Wikipedia

Talk:House (TV series)

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Carbonite (talk | contribs) at 18:49, 16 December 2005 (→Proposed move to [[House (TV series)]]). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Latest comment: 19 years ago by Carbonite in topic Proposed move to House (TV series)

Some of those of us who live in the UK have a chance to see how good this series is next Sunday (2005-04-17) when it starts on the Hallmark channel. HTH HAND --Phil | Talk 08:19, Apr 14, 2005 (UTC)

  • Come on guys, let's EXPAND this article... I did a little tonight ---FoodMarket talk! 04:48, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The actor that plays Dr Chase is from Australia, so surely he's playing an Australian not a NZer?? Limegreen 09:33, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

House began being screened on terrestrial UK television, channel 5, 10pm on Thursday nights on the 2nd of June. The episode for June 30th is 1x04 Maternity. Australia are currently on their second episode and Italy begin showing the first season this week. Trialia 15:32, 30 Jun 2005

I've noticed that in a lot of episodes, during the introductory sequence where the patient begin to exhibit symptoms, the script tries to mislead or misdirect the viewer as to who the eventual patient may be. Often a character is presented who is already suffering some inexplicable symptoms when suddenly the eventual patient spontenously collapses. Does this qualify as a unique and signature aspect of House? Dan Pope 01:10, 17 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Opening Theme

Latest comment: 19 years ago10 comments7 people in discussion

It is *not* Teardrop by Massive Attack, despite the claims of the IMDb and the umpteen people who use that as a definitive source to add this false information to the article. It sounds a bit like Teardrop, it may use some of the same piano bits as Teardrop, but it is not Teardrop. Can people either provide definitive proof that it is Teardrop, or (more likely) definitive proof that it isn't (and of what it actually is)? Kinitawowi 11:36, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

Well... it uses cuts from a full length piece of vocal music which is billed by multiple sources (in different length and bitrate rips) all over Gnutella-net as being "Teardrops", by "Portishead and Massive Attack"... and the credits do bill Massive Attack for the theme, though they don't mention the title. You're correct: we won't believe you until you can say what you think it *is*.  :-) As for Americo-centrism: I'm sorry; I don't *watch* the show in those other countries, and it *is* that music in the show's country of origin. Feel free to add the extra clarification, but no need to be snide in the CVS comment.
--Baylink 15:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I've learned much better than to trust the opinions of people on P2P networks for song titles. ;-) For starters, Portishead had absolutely nothing to do with Teardrop (the vocalist is Elisabeth Fraser from the Cocteau Twins, not Beth Gibbons), and if I believed everything I read on WinMX then Duane Eddy's take on the Peter Gunn music would be called "Theme from Spy Hunter". Kinitawowi 22:32, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
I *did* specify "multiple, independent rips of different sizes and bit rates from different sources"; I'll add "with obviously individually typed names". Massive's website is going to be featured next month on Websites that Suck, so it's not possible to find out from it -- though you'd think a band would be shouting it from the housetops. Additionally, I have a reference for lyrics for that song which contain the title word, and match the lyrics in the track I downloaded. *My* confidence factor is >98%, and I've been here for about a year now (along with a couple years on alt.folklore.urban); I don't rely on personal knowledge unless I'm pretty confident.  :-) I do have a question, though, did this site steal from us? Or did we steal from them?
--Baylink 20:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
I've been here two days over a year, and that's enough time for me to know that of course personal knowledge is not necessarily sufficient, the inlay of Now! 40 (which contains Teardrop, as well as information on it) has typos galore, and that once in a while I may have to admit that I'm not necessarily 100% right all the time. I was highly confident; the title theme I bore witness to had no lyrics to work from.
Oh, and Artistopia probably stole from Wikipedia. You can tell by the shoddy markup (the triple apostrophe around the band name, for instance). Kinitawowi 22:37, August 4, 2005 (UTC)
No offense intended, Kinitawowi. You didn't say that it's not "Teardrop" in the UK or Australia; you just said that it's not "Teardrop," despite evidence that it is. You're the one who wants the change, so you need to provide the proof, instead of demanding proof of others. Elwood00 18:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
Conversely, if everyone else is insisting it is Teardrop, they've got to prove that. ;-) I'm pretty sure that Wikipedia has tended to run with "no information is better than wrong information", and all the evidence I had to hand (i.e. what I'd seen in the UK) said that the information there was wrong. Subsequent investigation has forced me to the conclusion that it was (mostly) right. Kinitawowi 19:40, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
Proof: you can listen to a sample of "Teardrop" from their album Mezzanine over at AllMusic.com (registration required). Or, you could take a trip down to your local CD store and listen to their CD. House's theme is definitely cut from Teardrop; even in the short 10-second sample on AllMusic, you can hear some chords very reminiscent of the show's theme. — EagleOne\Talk 02:09, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
It's definitely not Teardrop in NZ either. I'm actually a little surprised, given how almost integral themes are to various TV programs (like the link between various Who songs and CSI etc.) that they didn't surmount whatever licensing issues. Thus, I'm not surprised at various people's adamancy... Limegreen 21:38, 3 August 2005 (UTC)Reply
It has to be their label; no band is stupid enough to turn down a TV theme gig.
--Baylink 20:52, 4 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

