Hugh Downer: Why Emmys Didn't Make a House Call

Hugh Laurie by Andrew Macpherson/Fox

Hugh Laurie as Emmys host? Pinch me. Alas, it wasn't meant to be, though TV's crankiest doc made the short list. A source tells the awards-show mecca GoldDerby.com that Laurie actually was several Fox execs' early No. 1 choice to emcee the kudos-cast, and that a standoff between the House star's supporters and those who instead wanted Ryan Seacrest is what delayed the reveal of the host choice. In the end, the powers-that-be believed A) Idol's frontman would bring in a larger audience, and B) Laurie as congenial host might be jarring to us stupid, stupid TV fans who cannot separate fiction from reality.

Leave a Comment

TVGuide Links:

Posted by

Matt Webb Mitovich

Sep 4, 2007 9:51 AM

Report Abuse

From someone who doesn't watch eiter Idol or House, I'd just like to say, I find Seacrest gratingly annoying, whereas from what I know of Laurie he Britishly engaging. Seacrest, is that even a real name?
Posted by topoopon Sep 4, 2007 10:10 AM Report Abuse

I would have LOVED to see Hugh Laurie as host.
Posted by LuvGems Sep 4, 2007 11:35 AM Report Abuse

Can he even host if he's nominated? That seems like a conflict of interest to me...
Posted by MDforME Sep 4, 2007 11:45 AM Report Abuse

Laurie as congenial host might be jarring to us stupid, stupid TV fans who cannot separate fiction from reality. ROTFL. A shame, though, because I have loved seeing Hugh Laurie as himself the few times I've caught him on Leno and the like. Seacrest just makes me want to punch someone.
Posted by Dianora Sep 4, 2007 11:46 AM Report Abuse

That was my though too, MDforME. Not only is HL nominated for Best Actor, his show is nominated for Best Drama. As much as I would have LOVED to see Hugh Laurie as host, it just seems like it would have been a conflict of interest.
Posted by angelgirlla Sep 4, 2007 11:56 AM Report Abuse

I have already sent FOX an irate e-mail expressing my less than joyful enthusiasm over what they could have had (Hugh Laurie) over what they chose (Seacrest ) Like you stated Matt, I also questioned their regard to the stupidity factor of their viewers (DUH!) The only place left to post Seacrest's face are milk cartons and that's not a suggestion!!
Posted by PatMc Sep 4, 2007 11:58 AM Report Abuse

I would have watched the Emmys to see Hugh Laurie being himself. I will not go near it with Ryan Seacrest. Fox flubbed this one.
Posted by Katcon Sep 4, 2007 12:12 PM Report Abuse

Regarding the conflict of interest that others...what are you guys talking about? He ain't picking the winners. Where's the conflict.
Posted by alynch Sep 4, 2007 12:25 PM Report Abuse

"Laurie as congenial host might be jarring to us stupid, stupid TV fans who cannot separate fiction from reality."

Matt, I'm sure you were joking here, but I don't think anyone reading this column doubts that this was going through someone's wee little mind at Fox. Maybe if they gave us credit for stuff like this (and didn't cancel quality shows without giving them a chance to grow an audience), we wouldn't be deserting the network in droves on an annual basis.

Posted by Howstone

Sep 4, 2007 12:43 PM

Report Abuse

I don't watch House regularly, but I'd much prefer Hugh Laurie over Ryan Seacrest as host. I was already antipathetic toward this year's Emmys after hearing the nominations (or lack thereof), but Ryan being named as host sealed the deal. I am going to make my husband happy and not watch the telecast this year; I can find out the results from the Internet for those categories that I care about.
Posted by monkey65 Sep 4, 2007 12:54 PM Report Abuse

I look forward to all award shows every year, from the Oscars, to the Emmy's. And needless to say I was really disappointed to hear that Seacrest was hosting, but I got over it. But then I hear that Hugh Laurie was considered for the position and now I am angry. I cannot believe that the big wigs fell to the idiotic idea that people would not tune in because of Laurie's character, and they think that we cannot separate fact from fiction. I will tune in, as I always do, but I sincerely doubt that Seacrest is really going to draw a bigger audience and be that much more of a draw than Hugh Laurie, because people who tune in to the Emmy's are people who love tv. And as a person who loves tv and loves seeing the characters from shows present or give out awards I will not be turning in early to hear Seacrest's monologue.

Posted by CrystalHaas7

Sep 4, 2007 1:47 PM

Report Abuse

There are some things that Seacrest shouldn't be doing. And by the Emmy's basically leeching off of his popularity is kinda desperate.
Posted by bigstar Sep 4, 2007 1:53 PM Report Abuse

I hope they do the supporting actor in a comedy category first because I want to see NPH win, then I'll turn it off. I'm an avid awards show watcher, but this year's nominations were unacceptable.
Posted by mdjones Sep 4, 2007 2:26 PM Report Abuse

About the conflict of interest: Conan O'Brien hosted the Emmys when he was nominated.
Posted by kamelsardine Sep 4, 2007 2:31 PM Report Abuse

In This Section

TV Guide Spotlight

Also on TVGuide.com