Okay, so I watched the new House tonight (Instant Karma) with my parents and best friend. There were lots of comments about how it was like the old episodes and some people are liking it better. The show got a lot of flack from getting rid of the old ducklings and then hiring on all of the new ones. Honestly, I think House was at his most fascinating when he hired 40 new people and then fired them (or Amber tricked them into quitting). I loved the journey with the new ducklings, but I know someone who just completely quit watching the show just because they brought on new people even though it had previously been her favorite show.
Which doesn’t make sense to me. At all.
I’m fiercely loyal to things even if something changes. I will stick through until it dies, or gets canceled, or just tells me to go away. Sometimes it works against me, because I just refuse to give up on things even if it’s to my detriment.
But with House, did people really think that it could have longevity if he had stayed with the same staff? Clearly the show would not survive without House, but the rest of the characters could come and go. I always want more Wilson, but if the same thing had happened each episode with the same people, it would have gotten boring. It’s okay to have different people and different things happening. Sure, the show has to have something that stays the same to keep people coming back and feeling a certain sense of security, but if it’s the same all the time, it’s boring.
Does life have longevity if it’s boring and safe? Who wants to be a part of something that never changes, never offers excitement?
I think that we should get used to change. It’s a welcome relief from what can quickly turn into drudgery. And it can bring about something good, and better. If House had kept the original team around, the people who were starting to understand how to handle him, he may never have went down the path that eventually led to beating his addiction. Sure, he could have, but I think this was more fun.