I don't know about any other countries, nor do I know a thing about Teardrop, but here in Brazil the opening theme changed around the time of Vogel's introduction. It is still used as the closing theme, however. The current opening theme seems to be based on the former one, but is much more mechanical. BTW, the original was quite moving, quite upbeat in an almost cerimonial way. Luis Dantas 00:34, 5 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

It's Teardrop. If yuou watch Love Hurts with closed captioning on, it'll say [Massive Attack's Teardrop] in the opening credits. --Veemonkamiya 18:17, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Nice catch. I'm willing to deem that authoritative.
--Baylink 18:45, 3 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The theme used in the UK is the alleged Teardrop one, I think, contrary to the article stating it isn't.

For anyone still un sure, go to here. It's a short clip a put together so you can compare the house theme with Massive Attacks Teardrop. (House plays through the right channel, tear drop through the left. Best listened to through headphones). This clip is from the theme as hear in the UK (I don't know about other countries). I hope this will settle the arguments. They're not identical, but very similar. (Also I'm considering putting up the theme here on wiki, but I'm unsure about the copyright, can anyone help with that?)
--Oatzy 12:11, 18 September 2005 (GMT)
Kooby: I have listened to the two, for the record, featured in the clip is the Australian theme on the right and the US theme(teardrop exact edit), and for the sake of it, if you listen closely, they're both in different keys... Me being the genius i am, can hear that in the theme, the chords are Bm, D, A and F#m, where as in the massive attack portion, it is A, G and D. I think it can be said that somewhere in between some very fancy studio person stepped in and recreated his own mix of the theme, but to which songs were used is unknown. I shall be listening next time the show is on to the full aussie theme, i think it might be a collection of songs, and ill try and reproduce the theme song myself to conclude that it was done by someone else and not a particular band
Very nicely done. That's also the one they use in New Zealand.
A bit of clarification. In the US, they use an edited version of Massive Attack's Teardrop. In the UK they use a piece of looped music that is in library. I called Channel 5 to check this, as the same thing happenned with the first season of CSI in the UK. Apparently the success of House may lead them to reinstate the original for the second season.

Okay, once and for all, the US theme uses a small portion of Massive Attack's "Teardrop" with Elizabeth Fraser singing vocals. They could not get the licensing for the UK, Australia and NZ releases of the show so they use a different piece of music there. The US one definitely does use it though and gives it credit in the End Titles.

And Finally... let's wrap this up. I wrote to Channel Five last Thursday to complain about them giving away the plot of Three Stories in the promo for this weeks' ep, and took the opportunity to ask them what the music was.

The opening credits are indeed "Teardrop" by Massive Attack the composers being Del Naja, Fraser, Marshall and Vowle. However, the closing credits however are different and the music is listed as "House", with composers Ehrlich, Derlatka and Roberts.

They're wrong (the opening theme still isn't "Teardrop"), but the closing theme is the same as the opening. Kinitawowi 20:07, 25 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

I think that the opening theme in the UK, Australia and NZ, is a looped portion of the song Alone in Kyoto by Air, which was also used in the movie Lost in Translation.

I checked the opening theme song on the US DVD release with my copy of "Teardrop", they match. More importantly I think that the closing theme is also by Massive Attack and is a song called "Everywhen". I have not been able to find one statement on this anywhere. Can anyone help confirm this? Everywhen is off of the 100th Window album.


I believe the trivial information you have regarding the theme music for House broadcast in Australia in incorrect.

My debate is not about what song it is (It certainly sounds like a sample from Teardrop) but that it doesn't differ between the US and the Australian version, which the article states.

I have heard the opening theme music from both a US version and the Australian version and for all intent and purposes, they are the same.

Is there any proof that there is a change of theme music (in Australia) "due to rights and licensing issues" ?

May I also point out that artists make different versions of the same song. The theme song may not exactly be what you would hear if you were to listen to Teardrop off album "Mezzanine" but it may simply be a different version.

