-

Jump to content



Photo
- - - - -

House M. D. - Season 6


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
175 replies to this topic

#161 of 176 Mikah Cerucco

Mikah Cerucco

    Screenwriter

  • 2,462 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 27 1998

Posted May 23 2010 - 04:13 PM



Originally Posted by JimKr 

As opposed to what? A mandatory celibate period before moving on to the next partner? She dumps A and moves on to B, nothing wrong with that. That's how it's supposed to work as a matter of fact.




Morality is subjective, so if you don't see anything wrong with Cuddy's actions in this situation, nothing I can say is going to change that. I stand by my statement, you stand by yours, and we agree to disagree. Moving on.


Studios, caption your internet streams.

#162 of 176 Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter

  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted May 23 2010 - 05:38 PM



Originally Posted by Mikah Cerucco 
Morality is subjective, so if you don't see anything wrong with Cuddy's actions in this situation, nothing I can say is going to change that. I stand by my statement, you stand by yours, and we agree to disagree. Moving on


Not so fast, I'd like to hear your answer to his question.


She realized she was in love with someone else. It's a tough situation to be in, but one that happens relatively frequently in life. Was she suppose to wait longer to tell Lucas? How does that make it hurt less, how is that more "moral?" Under different circumstances she may have wanted to wait before committing to House, but the facts of the matter was that Cuddy chose to be with him and he needed her then the most.


Which parts of that are immoral?


"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#163 of 176 Mikah Cerucco

Mikah Cerucco

    Screenwriter

  • 2,462 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 27 1998

Posted May 24 2010 - 02:19 AM




Originally Posted by Zack Gibbs 


Not so fast, I'd like to hear your answer to his question.


She realized she was in love with someone else. It's a tough situation to be in, but one that happens relatively frequently in life. Was she suppose to wait longer to tell Lucas? How does that make it hurt less, how is that more "moral?" Under different circumstances she may have wanted to wait before committing to House, but the facts of the matter was that Cuddy chose to be with him and he needed her then the most.


Which parts of that are immoral?



Let's flip the script. How did Cuddy feel about the Lucas before her House revelation? She loved him enough to live with him and accept his offer to spend the rest of her life with him? The show says yes. So it wasn't that she didn't think he'd be a great partner for her, great father to her baby, and someone she'd like to spend the rest of her life with. She just loves House "more" ? And in all the time she's known House, she was never honest with herself about those feelings? When she was accepting a marriage proposal, she didn't think, "I really need to make sure I'm over this House thing" ? Oh wait. She thought she was over it, but when she saw House in a new light, that changed everything. But see, I say that only changes her feelings about House, not Lucas.


What's immoral (to me) is telling someone you're so sure about your feelings that you're willing to accept a proposal of marriage in which you agree to forsake all others, then within days, give yourself to another. If she could give herself to House so quickly after accepting a marriage proposal, she wasn't being honest with herself (or Lucas) in the first place. One could say she was as honest with herself as she could be, but I don't buy it. She's not a kid. I consider dishonesty immoral.


The show sets up the audiences acceptance of Cuddy's actions because the audience wants Cuddy/House. Couple that with the fact that most people don't accept the Cuddy/Lucas pairing. I don't like it either. However, if they have the character say she's in love, living with him, and accepting his marriage proposal, I put aside my own feelings about the coupling and accept what the writers outline as the situation.


Nowhere do I suggest she should wait to tell Lucas. If anything, I think she should have been honest about her feeling for House sooner. As for Cuddy deciding to be with House because he needed her then the most, what he needed was her friendship and support. He didn't need her professing her love and making out with him. Besides, you can't love someone out of an addiction. Anyone who has any real exposure to addicts will tell you how futile that usually is.


