and "The Tonight Show With Jay Leno". You mentioned that you can't find any other "semi-official" sites where it's referred to as "House". Well, can you find any official sites where the "M.D." is used (in text, not a graphic)? To me, the "M.D." in the show's logo isn't compelling evidence. If the "M.D." were actually part of the title (instead of just being part of a graphic), either Fox's official site or NBC Universal's official site would reflect this. Since Fox's official "show info" page [1] refers to it as "House" multiple times, I don't think that there can be much argument that it's just an informal title. SuperMachine 16:21, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Amazon.com, in both of its listings for the show here and here, lists it as "House, M.D." It really is weird, because on the covers of the DVD sets, it uses the "M.D.", but on the backs, it does not. And back to my Daily Show example -- you'll notice that both are used here, as well.
It's just so weird, that the show itself would refer to itself with the "M.D." (i.e. in its main titles), but that its website would not. Can you think of any other semi-official sites that we could check? After all, IMDB does list it with the "M.D.", and also notes "aka "House" - USA (short title)". --Twilightsojourn 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
IMDB is notoriously inaccurate, so I wouldn't put a great deal of weight into how it refers to the show. As for additional sources, I'd consider TV Guide to be the best of the "semi-official" ones. TV Guide uses the titles "CSI: Crime Scene Investigation" [2] (instead of "CSI"), "Law & Order: Special Victims Unit" [3] (instead of "Law & Order: SVU") and "Daily Show with Jon Stewart" [4] (instead of "The Daily Show"). TV Guide refers to House without the "M.D." [5].
My theory is that when Fox launched the show, it referred to it as "House, M.D." to make it clear that it's a medical show, not something to do with construction or decorating (like "Trading Spaces"). When House became extremely popular, Fox dropped the "M.D." (Fox loves one-word titles). SuperMachine 16:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for continuing to discuss this! I appreciate the time you're taking to look into it.
You're making some really good points, but I still can't get past the fact that the show refers to itself with the "M.D.". I feel like that should kind of trump everything else -- shouldn't it? Just because the show has reached enough prominence that it can be referred to by a shortened title does not necessarily mean that officially, the name has changed. What do you think? --Twilightsojourn 07:14, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
By the way -- I just saw an advertisement on Fox, saying that the new episodes are returning at the end of the month, and the ad referred to the show with the "M.D.". --Twilightsojourn 00:13, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Do you mean that the "M.D" was in the graphic (House logo) or that the voice-over actually referred to the show as "House M.D."? The former is the way it's always been, while the latter would surprise me greatly. SuperMachine 18:41, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review-Yes/No?

This article seems to have been worked on extensively, and I think a peer review would be good. Do you guys agree? I haven't put it up for nomination yet. TheKillerAngel 16:09, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

This article needs some significant cleanup before undergoing a peer review. Sources need to be cited for the ratings section. It is also not necessary to list every episode the people listed under Other characters have appeared in. Many of the items under trivia, such as House playing video games, is completely non notable fancruft that should be deleted. Those are just a few things I saw while skimming the article. Jtrost (T | C | #) 16:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
House playing video games is a recurring thing with his character, though; it's not "completely non-notable" at all. YOU may not care, but that doesn't make it notable in regards to his character; soap operas, listening to his iPod and video games are the most common diversions he engages himself in when at work on the show (the fact that none of these really requires another person is interesting and probably of some level of importance characterization-wise, though of course, to say so without a cite is OR and I wouldn't do it ;) ). Additionally, of slightly lesser note but still of some interest characterization-wise - he plays on three different systems. That's not that notable (e.g. a big deal shouldn't be made of it in the majority of the article), but I do believe it is notable enough for the "trivia" section, since it happens more than once (same with the fact that he's multiple times been shown watching General Hospital or similar medically-themed soap operas; it's a quirky part of his character and a recurring theme in his characterization, albeit the General Hospital references are probably an inside joke given that the series is also a medical drama, but anyway. A minor part, admittedly, but a part of it), and to me, that says he's probably a bit of a gamer (hell, I like to play games, but even I don't own more than one system. The only people I know that own more than one are usually referred to as "gamers", even if they're "casual gamers", e.g. they like games and play several on several different systems, but they don't stay up for 37 hours just to beat level ten or anything extreme like that). Although, since Dr. Gregory House is a seperate article, they should probably go there (same with the type of motorcycle he drives and the fact that he owns an iPod), to save space for more "key" information on the series as a whole for here, especially since I doubt next season or the season after that or the one after the one after that will be its last, given the current popularity (barring anything truly bizarre and unexpected, of course). :) 63.21.42.63 21:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Plagerism?

I just noticed that a specific House fansite has huge sections of verbatim (as if they were copied and pasted right out of wikipedia) or the other way around.