So, the definative answer is:

The opening theme music is... Teardrop (The House MD. version) by Massive Attack.

Nick --220.240.33.137 21:57, 15 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

diagnostic in real life

Latest comment: 20 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

i am not a medical student... so i am curious (and i don't mean any offense) about diagnosticing patients... do they really go by this dramatic step by step, if you'll excuse the word, guesses and probe patient with various different surgeries before reaching the right one? thx! 70.70.209.80 17:35, 17 August 2005 (UTC)Reply

It depends largely upon the specialty and type of medicine you are practicing. Believe it or not, a lot of medicine is based upon trial and error. Your physician may prescribe medication X to treat your symptoms with no result, so he may switch to medicine Y to see if there is any improvement.

This trial and error isn't the case when patients present with symptoms consistent of a condition with well-established treatments and protocols. However, when facing something rare or new, educated guesses and trial and error are the only way to find a treatment in the absence of literature and prior cases to reference. In these cases, seeing what does not work can assist the attending in deducing the cause of the problem.

JLL, MD

Sherlock Homes Comparison

Do we really need this? I find it unconvincing.

Sherlock homes bit to go

Latest comment: 19 years ago7 comments3 people in discussion

Agreed, I've never liked the analogy on this page. It is phrased as if with authority, with no links or info as to where this came from. The paragraph in question was added anonymously. To deal with the points in turn:

Dr. James Wilson (an oncologist) is his Watson.
Wilson plays an occasional part more as friend and confidant than assistant.

Where Holmes solved crimes, House solves medical mysteries.
I see the analogy, but there are many many TV detectives and doctors.

Holmes was famous for solving cases no one else could unravel; just so House.
Just about all fictional detectives and doctors do their job better than others: that's the point of the story in most cases.

Where Holmes used cocaine, House uses Vicodin.
This point I agree with.

Both play musical instruments, for their private pleasure only.
Hardly relevant enough to claim "analogue".

So we are left with a detective on cocaine, and a doctor on vicodin. All the rest they have in common with most fictional detectives and doctors. It may be more instructive to look at the plot devices of both, eg hero, etc.

It has already been removed once then reinstated, I am removing it again. If anyone thinks it should be included, please point to some other link or source to back it up, along with better evidence. Mat-C 07:58, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

What kinds of links would you like? The bits about House come from the TV show, and the bits about Holmes come from Doyle. The similarity to Holmes is a big reason I started watching the show. Just because some of the comparisons also apply to other TV detectives and doctors doesn't mean that House doesn't relate to Holmes.
I say we should restore the list and add to it the most Holmes-like part of House: The scenes where House diagnoses clinic patients after only a few seconds of observation and by asking only a few questions, a trick that Holmes was famous for. --Elwood00 13:33, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
How about this link? http://www.housemd-guide.com/holmesian.php --Elwood00 13:41, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
Interview with David Shore. Doesn't get much more authoritative than that. http://tv.zap2it.com/tveditorial/tve_main/1,1002,271%7C92770%7C1%7C,00.html --Elwood00 13:43, 9 September 2005 (UTC)Reply
I'm the one who re-instated the Holmes comparison the first time. I feel that the material warrants inclusion in this article, especially now with the links provided by Elwood00. — EagleOne\Talk 17:22, September 9, 2005 (UTC)
I agree, and have added the info to the "Trivia" section, backed up by the links Elwood00 provided. I tried to make it a bit more succinct than it was before, so as not to give undue weight to the comparison. —Josiah Rowe 17:23, 24 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've removed this bit A list of other similarities can be found here. as it doesn't really belong. We can't just link to external articles as a way to have it part of the article. I like the current paragraph, there are obviously parallels, and the "inspiration" thing works. There is a good case for a verifiable quote from the writer(s) of the series. The article pointed to has a quote from Shore, and then goes into more parallels that sort of look like they are said by shore but aren't, and as such I don't think it belongs. Shore seems to be making the point that there are parallels/inspiration, but it is far from an "analog". Anyway, hope this suits all. Mat-C 02:37, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

Fine by me. —Josiah Rowe 03:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)Reply

The most blatant similarity is that both Holmes and House size up people on general appearance and deduce many truths just from first impressions. If not a direct comparision they are certainly not just coincadently related.

Quincy Comparison

Thought I'd throw it up. Since people were obsessing over the fact that Sherlock HOlMES and Greg HOUSE were somehow parallel (The surname people!) I figured it'd be interesting to see how the parallels between this successful medical drama and a predessessor were.