If you make far-reaching proclamations/promises that affect the lives of other people, then break them when the wind changes, I don't respect that. Adults need to think about their commitments before they make them. Would I prefer she stay with Lucas out of some sense of obligation? No. But I don't think you get to reward yourself with your new infatuation while destroying someone else's life either. I think you made a commitment to this person (even though she has no ring on her finger yet), and you don't get to be OK until you also do everything you can to make sure he's OK. That's what you do if you love someone (and all indications according to the show is that she does). New desires don't nullify previous commitments. Given that Cuddy's the one that's screwing up her relationship with Lucas, why is he the only one who'll suffer? She'll just move on to House and leave Lucas in her wake?


Having feelings for someone and acting on them at the expense of all else is animalistic. It has more in common with Hedonism than civilized behavior. In civilized society, we realize there's more to life than immediate self gratification.


I say it's pointless to discuss because morality is subjective. I'm 99.9% sure there's nothing you or anyone else on this forum could say to change my opinion on what happened on the show, or what happens in real life. I think 50% divorce rates are laughable, but are only a symptom of the underlying attitude of the populace. There are things I enjoy discussing because I haven't given them serious thought and I like to have my ideas challenged to see if they stand up. If they don't, so be it. I'd rather be wrong-->informed-->right  than wrong-->blocked-->wrong. There are even things I enjoy discussing  where I'm sure I'm right, because even if I'm 99.9% sure of my opinion, there's that 00.1% chance I'll be exposed to something I haven't considered. But in this case, if I look at myself in the mirror, I have to admit I have little wiggle room. I've given the issues involved plenty of thought, both before making commitments, and while having to live with them while "tugged" away from the commitment. I know what my conclusions are. But neither would I deny you your right to see the situation differently. In such situations, the best I can hope for is to respect your opinion and move on.


Studios, caption your internet streams.

#164 of 176 Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer

  • 14,122 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted May 24 2010 - 04:00 AM

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mikah Cerucco 

Let's flip the script. How did Cuddy feel about the Lucas before her House revelation? She loved him enough to live with him and accept his offer to spend the rest of her life with him? The show says yes. So it wasn't that she didn't think he'd be a great partner for her, great father to her baby, and someone she'd like to spend the rest of her life with. She just loves House "more" ? And in all the time she's known House, she was never honest with herself about those feelings? When she was accepting a marriage proposal, she didn't think, "I really need to make sure I'm over this House thing" ? Oh wait. She thought she was over it, but when she saw House in a new light, that changed everything. But see, I say that only changes her feelings about House, not Lucas.


In some ways, I think she's been leading Lucas on from the beginning. She was attracted to him because he shares many of House's worthwhile traits while lacking most of House's toxic traits. He was the "smart" alternative to House, and that was the relationship she pursued with her brain because she knew intellectually that it would offer a better future for her. At the time she accepted his marriage proposal, she was still operating under the assumption that House would always be too toxic to touch. My guess is that if the crane accident hadn't happened, she would have gone through with the marriage and it would have ended messily a few years down the line when some other event came along to change how she thought about House. House was always the ticking time bomb in that relationship.


What's immoral (to me) is telling someone you're so sure about your feelings that you're willing to accept a proposal of marriage in which you agree to forsake all others, then within days, give yourself to another. If she could give herself to House so quickly after accepting a marriage proposal, she wasn't being honest with herself (or Lucas) in the first place. One could say she was as honest with herself as she could be, but I don't buy it. She's not a kid. I consider dishonesty immoral.

Exactly. Accepting the marriage proposal in the first place was the immoral act, not getting together with House. Lucas should consider himself lucky that the shit hit the fan before the wedding, because their relationship was always going to run up against House. Not nice or even pretty, but it happens all of the time.



