House of Disappearing Actresses

**SPOILER ALERTS: The following might refer to things that have happened on House M.D., Lost, Person of Interest, Once Upon a Time, and Grimm up to the date of this blog posting. Any reference to the future is my own speculation, and therefore is extremely likely to come true, for I was right about at least one thing on Lost.**

Before I begin my digression-full meandering discussion of House, I must tell you that while searching my blog for the posting where I elatedly realized I was right about something important on Lost, I noticed that as of right now, I have written 23 blog posts with the Lost label! 23! 23 was one of the numbers! Holy crap! I absolutely didn’t do that intentionally, and I didn’t even notice until now (if I did, I don’t remember)! Jacob’s numbers invaded my brain and blog! I told you there might be spoilers, so please stop complaining, 3 people who still haven’t watched the Lost finale yet. You know who you are.

Onto the actual purpose of this blog…

Before this evening’s rerun of House where Thirteen made her final appearance, I thought about my previous blog postings where I wondered and googled about Thirteen’s and Cameron’s at-the-time potential impending departures from House, and I realized that I never addressed their apparent actual departures. So I’m doing that now, since the TV admitted that it read my mind by airing that particular episode hours after I had those particular thoughts.

Based on what I have heard from various sources such as the TV and my mom (who read a magazine article), it would seem that Olivia Wilde (Thirteen), Jennifer Morrison (Cameron), and Lisa Edelstein (Cuddy) have left House M.D. This is not new news, of course, and all their characters have had closure on the program, but as I said, I felt that I should address (or at least mention) their departures here, so that my blog can have closure regarding these characters as well.

All three actresses have already moved on to other things such as movies and other programs on the TV. I don’t know where Lisa Edelstein went, but Olivia Wilde made some movies whose commercials I’ve seen. Jennifer Morrison is now the star of another show called Once Upon a Time.

I discovered Once Upon a Time last week when ABC had a marathon of it. I read in the Wikipedia that it was created by a couple of Lost writers, with Damon Lindelof (Lost co-creator) as a consultant, so it’s not surprising that it easily drew me in. It’s a show about fairy tale characters, and is thusly similar to another new show about fairy tale characters that also drew me in called Grimm. Together (with an emphasis on Grimm), these two programs have caused me to get the original translation of the Brothers Grimm fairy tales (free on Kindle!), which are more violent than Disney would have us believe. Some of the Amazon reviewers explain that the Grimm brothers were just jotting down the folk tales of oral tradition, and therefore their stories might not have been intended for young children. At some point in my adulthood, I did notice some excessive violence, even in the childproofed versions of these tales that we were all told.

Anyway, getting back to Jennifer Morrison, her character on Once Upon a Time is really quite different from Cameron, in that the former is far more bad-ass than the latter. Perhaps because of this bad-assed-ness, I find that I like this character a lot better than Cameron, who was probably removed from House because the writers ran out of ways to keep the most moral character from being annoying. That is not to say that morals are annoying – I rather enjoy morals – but it is to say the character had been falling down an annoying spiral since she married Chase, perhaps because she was probably still in love with her dead husband.

Emma Swan, Jennifer Morrison’s Once Upon a Time character, maintains Cameron’s morals while exhibiting a satisfying though small degree of bad-assed-ness. Cameron was nearly one-dimensional, while Emma already has depth after only a few episodes. Both Cameron and Emma are good, but Once Upon a Time seems to have the same theme that Lost had – that nothing is purely good or purely evil, and everything and everyone possess both good and evil facets. Thus, Cameron was simply good with non-evil flaws, while Emma is predominantly good. There is the sense that Emma is capable of evil, as all humans are, but she chooses good, as clearly explicated in yesterday’s episode, where she made it clear that she wanted good to win over evil, for the sake of her biological son.

It’s unfortunate that Cameron, Cuddy, and Thirteen were written out of House M.D. for one reason or another, particularly since House hasn’t been as good as it was since their departures, but I’m glad that the three actresses are doing other things. I believe Olivia Wilde and Lisa Edelstein chose to leave House, and I know that Jennifer Morrison did not, so I’m particularly happy that she found employment on this new program that, at the time of this blog posting, is better than recent House episodes.

Unfortunately, Once Upon a Time and Grimm might end up getting cancelled, because that seems to be the fate of most shows that I watch from the beginning, such as Flash Forward and Free Agents. Let us hope that the only curse on Once Upon a Time (and Grimm, and New Girl (the other new show I watch)) is the fictional one on the non-parenthetical program. Oh, I also occasionally watch Person of Interest, because it contains Ben from Lost (Michael Emerson, not the character) and because it’s a good show, but that program should be safe from my inadvertent curse since I don’t watch it regularly. I should mention that The Simpsons is the only exception to my inadvertent curse that I can think of at the moment.

Before this blog posting ends, I must digress once more, and in so doing, I shall create a fun Lost numbers bookend (blogend?) for this posting.  I thought it was rather cute and fun that in the pilot episode of Person of Interest, Michael Emerson’s character had a mysterious and cryptic list of names and numbers!  Hahahahaha, yes, I thoroughly enjoyed that Lost allusion!