Houseisms

Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Can we get rid of the Houseisms? It's just a list of funny quotes, so they belong in Wikiquote. Elwood00 14:09, 17 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

  • Houseisms were a point of reference for those who searched to define a Houseism from a proxy search engine. They had a redeeming value.
    • I never claimed they had no value. Lists of quotes belong in Wikiquote; it's that simple. If you disagree, please elaborate. I'm not sure I understand your objection regarding "those who searched to define a Houseism." (And please sign your posts.) Elwood00 18:42, 11 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

General Hospital

Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

House had quite a few mentions of General Hospital, and also shows House watching it. Is it really the General Hospital by ABC or just a parody? --antilived T | C 08:39, 31 October 2005 (UTC)Reply

Cleaning up the article

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I was wondering if it would be worthwhile to rearrange the article in order to make it easier to navigate. For example, on my screen at least, the table of contents is almost two screens below the title of the article. I would recommend that we move most of the three paragraphs about House as a character, as well as the section on Vogler to a new Plot/Scenario category, only leaving the introduction sentence, another sentence or two that generalizes the setting, and the production information above the table of contents.

Some examples of what I am talking about can be seen at Law & Order: Special Victims Unit, Alias, Fawlty Towers, and The Vicar of Dibley.

Rascalb 03:53, 18 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The cinematographer article doesn't have anything that pertains specifically to House. I would say the show has good photography, but I don't think that is the real emphasis. I removed the link once before, but don't want to start any wars. Not every member of the crew needs to be listed. - Shadowhillway 22:09, 20 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I've removed the link several times myself. However significant his contributions may be, we shouldn't single him out of the whole crew. If we're going to have a link to him on this page, then it should properly be in a "Crew" section, not "see also". — EagleOne\Talk 19:54, 21 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Cinematographers (Directors of Photography) are "Above-the-Line" department heads, second only to the director when it comes to the visual/emotional execution of a film or video. They are, with the director, intimately and immediately responsible for the "look and feel" of a project. "Above-the-Line" talent always includes the actors, the writers, the producers, the Director, the Production Designer, and the Director of Photography (not necessarily in that order). In contrast, "Below-the-Line" talent would be electricians, grips, art department, makeup, and so on. Including "Above-the-Line" talent in a "Crew" section is a bit sketchy, but better than no mention at all, in my opinion. It seems to diminish the contributions of the key "Above-the-Line" artists who make this show (and others like it) the success they are.

Proposed move to House (TV series)

Latest comment: 19 years ago18 comments6 people in discussion

It appears that the show's title is now simply "House", the M.D. having been dropped at some point. It's called "House" on Fox's official site and in every television listing I could find. I propose moving the article to House (TV series) to reflect this title change. Any objections? Carbonite | Talk 03:26, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply

I object, but not that strongly. First, I wouldn't trust Fox's website about the name. It still listed the show as House when most people agreed that it was actually House, M.D..
An argument for the change is that the "M.D." has been removed from the show's logo. An argument against the change is that the name is still shown as House, M.D. on IMDb, as well as on any site selling the season one DVD set.
So, as I said, my preference is to let it stay the way it is, but if the consensus is to change the title, I won't raise too much of a stink. Rascalb 03:44, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
Well, I'm more inclined to trust Fox's own website than IMDb. I think that even when the show definitely had the "M.D." in its title, virtually everyone referred to it simply as "House". Now that the M.D. is no longer in the logo, it makes sense to move the article to its more appropriate and simpler title. Obviously we'll keep the redirects to make the article as easy as possible to find. Carbonite | Talk 03:53, 30 November 2005 (UTC)Reply
I Agree for the move to House (TV series). It probably makes more sense to move it since Fox refers to it as House, most viewers refer to it "House" and the only site that refers to it as "House, MD" is the IMDB. TV.com and TWoP refer to the show as House. Sfufan2005 01:40, 1 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I object, as I have before—most recently on Talk:Hugh Laurie, less than two weeks ago. I also object to this page move taking place just two days after it was proposed, with only one vote of support. Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 00:37, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

The reason I moved the page was three-fold:

  • The title of the show is now just House. I'm not sure of the exact date that the M.D. was dropped, but the official site, the show's logo, TV Guide, Zap2It and Yahoo TV (to name a few) all reflect the new name. Some sites that aren't updated as often as Wikipedia (such as IMDb or episode guides) still refer to it as House M.D. It's not uncommon for a show to shorten its official title to the promoted title once the show has some success.
    • Can you cite any official word that the name has been changed, or are you basing this on the fact the the common short title is (gasp) more common?
      • Yes, as I mentioned above, the official site and the show's logo now reflect the new title. Take a look at the season one logo [1]. Now take a look at the current logo on the official site [2]. Notice that the M.D. has been dropped. Again, keep in mind that I'm talking about the official site here, not some fan site or episode guide. Carbonite | Talk 11:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
      • For even more proof, take a look at NBC Universal Television Group's page. This page lists the full title of the shows it helps to produce. For example, it lists "Law & Order:Special Victims Unit" and doesn't abbreviate to "SVU". It lists House simply as "House". Carbonite | Talk 13:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
  • The show has always been popularly known as just House. Even when the "M.D." was officially part of the title, it was only used when listing the official name. People always referred to it as "House" and it was commonly promoted as "House". A Google search for "House" [3] turns up Fox's official site (#4) and a Slate article [4] (#5) referring to the show simply as "House".
  • There are redirects from House, M.D. and all of its typos to the new title. Anyone searching for the House M.D. will have no problem finding the article. I've already fixed all double-redirects.
    • I cannot for the life of me work out how this could be an underlying reason, given the fact that you did this after moving the page. This sort of editing spree only makes it more difficult to revert a commonly proposed and just as commonly refuted change.
      • OK, I probably didn't explain that as clearly as I should have. Of course I updated the redirects after I moved the page. Why would I have changed the redirects before I moved the page? At best, that would have been confusing. At worst, it would have created double-redirects and prevented readers from finding the article. The whole point of redirects is to ensure that readers can find the article with a variety of search terms. Anyone who attempts to go directly to House, M.D. will go right to the article (same as before). Anyone who types in "House" will go to House, an article on the structure (same as before). Perhaps an argument could be made to make House a disambiguation page. Now that's a discussion for Requested Moves. ;) The point is that since we have the benefit of using redirects, the "true" ___location of the article isn't going to confuse anyone. The article now uses the current name of the show + (TV series) for disambiguation purposes. Carbonite | Talk 13:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

My feeling is that this move wasn't really something that needed a whole lot of discussion. I posted the notice on the talk page mainly to let people know that I intended to make this move, not to open up a vote. The new title is factually correct as well as complying with standard naming convention. If there are serious issues with the move, I'll be happy to discuss them. Carbonite | Talk 01:25, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply

You did not, however, make any notice of your intent on WP:RM, per policy. As this has been proposed numerous times, and very recently at that, you could not possibly believe that this change could be entirely uncontroversial, unless you were merely ignorant of the article's history. If this is the case, you had no right to undertake such a move in the first place. Austin Hair ✍ ✉ 07:53, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
The short answer is found on the Requested moves page: "Requested moves is used to request, and vote on, article moves that are not straightforward, or that require the assistance of Wikipedia administrators." I contend that this move was straightforward, as it was updating the title of a show to its new name. Let me ask you, are you objecting on policy grounds (i.e. you don't think the correct procedure was followed, but would have supported the move) or that the page should not have been moved at all (i.e. you would have objected on Requested moves)? Carbonite | Talk 11:17, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Also, out of curiosity, could you point to the discussion or proposal on this talk page before mine? I did do my homework before even making the proposal. I've followed this article for a while, read the entire talk page and even checked the history of the talk page to see if any discussion was archived, but there wasn't any page move proposal to be found. So, yes, in the absence of any history of controversy or previous discussion, I did find the move to be quite straightforward. I assure you that this move was not done to offend anyone or because I was ignorant of the article's history. Carbonite | Talk 13:50, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
I don't know why there is being such a fuss made about a article about a television show that's name has changed. It's not like it was the name of an important person or event. There should not have been such a commotion about a simple page move. Sfufan2005 20:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)Reply


As I understand it, the US title has ALWAYS been "House." I remember reading articles about Hugh Laurie's new show before it even aired, calling it House... the articles even went so far as to explain the title. My understanding is that it was aired as House MD in the UK, but I never saw ANY reference to it by that name here in the US, even before the first episode aired. At MOST, in the US it was perhaps the working title.

I live in the US and certainly remember it being referred to as House MD. I think they wanted to make sure people knew it was a medical show. It wasn't just a working title or a UK thing. Note the screencap that shows the title card as House MD. Hentai wolf 16:12, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
That's also what I assumed was the reasoning behind having the "M.D." in the title. Once the show became extremely popular, the title was shortened to simply "House". Carbonite | Talk 16:15, 9 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Yet the opening titles still clearly say "House M.D." The title is often shortened to "House" for the sake of brevity, but I believe the official title is still "House M.D.". — EagleOne\Talk 18:43, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure you weren't watching an earlier episode (Season one or possibly beginning of Season 2)? The new episodes in the US definitely are just "House". Carbonite | Talk 18:49, 16 December 2005 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:House_(TV_series)&oldid=31638047"