#165 of 176 Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter

  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted May 24 2010 - 08:46 AM


Quote:

Originally Posted by Mikah Cerucco 
Let's flip the script. How did Cuddy feel about the Lucas before her House revelation? She loved him enough to live with him and accept his offer to spend the rest of her life with him? The show says yes. So it wasn't that she didn't think he'd be a great partner for her, great father to her baby, and someone she'd like to spend the rest of her life with. She just loves House "more" ? And in all the time she's known House, she was never honest with herself about those feelings? When she was accepting a marriage proposal, she didn't think, "I really need to make sure I'm over this House thing" ? Oh wait. She thought she was over it, but when she saw House in a new light, that changed everything. But see, I say that only changes her feelings about House, not Lucas.
What's immoral (to me) is telling someone you're so sure about your feelings that you're willing to accept a proposal of marriage in which you agree to forsake all others, then within days, give yourself to another. If she could give herself to House so quickly after accepting a marriage proposal, she wasn't being honest with herself (or Lucas) in the first place. One could say she was as honest with herself as she could be, but I don't buy it. She's not a kid. I consider dishonesty immoral.


I think the problem is that most of this stuff didn't actually happen, you're just projecting it onto the show. (which is probably why this is so interesting) You say she's dishonest but you've no reason to conclude that. Based on Cuddy's character I'd say she knew full well her feelings for House, but also knows there's no such thing as one true love.

Cuddy has feelings for House, but doesn't believe they have any chance of a life together so those feelings are irrelevant. She has to put them aside if she wants to have a family. She can still love Lucas, and she can believe the two of them could have a future together. So she chose, based on that, to commit to Lucas all the while being completely unaware that very soon, under the most extreme of circumstances, She'll find that House isn't the lost cause he presented himself to be. And in that she's reminded of a man she fell in love with roughly a decade ago. It is at this point she can no longer put those feelings aside--not before, nor is it necessarily warranted to do so any longer.


But she didn't know all of that in advance-- so she's immoral?


Also, you exaggerate Cuddy and Lucas' situation using phrases like "destroying someone Else's life." Cuddy and Lucas are "moving in together," which is not the same as "living together." And Cuddy is calling off an engagement measured not in months or weeks or even days-- but hours. There is a world of difference. Practically speaking, they're breaking up as any dating couple would. And while that may hurt emotionally, Lucas will move on unabated otherwise.


"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#166 of 176 Mikah Cerucco

Mikah Cerucco

    Screenwriter

  • 2,462 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 27 1998

Posted May 24 2010 - 03:58 PM

"I think the problem is that most of this stuff didn't actually happen"


Cuddy didn't agree to move in with Lucas? Cuddy didn't agree to marry Lucas?  I'll need specifics of the stuff that didn't happen.


"You're just projecting it onto the show."


Projecting, huh? And what are you doing when you defend and excuse bad behavior? Can we not go down this path?


"You say she's dishonest but you've no reason to conclude that"


If you mislead a person to believe something that you know or suspect isn't true, you're being dishonest. Cuddy led Lucas to believe she was ready to forsake all others.


"Cuddy has feelings for House, but doesn't believe they have any chance of a life together so those feelings are irrelevant. She has to put them aside if she wants to have a family. She can still love Lucas, and she can believe the two of them could have a future together. So she chose, based on that, to commit to Lucas all the while being completely unaware that very soon, under the most extreme of circumstances, She'll find that House isn't the lost cause he presented himself to be. "


I. Don't. Care. She's an adult. Commitment has no meaning whatsoever if you don't live up to the ones you make. She's old enough to know what she was getting into by agreeing to marry Lucas. That includes losing out on the possibility that something "better" will come along in the future. And knowing that, she said "yes". But when something better did come along, she called for a mulligan.


"And in that she's reminded of a man she fell in love with roughly a decade ago. It is at this point she can no longer put those feelings aside--not before, nor is it necessarily warranted to do so any longer."


I'm of the belief that intelligent people can always put feelings aside. One can even go on a starvation diet with hunger pangs pulling at you to sustain your very life. All it takes is commitment to a goal. And if Cuddy were committed to Lucas, she would be able to put aside her feelings for House. But she's not commited to Lucas, even after accepting his proposal, and probably never was. You think that's OK. I don't.