Jew for Jesus in a Dream

DISCLAIMER: NONE OF THE FOLLOWING IS INTENDED TO BE OFFENSIVE TOWARD ANYONE OF ANY RELIGION.

I had the strangest dream a few months ago. I have strange dreams at times, amidst the boring and mundane ones, but this one could win a strange award, as far as my dreams go anyway.

As this bizarre dream began, I was walking across a very busy street. I think I was jaywalking actually. I couldn’t get safely across alone; I needed someone to help me. Someone (a regular person) was trying to help me cross this insanely trafficky street, with far-off shouts of “stop!” and “go!” With each step, the traffic became continually worse, and when I got halfway across, I felt like I couldn’t possibly make it the rest of the way, even with the far-off human guidance.

Just then, Jesus picked me up and carried me the rest of the way. I felt completely and utterly safe. Yes, Jesus, and please bear in mind, I am Jewish, or more precisely, I’m an agnostic Jew. Yet Jesus literally saved me in my dream.

In my dream, I knew it was Jesus, but he only partially looked like the traditional Christian, probably false view of what Jesus looked like. His head wasn’t very clear in the dream; actually, none of him was, but he had short hair (blonde I think), and he wore all white. SPOILER ALERT: LOST PLOT WILL BE MENTIONED NOW! While you might want to exclaim, “OMG! Maybe it wasn’t Jesus, but rather Jacob from Lost!” but that isn’t likely, as the rest of my description will illustrate. My dream Jesus was somewhat deformed in that his right arm and maybe his right leg weren’t really there and there was something that looked kind of like a drum instead (perhaps representing the little drummer boy?).

After he saved me in my dream, Jesus went on to help some other people. I don’t remember the details of who he helped or how. I said something where I referred to him aloud to other people as Jesus, and he said quietly to me, “No, don’t tell them I’m Jesus. Say G-d, or Orange.” I understood that he didn’t want his identity as Jesus revealed. I don’t remember anything else, and the dream might have ended there.

At first when I awoke, I couldn’t figure out why on earth I would have such a strange dream. I can’t emphasize enough that I’m a Jew, and an agnostic Jew at that. I don’t believe that Jesus was divine, and I don’t’ believe it’s possible to truly know if there is or isn’t a G-d at all (though I do tend towards faith). Nevertheless, in my dream, Jesus saved me, and made me feel completely safe and comforted, and I think at peace.

Later that day, I remembered some things that happened the day before that could explain the bizarre dream. I had eaten a truly delicious red orange (a Cara Cara navel orange) the night of the dream, and that is likely why Jesus told me to tell others that he is G-d or Orange. I suppose I felt the orange I had eaten was deliciously divine (it really was).


My orange consumption only explained one tiny aspect of my dream. Sometime after the Orange revelation, I determined that the divine nature of my dream came from Stephen Colbert. The night of the dream, I had watched an episode of The Colbert Report in which Colbert spoke of Bill O’Reilly’s certainty of G-d’s existence based on his lack of understanding of how the tides work. Neil deGrasse Tyson then came to Colbert's studio (via his wormhole of course) to explain that the tides are controlled by the moon, prompting Colbert to praise the Moon as G-d. When Tyson explained that the Moon is not G-d, Colbert praised Neil deGrasse Tyson as G-d, proclaiming “Neal before Neil!”

I think it’s clear then, that my Jesus dream was induced by Stephen Colbert and all his talk of who or what G-d is, and by a divinely delicious fruit. If I were a different person, I imagine my dream could have converted me to a Jew for Jesus, or even a full-blown Christian – not that there’s anything wrong with that. (Hey, look, by quoting Seinfeld, I inadvertently juxtaposed Christianity with homosexuality, and there’s nothing wrong with either.) But alas, I am just too practical (in terms of finding real-world explanations for my strange dreams) to put all my beliefs in one dream-woven basket.

The 2010 Emmys: The Good and the Evil

The title of this posting is clearly an exaggeration, in that what I will describe as the things that were not pleasing to me on last night’s Emmy Awards really does not qualify as evil. However, I feel this title is appropriate, since among the evil things is the lack of Lost recognition, and as you might know, I have written somewhat frequently regarding Good v. Evil on Lost. Isn’t it nice when I over-explain my writings? No? Oh, then you would hate when I over-explain jokes in real life (as opposed to bloggy life). Onto my Emmy induced thoughts!
The (Mostly) Good

