Mormon character on the show "House"
 

Maybe this belongs in the entertainment forum but ...

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/1...222921,00.html

It's a good thing to have a Mormon be part of the popular culture. And part of that happening is accepting that we are not going to get the GA-approved version.

I wonder if a main writer/producer were Mormon, and came up with this material, whether he would be excommunicated.

It's sad that this question even exists in my mind.

More annoying than anything a show's writers could conjure up is this inevitable whiny article about how the writers don't do their research, don't know much about Mormons etc... I expect to receive a grassroots email any day now telling me to boycott.

It is diplorable that BASIC research could actually make the character more compelling and not so much a charicature ... I think that's what the writer in the Dnews was saying in general about the entire show.

It is annoying Steel, and old, and I'm personally tired if it ... doesn't mean I am going to start or even participated in some grass roots email campaign to boycott. I watch very little tv to really care.

OOOooooo, I love those emails. Because then I get to "reply all". One of my email replies about the gay marriage thing was a list of pro-gay positions Mitt Romney had taken, that went out to my entire extended family.

Why should the Doctor on House be accurate? Most people in the USA aren't accurate about Mormons. So why should he? You of all people should understand the difference between drama and a documentary. For shame.

btw, could they have picked a more unlikely person? A single-father, black Mormon doctor. Does one even exist? The only thing more unlikely would be a female black Mormon doctor, followed by a female Mormon doctor.

There are plenty of Mormons working in Hollywood in off-stage positions. It wouldn't surprise me at all if one of their script writers is LDS.

First, it's a character on a fictional tv show, they can make him be whatever they want him to be. I don't see that tv shows in general put any more research or respect into characters of other religious persuasions. Second, probably only half of all Mormons are hardcore/active LDS so somebody who is not portrayed as a perfectly faithful LDS on a tv show is probably representative of a good number of Mormons.

I understand the difference ... problem is the general populace believes Michael Moore is a documentary film maker :( And let's not forget Al Gore was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize ;)

Ain't my fault you live in the south ;) I personally know more than one female Mormon doctors along with many single, successful male and female black Mormons!

I understand that it's a fictional character ... I simply don't watch tv, regardless of the fact shows contain poorly written Mormon characters or poorly written physically challenged doctor with a bad bed side manner.

Michael Moore is a documentary film maker. There is nothing about the documentary genre of film that requires political neutrality or equal representation of voices.

or truth ;)

Tooblue, it's interesting to see you struggle with the dark side (the mullah-side). Embrace it! "EVERYONE WHO PARTICIPATES IN THAT SHOW OR WATCHES THAT SHOW IS GOING TO H-E-L-L!"

:)

I beg to differ that he's followed the genre honestly and accurately. He's clearly an advocate and disingenuous at best.

Before Moore, most documentaries tried to have some truthfulness. But I haven't reviewed numerous documentaries.

I remember the most famous one of Supersize Me, which seemed to make a point and not to exaggerate things.

I've seen many, many documentaries that take a position. It's the rare one that doesn't appear to take one.

Everything from family farms closing to the absurdity of war.

Of the various modes of documentary--poetic, expository, participatory, observational, reflexive, and performative, Moore's work is in the expository mode. He's the flip side of Capra's work in "Why We Fight."

Documentary ...

"Movies, Television. based on or re-creating an actual event, era, life story, etc., that purports to be factually accurate and contains no fictional element"

I understand there are nuances, and I am certain the general public does not. He is a myth-maker and fictionist.

Btw, I highly recommend Sicko.

I didn't like Bowling for Columbine very much, but I enjoyed Sicko.

Not interested in either.

Yes, I like sleeping in my warm bed all day too, but sometimes I venture out to brave the cold.

Equating Moore's fictumentaries to the brave cold is akin to equating the MWC to the SEC ;)

I thought Sicko was well done. I also liked Jesus Camp, although it's narrative voice was too heavy handed.

I didn't see Sicko, as Bowling for Columbine made me puke. The anti-George Bush one was bad as well.

Even if he makes a few good points in Sicko, I'd doubt the veracity of his evidence, given his nature to prevaricate.

Exactly. Watching a Moore "documentary" is like listening to Limbaugh. One listens/watches primarily because one enjoys the delivery. Believe any of it at ones own risk.

A man after my own heart. It's a great way to stop family & friends spam. And start some fun discussions.

did you download for free, like we discussed?

I didn't download it, but I didn't see it in the theatre either. If that answers your question.

Black, single parent, active(?) Mormon, and BYU grad.

That's far enough for me. I don't need to get into the other nonsense to recognize this is unrealistic. :)

I'll nominate this for the "too much information" award.

What's wrong with a TV Critic (like in this article) pointing out that it's obvious the writers didn't do any research?

The intellectual mullahs on here are the first to pitch shit fits if someone hasn't taken the time to research something.

Who says they didn't do research? Because House says something inaccurate, that means the writers didn't do research? Do you out-source your logic to the same place tooblue does?

The presumption is that writers who do research wouldn't deliberately put inaccuracies in their scripts.

Why not? I have often heard things said to me "So how many wives do you have?"

Most are kidding, most realize mainstream Mormons don't practice polygamy. That a hater like House would purposefully twist things and make things appear worse to shame another person--come on--that's exactly what the writers intend.

"House" is one of the very few shows that I watch every week, so perhaps I can provide some perspective.

The main character, Dr. House, is an obnoxious atheist misanthrope who is constantly doing things that are illegal and unethical in order to benefit his patients. The basic idea behind his character is that he probably cares about his patients, but that his motivation for being such an excellent doctor is personal pride more than anything. Some atheists think this show is a coup for raising awareness for atheism, while some see it as an affront, as Dr. House embodies the inaccurate stereotypes that many people have of atheists. I just think it's a good show and think he's an interesting character, so I don't mind either way.

Cole, the Mormon character on the show, if anything represents a coup for mormon awareness. Sure, House throws some pretty funny and stereotypical insults at him, but Cole stands his ground, proves that the well being of others is more important to him than some of the more trivial Mormon practices, is black, is an unmarried father, and just an all-around regular, non-fanatical person.

In the last episode, he even punched House in the face in response to one of his insults, which I'm sure a lot of Mormon viewers cheered at.

The deseret news article is the result of a small mind.

You're making the very assumption that you criticized RockyBalboa for. How do you know what the writers intend?

It's very obvious if you're familiar with the show. House makes fun of everyone, and is rarely constrained by accuracy.

Tex, the writers of House, aren't aware that Big Love isn't about mainstream LDS? Is that what you honestly believe?

Lingo is like Tex without the IQ. Tex is like Indy without the IQ.