"Nor is it necessarily warranted to do so any longer."


Given that she was never committed to Lucas in the first place (despite misleading him that she was), there's nothing to gain by her perpetuating the dishonesty.


"But she didn't know all of that in advance-- so she's immoral?"


First of all, classifying someone as immoral is even more subjective than classifying an act as immoral. We all commit immoral acts. We have this nebulous subjective line that separates good people who do bad things from bad people who do good things. So I'm going to have to go back to my original statement that Cuddy's handling of the situation was "not cool".


That said, what does knowing everything in advance have to do with commitment? I once had a job offer that I accepted. The next day, I got another job offer with a similar salary, but a $10k signing bonus. I'm aware that I could have accepted the 2nd job (especially since I hadn't started the first), and walked down the street with my head held high because 99.9% of people would have understood my choice. But that's not the standard I live by. My standards are internal. And I knew when I accepted the job there was the possibility a better offer might come. Still, I made the commitment. So I lived up to it. With gusto (not begrudingly thinking of the $10k I lost out on every day) It's possible to live a happy life and still try to live with honor.


"Also, you exaggerate Cuddy and Lucas' situation using phrases like "destroying someone Else's life." "


Yes, because most people are just peaches and cream after going from engaged to dumped in a 24-hour period. I don't mean destroyed in the sense that he'll stop working and bathing an become an alcoholic living in the gutter. But I don't think I'm in the minority here in thinking the average person would feel pretty devastated going from engaged to dumped -- especially for another person. I'm sure it's OK on TV, but in real life, this isn't like getting over losing $100 in the stock market.


"Cuddy and Lucas are "moving in together," which is not the same as "living together." "


All part of my nefarious goal to misrepresent the situation so as to validate my projection, no doubt.


Or, my understanding is Lucas been staying at Cuddy's, even though he still has his own place, and they've been looking at buying a house together.


"And Cuddy is calling off an engagement measured not in months or weeks or even days-- but hours. There is a world of difference."


So let's focus on what actually occurred. I say that calling off a engagement to Lucas that she just said yes to hours before, not because anything about that situation changed, but because she never really was committed to it in the first place, and now wants House, is not cool. It was a dishonest "commitment" from the start.


"There is a world of difference. Practically speaking, they're breaking up as any dating couple would."


I don't buy that at all. When she agreed to take him into her home with her child and accepted his marriage proposal, the nature of the relationship decidedly changed considerably from "any dating couple".


Are we having fun yet?


Studios, caption your internet streams.

#167 of 176 Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter

  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted May 24 2010 - 07:25 PM

If you mislead a person to believe something that you know or suspect isn't true, you're being dishonest. Cuddy led Lucas to believe she was ready to forsake all others.


Or she was ready, and then something changed. That's how life works for every single person on this planet, including you. If you don't recognize that, you're being dishonest with yourself as well.


I. Don't. Care. She's an adult. Commitment has no meaning whatsoever if you don't live up to the ones you make. She's old enough to know what she was getting into by agreeing to marry Lucas. That includes losing out on the possibility that something "better" will come along in the future. And knowing that, she said "yes". But when something better did come along, she called for a mulligan.


I don't think its at all fair to look at this as Cuddy "trading up."


I'm of the belief that intelligent people can always put feelings aside. One can even go on a starvation diet with hunger pangs pulling at you to sustain your very life. All it takes is commitment to a goal. And if Cuddy were committed to Lucas, she would be able to put aside her feelings for House. But she's not commited to Lucas, even after accepting his proposal, and probably never was. You think that's OK. I don't.


I'm not sure how to respond to the absurdity of this. Briefly; people aren't contracts, and there's nothing right about willfully proceeding with relationships that aren't fulfilling to the parties involved.


First of all, classifying someone as immoral is even more subjective than classifying an act as immoral. We all commit immoral acts. We have this nebulous subjective line that separates good people who do bad things from bad people who do good things. So I'm going to have to go back to my original statement that Cuddy's handling of the situation was "not cool".