I'm not totally familiar with wikipedia's standards, but shouldn't one or the other cite where they got this information and would that be plagerism on behalf of the fansite? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.196.209.204 (talk • contribs)

I believe wikipedia is an open source site and anyone can use the info. and who's to say that the owner of the site didnt write some of it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Malevious (talk • contribs)
Content submitted to Wikipedia falls under the GNU Free Document License. It is a rather unrestricted license, but there are several things you are not allowed to do. Plagiarism is one of them. As in, distributing the content - modified or not - in such a fashion as to convince people that is a proprietary work. Regarding your suggestion, if an contributor writes a Wikipedia article, he or she has no greater rights to the content than someone who has never touched it. By submitting to Wikipedia, you hand all your work over to the GNU license. –Gunslinger47 01:04, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Then who's to say the info on the wikipedia wasnt taken from that site it? Malevious 19:42, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Plot template

It's unnecessary and original research, so I removed it. Dysprosia 09:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Someone reinserted this section (probably from copying and pasting a diff), and I removed it again. Elwood00 T | C 20:39, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Being unnecessary isn't a reason to delete this passage. (You could say anything is unnecessary, including every sentence of every article in the Wikipedia.) The question is whether or not it's "notable" or "remarkable", and I use "remarkable" in its literal sense of being something worth remarking on. I think the "everyplot" of this show is both notable and remarkable.
As far as being original research goes, I disagree with that also. The plot of the show isn't something that was made up; it's something that's available in every episode. If you watch an episode of a show and write down the name of the star (Hugh Laurie in this case) and use that information in an article, that isn't "original research" just because you got the information from watching the show instead of reading it in print somewhere else.Rray 22:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
a) I wrote it
b) I don't know who removed or re-inserted it without formatting, but
c) It is most definitely not "Original Research," as it is observable fact, and I am putting it back.
NeoThe1 10:32, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
This is clearly Original Research. You just admitted that you wrote it, based on your observations of the show. Elwood00 T | C 01:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Drawing inferences from the show on your own is original research. Describing what the show shows, however, is not original research. Just think of the show as a primary source (because it is one); it's not original research to state a fact about the source, but it would be original research to interpret the source or try to draw inferences from it. That should be left to a secondary source, like reviews. Johnleemk | Talk 03:30, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
I thought that's what I was saying. I guess I didn't express myself well.  :( Sorry. Elwood00 T | C 14:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


If it's one thing I hate on WP, it's original research nazis... For the 3324324234th time, recording trvially verifiable facts regarding plot and other such info is NOT original research as defined by the WP policy. 69.142.21.24 08:55, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

If nobody objects I'll delete the statements tagged with {{fact}} in a few days. Johnleemk | Talk 16:03, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the statements, except for a couple of them, which I found a source for. I've also drastically reorganised the article by resectioning it and utilising subsections. With a bit of pruning of irrelevant trivia and the shifting of some minor trivialities to List of House episodes, I've managed to more than halve the size of the trivia section, while only actually removing a few bits which really don't belong. (We don't need a long exposition about who played what in certain adaptations of a famous Doug Adams novel, nor is there much of a point to mentioning any but the most outrageous coincidences. The "Hugh Lawrence" thing wasn't important enough, and just fluffs the article without adding anything meaningful.) Johnleemk | Talk 09:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to point out an error in the trivia section. House's birthday is in December. All of "No Reason" from the time he was shot until the time he asked for ketamine was a hallucination. 1959 is probably the correct year, though. St jb 21:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

The Ratings section

It's a mess. I've tried to re-write it, but it seems like the best bet would be to replace it with a single line or two about scheduling issues elsewhere in the article. All the talk about the reruns is incomprehensible - and outdated info anyway. Thoughts? Lambertman 19:41, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Recurring Characters

I removed House's parents from this category because they only appeared in one episode of the entire series, "Daddy's Boy," which aired during the second season.

Drama/Comedy?

Would you say that House is a "dramedy"? --G4rfunkel 16:05, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think its a comedy at all. Sure theres humor in most of what House says but the main parts of the show are the drama of House trying to figure out what he is missing and the dramatic progress of the patient's illness.Gdo01 19:17, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
Please read the page for dramedy (comedy-drama) before you comment on something like that. To quote it: Comedy-drama, sometimes informally referred to as dramedy, is a style of television and movies in which there is an equal balance of humor and serious content.
To me, there IS an equal balance, because the show is arguably as popular as it is because Hugh Laurie is so good at comedy - which is present just about as much as the drama is. (And I think to think that a "dramedy" truly would have to BLEND the elements of comedy and drama, to the point where turning down either element would prove a weird change in tone to any viewer watching the episode) It's usually described as a "drama", but really, I think it's "dramedy," myself. I know I watch it for the funny character interactions, because the plot outline is almost identical episode to episode. :P 63.21.42.63 22:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

repeat.

