Meta: House: which way is the show going?
MJ Panel Mod: kassrachel
WARNING: POST AND/OR COMMENTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS. ALL US-AIRED EPISODES MAY BE DISCUSSED HERE.
This panel is called "House: Which Way is the Show Going?" That presupposes a certain binarism: either it's going a good way, or it's not. (Either it's heading for greatness, or it's on its way toward jumping the proverbial shark.) In hindsight, I probably should have titled it "Is there a plot arc in the House?"
Disclaimer, first off: these are my opinions and natterings about the show, and are not meant to be definitive. In the muskratjamboree panel, I hope to sketch this out very quickly and then garner thoughts from the group about what's characterized the show so far, how the show may be changing over time, and where we think (and hope) it might be headed.
It seems to me that season one had a pretty clear arc. The writers introduced characters, gave them some backstory, and eventually brought in a nemesis for House (the dreaded Vogler) who House had to outwit. All the while, House and his team solved a medical mystery each week, Wilson lurked inexplicably in House's office despite presumably having his own work to do, and there was snark and banter aplenty. Let's call this paradigm "House 1.0" -- it's classic House.
Season two did some great stuff with ongoing relationships: it gave us a mini-arc involving House and Stacy, and another involving House and Wilson. Both of these arcs offered character development.
The end of the season offered two major episodes which I think represent two different paradigms. First the two-part episode "Euphoria," wherein Foreman nearly died; then the finale, "No reason," wherein House was shot and we spent most of the hour inside his post-trauma hallucination.
Some fans loved "No Reason"'s whimsy, and how it played with layers of reality and unreality. Other fans called the episode a giant "reset" button -- an hour of stuff happened, and then poof! back to square one, because none of it was real. It was, to borrow vocabulary from Trek:TNG, a holodeck episode. I think the season finale moved us into a new House paradigm -- let's call it "House 2.0" -- in which solving case studies takes a backseat to character development, but the character development doesn't always create lasting change.
It's the lack of lasting change that frustrates me, as a fan and especially as a fanwriter. The changes introduced in the House 2.0 paradigm seem temporary. House's leg was restored -- for all of one episode. The Tritter arc seemed to be taking the characters in a new direction, in which actions had serious consequences and relationships might change as a result -- but at the end of the arc everything reverted back to the way it was before.
Some parts of the show have felt to me like House 1.0 (focus on medical mysteries and snark, with some character development built in) and others feel to me like they fit the second paradigm (dramatic character arcs which build and crest, but then leave the characters basically unchanged.) In the two grand finales of S2, I see these two House paradigms at work -- and possibly a reflection of the writing team's struggle to decide which paradigm should be dominant.
Hence this panel. Where is the show going? Do the writers have an overarching plan, or are they just noodling? Do y'all agree with the assessment that the show has reflected different paradigms of storytelling -- and would we rather see the show stick with its original paradigm, or do we want the kind of character development that the Tritter arc might have represented? Are there two teams of writers at work who can't decide which of these types of show they want to be creating? Where do we think the rest of S3 will take us? Dare we guess at what will happen if there is a season four?
WARNING: POST AND/OR COMMENTS MAY CONTAIN SPOILERS. ALL US-AIRED EPISODES MAY BE DISCUSSED HERE.
This panel is called "House: Which Way is the Show Going?" That presupposes a certain binarism: either it's going a good way, or it's not. (Either it's heading for greatness, or it's on its way toward jumping the proverbial shark.) In hindsight, I probably should have titled it "Is there a plot arc in the House?"
Disclaimer, first off: these are my opinions and natterings about the show, and are not meant to be definitive. In the muskratjamboree panel, I hope to sketch this out very quickly and then garner thoughts from the group about what's characterized the show so far, how the show may be changing over time, and where we think (and hope) it might be headed.
It seems to me that season one had a pretty clear arc. The writers introduced characters, gave them some backstory, and eventually brought in a nemesis for House (the dreaded Vogler) who House had to outwit. All the while, House and his team solved a medical mystery each week, Wilson lurked inexplicably in House's office despite presumably having his own work to do, and there was snark and banter aplenty. Let's call this paradigm "House 1.0" -- it's classic House.
Season two did some great stuff with ongoing relationships: it gave us a mini-arc involving House and Stacy, and another involving House and Wilson. Both of these arcs offered character development.
The end of the season offered two major episodes which I think represent two different paradigms. First the two-part episode "Euphoria," wherein Foreman nearly died; then the finale, "No reason," wherein House was shot and we spent most of the hour inside his post-trauma hallucination.
Some fans loved "No Reason"'s whimsy, and how it played with layers of reality and unreality. Other fans called the episode a giant "reset" button -- an hour of stuff happened, and then poof! back to square one, because none of it was real. It was, to borrow vocabulary from Trek:TNG, a holodeck episode. I think the season finale moved us into a new House paradigm -- let's call it "House 2.0" -- in which solving case studies takes a backseat to character development, but the character development doesn't always create lasting change.
It's the lack of lasting change that frustrates me, as a fan and especially as a fanwriter. The changes introduced in the House 2.0 paradigm seem temporary. House's leg was restored -- for all of one episode. The Tritter arc seemed to be taking the characters in a new direction, in which actions had serious consequences and relationships might change as a result -- but at the end of the arc everything reverted back to the way it was before.
Some parts of the show have felt to me like House 1.0 (focus on medical mysteries and snark, with some character development built in) and others feel to me like they fit the second paradigm (dramatic character arcs which build and crest, but then leave the characters basically unchanged.) In the two grand finales of S2, I see these two House paradigms at work -- and possibly a reflection of the writing team's struggle to decide which paradigm should be dominant.
Hence this panel. Where is the show going? Do the writers have an overarching plan, or are they just noodling? Do y'all agree with the assessment that the show has reflected different paradigms of storytelling -- and would we rather see the show stick with its original paradigm, or do we want the kind of character development that the Tritter arc might have represented? Are there two teams of writers at work who can't decide which of these types of show they want to be creating? Where do we think the rest of S3 will take us? Dare we guess at what will happen if there is a season four?