Agreed. And I will note you did downgrade your assessment to "not cool," so some of what we're discussing is really just...theory? There's a better word there I'm sure.


That said, what does knowing everything in advance have to do with commitment? I once had a job offer that I accepted. The next day, I got another job offer with a similar salary, but a $10k signing bonus. I'm aware that I could have accepted the 2nd job (especially since I hadn't started the first), and walked down the street with my head held high because 99.9% of people would have understood my choice. But that's not the standard I live by. My standards are internal. And I knew when I accepted the job there was the possibility a better offer might come. Still, I made the commitment. So I lived up to it. With gusto (not begrudingly thinking of the $10k I lost out on every day) It's possible to live a happy life and still try to live with honor.


Now, what if the first job was just for the money? You were out of work and your kids need braces so you take the offer. Now the second offer comes, but it's not about a higher salary, this is a different job all together, your dream job, the career you've wanted your entire life, your one big shot. What do you do now, aren't you obligated to your personal commitments as much as anything else?


All part of my nefarious goal to misrepresent the situation so as to validate my projection, no doubt.


I'm not trying to insinuate that at all, truly. You just sound as if you're getting a little ahead of where things are. There are degrees of things as well, always. If engagement were the commitment you make it out to be for instance, there would be no purpose to marriage at all. But Cuddy and Lucas don't live together, and they aren't married. They've exchanged no vows. For that to mean what it does 'engagement' has to mean less.


So let's focus on what actually occurred. I say that calling off a engagement to Lucas that she just said yes to hours before, not because anything about that situation changed, but because she never really was committed to it in the first place, and now wants House, is not cool. It was a dishonest "commitment" from the start.


You literally just projected that. I point it out only for the irony. Even the furthest of relationships can react to one another. Cuddy's feelings for House absolutely changed her situation with Lucas.


Are we having fun yet?


Make no mistake. I. Am. Having. Fun.

I'm not going to get defensive, and haven't nor will I try to antagonize you so please don't read anything that way. But I will continue a healthy (or unhealthy) argument to the death. I only ask we try to keep posts briefer should we continue.


"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#168 of 176 Mikah Cerucco

Mikah Cerucco

    Screenwriter

  • 2,462 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 27 1998

Posted May 25 2010 - 01:05 AM

I had little desire to start, and have little desire to continue.


It's difficult to take someone seriously that he has no desire to antagonize when he responds to your viewpoint (one that I initially said I didn't want to get into, but which you nevertheless requested I share because you were "interested") with calling it "absurdity". Oh, and let's not forget that I "downgraded" to "not cool" (when if you go back to my original post, you will see that's exactly the term I used). Here, I'll help you.


Initial version of initial statement: "One day she's sleeping with the PI, and the next she's sleeping with House? Not cool."

Revised version of initial statement: "One day she's living with, sleeping with, and engaged to the PI, and the next she's giving herself to house? Not cool."


Downgrade, indeed. And then there's the attempt to slide in the possibility that I'm being dishonest, when by your own qualifiers, "If you don't recognize that, you're being dishonest with yourself as well." Really? If I didn't know (recognize) something, I'd be dishonest? See, statements like this suggest to me you have little interest in exploring my POV, but in touting your own while attempting to discredit mine. If only I understood who you want to discredit it with? Me? The HTF readership? What you seem to have have interest in is arguing (apparently to the universe) that my POV is wrong. That's the pointless conversation I wanted to avoid in the first place.


And before you pick a slanted interpretation of what I just said above about "not knowing something doesn't make you dishonest" to try to explain away Cuddy's actions, she absolutely did know how she felt about House. Her words were... "I try to move on... I try not to think about you, but it doesn't work." She knew exactly what she was struggling with when she accepted the proposal.