Does anyone know when the premire episode of the third season will repeat? dposse 19:37, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

No, but the episode is available to watch in 5, good-quality parts on Youtube. 82.13.75.71 13:36, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks!! dposse 00:31, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Steve McQueen

Does House's pet rat really deserve a "Recurring character" spot? It feels more like an inside joke for the fans since the rat is not really a character. I don't believe the rat has appeared in more then two episodes. That in and of it self may be reason to remove him. The Filmaker 03:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Fancruft

"House plays games of Nintendo's Metroid series on several occasions. In an episodes you see Cuddy, and then in another you see House, using the iPod shuffle while they jog. Also, during the second season, there was an XM SkyFi 2 boombox on top of the bookshelf in their office. For the third season, this has been replaced by an iPod Hi-Fi. In some shots there is another iPod attached to it. Many of the patients' names in the English translation of the Nintendo DS videogame, Trauma Center: Under the Knife, uses names of characters or actors from House. This includes patients named Eric Dorian, Chi McGinley, Omar Flynn, Greg Kasal, Hugh Vogler, Noah Lourie, Amy Chase, and Jesse Pratt."

Do you agree/disagree?

Are you referring to the whole section, or solely that which you bolded? -Shannernanner 06:30, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Mainly the place I bolded, to a lesser extent, the rest.. TheKillerAngel 01:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

The first part goes to product placement, which is prominent in the series, and therefore notable. The second section is more trivial per the series itself, and probably belongs more on the video game's page, where it already is. -Shannernanner 05:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Season 3 - Showing in UK?

Does anyone know when season 3 will start in the UK?? Thanks Chris z99 16:23, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Mid to late January is the usual. Kinitawowi 23:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Product Placement

Can we get rid of this whole section? It just seems to be a magnet for fancruft. Do we really need to know what brand of shoes he wears, and what kind of computers the hospital uses? Fact is, no shows these days bother to create their own props from scratch, so everything being used is going to have some sort of name brand on it. But are those name brands really important to the show in any way whatsoever? If somebody can find a cited reference that the product placement is significant in this particular show, than fine. But otherwise I think it should be removed as OR and Fancruft. --Maelwys 00:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. What is/isn't product placement? So he uses an iPod. So do most people with music players. Ditto the DS. What about Cameron's clothes? Or the clipboards they use? Iorek85 01:16, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
I think it is worthy to mention something about him playing a gameboy or DS in a majority of the episodes, i doubt we need an entire section or need to mention every little gizmo in the series. Mabey just a little trivia thing about the recurring fact that he has a hand held videogame and a portable tv in almost all episodes. Malevious 20:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
There is already a note about that in the Personality section of the Gregory House article (noting that he enjoys playing video games, and even what systems and game series he plays most often). I think this is probably sufficient visibility for a factoid that has such little bearing on the series, and a whole section of the front page that also contains that information is probably overkill. --Maelwys 20:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Book

does the book really need to be mentioned in the article? i dont think it has much to do with the show at all and doesnt really need to be put there. Malevious 20:06, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The book is of interest to fans of the show because it addresses the questions they have about the accuracy of the medical cases depicted. The book is being discussed on fan sites including http://tv.groups.yahoo.com/group/House_MD and http://community.livejournal.com/housefic_pens/14615.html It would seem to be as relevant and notable as the DVD listings. Holtza 23:56, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
Being featured on fan sites does not qualify something for notability. I agree with the previous reverters that this is WP:VAIN. Though I weakly agree with the editor's assertions that the DVD listings are somewhat not relevant for this article. Gdo01 00:03, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe it would fit better as an external link? If so, the publisher's web listing is http://us.penguingroup.com/nf/Book/BookDisplay/0,,9780425212301,00.html and the Amazon link is http://www.amazon.com/Medical-Science-House-M-D/dp/0425212300 Holtza 00:13, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Uh this is actually worse since these links would directly advertise rather than implicity advertise. Gdo01 00:14, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd think that when people turn to Wikipedia for information about the show, one of the key questions is about the relative accuracy of the bizarre plots. I'm guessing that's why the article currently provides a link to a blog discussing the medical accuracy of the show. What would be an appropriate way to let readers know about a book that examines the show's accuracy? Holtza 00:29, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
Get a reliable source to publish an article about the book. If, for example, the New York Times were to write an article about your book and how good a resource it is for show fans and medical practitioners that enjoy the show, then that would assert the notability of the book, and then we'd be able to include it here. But until it's shown that the book is notable, I don't believe that it belongs here, no matter how useful it might be to fans. --Maelwys 16:58, 10 October 2006 (UTC)