Oh, and the briefer I am, the more you chose the most unflattering interpretations of my words to suit your own purpose. Now I actually have not a care in the world if you choose to read my words wrong, but there's the possibility that people only vaguely following along may be mislead by your slant on what I say. So I use the amount of words I feel are necessary (within my personal limits).


"Now, what if the first job was just for the money? You were out of work and your kids need braces so you take the offer. Now the second offer comes, but it's not about a higher salary, this is a different job all together, your dream job, the career you've wanted your entire life, your one big shot. What do you do now, aren't you obligated to your personal commitments as much as anything else?"


Where the analogy falls apart is there is no expectation of a lifetime commitment with a job. My point is in my world view, "Is it better for me?" isn't a wildcard justification that excuses me from my commitments with disregard for the people I affect. By the way, flipping the script once again, I think if a person were interviewing for jobs and got a job offer, contacted other potential empoyers to let them know he'd accepted a job offer somewhere else, then had the job offer rescinded because a better applicant came along after the job offer went out, the applicant would think that's "not cool" too.


"If engagement were the commitment you make it out to be for instance, there would be no purpose to marriage at all."


Yes, there would be. The law and church only recognize marriage. And marriage normally involves the ceremony of a wedding. It takes time to plan and execute a wedding. But yes, I do believe that the commitments you make when you say "I do" are simply a public affirmation of what you've already agreed to with your partner by accepting the proposal. But let's hear what you think accepting a proposal means? "Honey, will you marry me?" / "Sure, if nothing changes. Let's just start planning it and see how it goes." Seriously?


"Even the furthest of relationships can react to one another. Cuddy's feelings for House absolutely changed her situation with Lucas."


If I have someone I've committed to because she fulfills me and meets my needs, a third party cannot negate that. If I have a partner that gives me what I need, and I develop a bond with that person that is significant enough for me to say, "OK, you're it for me," that would be my situation. No third party could change that situation (no matter how beautiful, rich, sexually outgoing, charming, famous, etc.) because that situation is between 2 people. If I develop feelings for a third party, it's on me to handle myself appropriately and honor my commitment. I would not allow it to change my situation with the person I've committed to. We're not animals. Cuddy's appreciation for House can only change her commit to Lucas if she lets it, because Lucas is still the man she committed to. Nothing about House becoming a better person changes who Lucas is.


Unfortunately, Lucas was never "it" for her in the first place. But neither does House change that fact. Call it projecting if you will, but I think the majority would agree with me that Lucas was never "it" for Cuddy. I say she never should have led him to believe he was. Sure it happens. That doesn't mean I'm going to say it's "OK".


"I will continue a healthy (or unhealthy) argument to the death."


I won't. Not on the internet. I don't argue to argue. As near as I can tell, you won't change your mind, and neither will I. So remind me again what's the point of this discussion? To recap...


Mikah: Morality is subjective, so if you don't see anything wrong with Cuddy's actions in this situation, nothing I can say is going to change that. I stand by my statement, you stand by yours, and we agree to disagree. Moving on.


Zach: Not so fast, I'd like to hear your answer to his question.


Admittedly, my first inclination was to either ignore you or ask you who you think you are to tell me "not so fast" when I politely communicate that I've decided a discussion has reached the point where it's time for me to move on (I say politely, because my actual though was, "A pointless waste of my very limited time and energy."), but I decided to humor you. Obviously that was a good decision on my part as we wouldn't have had a proper opportunity for you to point out the absurdity of my views otherwise. Now that I've humored you, I only ask that you define the criteria for completing the discussion so we know when we're there, because personally, I was there a long time ago. Once I understand your goal, perhaps I can do my part to help us get there quicker. Otherwise, it's an endless back and forth which accomplishes nothing, which fits "waste of time" IMO, especially since I have zero desire to change your mind.


Studios, caption your internet streams.

#169 of 176 Andrew Pierce

Andrew Pierce

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 187 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 2002
  • Real Name:Andrew Pierce
  • LocationMinneapolis

Posted May 25 2010 - 01:15 AM

Of course Cuddy was being dishonest... to herself. You can't hold that against her.



#170 of 176 JimKr

JimKr

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 93 posts
  • Join Date: Dec 06 2003

Posted May 25 2010 - 06:12 AM

Damn if you do and damned if you don't.


That's why I generally didn't. Can't please everyone, might as well please yourself.  :)



#171 of 176 Zack Gibbs

Zack Gibbs

    Screenwriter

  • 1,687 posts
  • Join Date: Sep 15 2005

Posted May 25 2010 - 08:40 AM

Mikah,


I questioned you because you chose to share your judgments in the thread without ever revealing their source. You were right that no one was probably going to change their mind, I was just curious to know what was on yours to begin with.


I half expected to find you had some maladjusted sense of morality, but that was not the case at all. I'd say your idea of 'moral' is fairly standard, but your views on people and the choices they're capable of making, and more importantly why they should make them, less so. It was, indeed, interesting. And to that end, my only initial goal is more than met.


Could we continue? Sure. Should we? Considering the increasing levels of anger and paranoia in your posts... probably not. I wish there was a nicer way to say that, but it is what it is.


"Because he's the hero that Gotham deserves, but not the one it needs right now... and so we'll hunt him... because he can take it... because he's not a hero... he's a silent guardian, a watchful protector... a DARK KNIGHT."

#172 of 176 Mikah Cerucco

Mikah Cerucco

    Screenwriter

  • 2,462 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 27 1998

Posted May 25 2010 - 03:52 PM

Seems a bit disingenuous to me. Here's a nicer way to say it... "I don't think we should continue because I don't think the conversation is productive anymore." Given your obvious intelligence, I'm sure you could come up with that, or something even better, if you truly wished to say what you said in a nicer way. So why not just own up to your own feelings, stop pretending, and admit you said it just like you felt it and didn't truly want to say it nicer? It's OK. I'm a big boy.


It's been common throughout your posts. You talk about the "absurdity" of my statements, and then say you have no desire to be antagonistic. Really? Psychologist would tell you even the word "Why?" can be antagonistic, and you think "absurd" isn't? I could go on. It's not paranoia when I'm responding to the content of your posts. Anger? I doubt it, as if you were here right now, I'd share a meal and laugh with you.


Getting back to the show "House" and the character of Cuddy. I don't think what she did to Lucas was cool. And despite what you may think, or the evidence in this thread, I don't agree that the average person on the street would think it's cool either if it happened to someone they knew instead of perpetrated by a characters they like on a TV show. "Hey, my friend's girlfriend accepted his proposal, then she dumped him and got with the guy she really wanted the next day. Oh well, stuff happens." No. And you know what? I asked a few different people from different walks of life (over the last 2 days) what they'd think about that situation" and I got responses from, "That's messed up," to "She should have treated everyone involved with more respect." Nobody thought it was cool.


That said, it's admittedly a small sample size. Those who are OK with Cuddy's actions are certainly allowed to say so, just as I'm allowed to say what I thought about it.


Aside from all that, I thought it was an excellent episode. Adam and I have had discussions in the past (we were on different sides) regarding overlooking House's behavior because of his medical expertise. So as you can imagine, that little moment of Cuddy ripping him a new one played well here for the most part. In fact, the episode was pretty much 99% pitch perfect for me (which is why it's one of my favorite shows). But even after watching all these years, I still don't believe that brilliance entitles someone to treat other people badly (House). And I don't overlook bad actions just because I happen to like the person committing them (Cuddy).


And, I miss Cameron.


Studios, caption your internet streams.

#173 of 176 Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer

  • 14,122 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted May 25 2010 - 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Mikah Cerucco 


Getting back to the show "House" and the character of Cuddy. I don't think what she did to Lucas was cool. And despite what you may think, or the evidence in this thread, I don't agree that the average person on the street would think it's cool either if it happened to someone they knew instead of perpetrated by a characters they like on a TV show.


...


But even after watching all these years, I still don't believe that brilliance entitles someone to treat other people badly (House). And I don't overlook bad actions just because I happen to like the person committing them (Cuddy).


And, I miss Cameron.


I think it all depends on what you mean by bad actions. I agree that what Cuddy did to Lucas wasn't cool. In my book, accepting his proposal was the bad action... and breaking it off was the act of mercy. If she was going to be drawn to House, he had a duty to Lucas to let him know as soon as possible to minimize the damage. Lucas still got a very raw deal as things played out, but if they'd been two years into their marriage when Cuddy had an affair with House things would have been much worse. And the whole time, Lucas would know in some part of his mind that Cuddy wanted another man.


I don't look for my protagonists to be perfectly moral -- and I'm not implying that you necessarily do -- but I do look for them to be coherent characters. Cuddy's behavior is appalling but it's also understandable within the context we've been giving. And more importantly, it's coherent with what we've been shown over the run of the show.


House is able to treat people like crap because his brilliance is unreplaceable. But one thing the show has done a terrific job exploring the last season and a half is just because you can get away with toxic behavior doesn't mean you don't suffer negative consequences from that toxic behavior. The law of karma applies: do bad things, bad things happen; do good things, good things happen. Do good things happen to bad people and and bad things happen to good people? Absolutely, but the reactions that ripple from good behavior create a favorable environment for good things to happen, while the reactions that ripple from bad behavior prevent a lot of good things from happening.


House went out drinking with his fellows as a favor to Wilson so that he could have some alone time with his ex-wife. It didn't amount to much with Taub or Thirteen, but he had a great time with Foreman and Chase -- and Foreman and Chase had a good time with him. If he hadn't done Wilson that favor, he and his team members would have never known they could actually have fun with each other. The same thing applies with the finale: despite the universe throwing a lot of horrible shit his way following his good deeds, one of those ripples turned into the thing he desired most.



#174 of 176 Mikah Cerucco

Mikah Cerucco

    Screenwriter

  • 2,462 posts
  • Join Date: Nov 27 1998

Posted May 26 2010 - 12:59 AM

For me, the interest in watching a TV show is rooted in the drama surrounding watching people struggle with imperfections (theirs and other's) and difficult choices. It's why my favorite shows tend to be things like House, BSG, SGU, Lost, 24, etc. I don't expect anyone in real life or on TV to be perfect. It'd be boring if they were. But the "discussion" above wasn't regarding whether there is an expectation of perfection in TV characters. It was a (meandering ) discussion as to whether anything untoward even occurred.


Studios, caption your internet streams.

#175 of 176 Adam Lenhardt

Adam Lenhardt

    Executive Producer

  • 14,122 posts
  • Join Date: Feb 16 2001
  • LocationAlbany, NY

Posted June 01 2010 - 07:51 AM

To sum up: Lucas got seriously fucked over... but most of us are happy anyway.



#176 of 176 Andrew Pierce

Andrew Pierce

    Stunt Coordinator

  • 187 posts
  • Join Date: May 22 2002
  • Real Name:Andrew Pierce
  • LocationMinneapolis

Posted June 02 2010 - 09:01 AM

In Cuddy's defense, if YOU were in love with someone as antisocial and generally screwed up as Greg House, you might develop a serious case of denial about it yourself, to the point that you might even agree to marry Mr. Not-So-Unbelievably-Wrong-Time-After-Time-Do-You-Remember-What-He-Said-To-Dead-Kutner's-Parents-OMFG.


Cuddy's job, or rather, Lisa Edelstein's job in this episode was to sell us this change of heart during the scene where House is advising the patient to get the amputation, and confessing about how his decision to keep the leg made him a jerk and alone. That's why we were looking at her face during that scene, which on the surface was between House and the patient, and she was only an observer. Personally I think she pulled it off.