Jimmy Fallon did a reasonably fantastic job as Emmy host. I was skeptical before the show, because there have been times where he has been lacking in the funny, presumably when he’s been overwhelmed with nervousness. However, he was quite funny for the most part, and he really did a great job. The opening Glee musical thing and the tribute to deceased shows (including Lost) were funny, entertaining, and very well executed. I also very much enjoyed the musical introductions to each section of awards. Jimmy’s non-musical words were also funny throughout the program, particularly the pro-Conan and anti-NBC remark. I would say that Jimmy did an excellent and flawless job, but there is one small portion of his hosting that renders such a statement impossible; the tweeted introductions for presenters were simply not amusing or well written. This is not surprising, since they were tweeted by regular, non-comedy-writer people. That is not to say there aren’t funny and talented regular people out there, but that is to say that believing that those funny and talented people could be found in time for a big awards show was probably not very wise. I had a feeling this wouldn’t go well, but I had hoped that the funny people out there on the Twitter would show themselves, but unfortunately, that was not the case. Jimmy Fallon, there is a reason that professional writers write things, and you demonstrated that nicely. It’s fun to find silver linings. Jimmy’s presenter intros that were written by professional comedy writers (presumably Jimmy himself) were well written, and some were definitely funny, particularly the intros involving Law & Order SVU saving the 10 P.M. time slot that Leno left for dead, and Jimmy hugging his long lost father, Tom Selleck.

The (Mostly) Evil

Lost didn’t win things. Lost should have won things. Specifically, Michael Emerson (or at least Terry O’Quinn) should have won for Best Supporting Actor in a Drama, Matthew Fox (or at least Hugh Laurie of House M.D.) should have won for Best Actor in a Drama and Matthew Fox should have won for Hottest Drama Man Ever (and Seth MacFarlane would win Hottest Comedy Man Ever in this award show in my brain). Lost should have won Best Drama TV Show (or whatever that category is called), and I think the Emmy audience agrees with me since they seemed to cheer the loudest when Lost was mentioned. I don’t remember who won for Best Writing and Best Directing, but probably Lost should have won those too (yes, I could google it, but I am too lazy).

Glee should have won more things than it did. However, I’m very happy that they won Best Directing and that Jane Lynch won for Best Supporting Actress. It would have been nice for Glee to win Best Comedy Show on the TV, but since they lost, I’m glad they lost to Modern Family, another great show (though Glee is better). Speaking of Modern Family, I enjoyed the cute thing they did with George Clooney and Stewie. I would put that part in the “Good” section, however, I don’t have anything else to say about it, and it fits more nicely here.

Conan didn’t win. Conan should have won, not only because he deserved to win, and not only because it was Conan’s only chance to win for his work on The Tonight Show with Conan O’Brien, but also because it would have been a nice, clear Conan-is-better-than-Jay statement to Jay Leno and NBC. Despite this loss, however, I do believe that the statement was made nonetheless; after all, Conan was nominated, but Jay was not.

Since Conan didn’t win, The Colbert Report really should have. As much as I love The Daily Show, and as great as it’s been this year, The Colbert Report is generally a better show, and the week in Iraq this year was certainly of Emmy-winning caliber. Since The Colbert Report also didn’t win for Best Funny Variety Show, I am glad The Daily Show won. I’m also glad that the guy accepting the award mentioned Colbert and Conan, and I’m glad that he reminded us that the people at The Daily Show are worthy of their numerous Emmys.

New Scrubs RIP

'Twas a sad day on March 22, 2010, when I gazed upon the Myface (Facebook) status of the great Zach Braff.

"Many of you have asked, so here it is: it appears that "New Scrubs", "Scrubs 2.0", "Scrubs with new kids", "Scrubbier", "Scrubs without JD" is no more. It was worth a try, but alas... it didn't work. Zb"

The end of New Scrubs wasn’t terribly troubling, simply because we had already been through what we believed was the end of Scrubs. We had been through it twice in fact: first, when NBC attempted to prematurely murder it, then again after ABC kindly resuscitated it for what was supposed to be a year to allow them to end the series properly, only to breathe more life into it for this, its real final year. Therefore, I was certainly prepared in that I had already grieved the end of the fabulous show; I knew we were on borrowed time. Nonetheless, I really enjoyed New Scrubs, and it was sad to see that it will not return.

I really liked New Scrubs, although when I first heard there was going to be a ninth season of Scrubs after what I thought was the real series finale, I was concerned. I was sure Scrubs was going to jump the shark the way Happy Days did when Richie Cunningham left and was replaced by his cousin or something (you thought I was going to say when Fonzie literally jumped the shark, didn’t you? Well you were wrong). However, Scrubs definitely did not jump any sharks at all, and there were indications that it wouldn’t before it premiered. Zach Braff seemed to have confidence in it, and I trust comedians, though I remained skeptical since all the entertaining people promote things they are a part of. Zach Braff also defended Scrubs’ continuation, explaining that New Scrubs would provide employment for numerous people. Furthermore, the Scrubs Myface (Facebook) fan page posted this article on Myface before New Scrubs began, where the author seemed to have concerns similar to mine, but was pleasantly surprised with what New Scrubs would bring.

When New Scrubs finally began, I discovered first hand that it definitely did not suck. It wasn’t just Scrubs without JD – it had changed enough, in the setting and with some new characters, that it was almost a different, almost-as-great show. Despite the slight changes, it still had a lot of the original Scrubsiness of the show, via some permanently returning beloved characters, some occasionally returning beloved characters, and the same amazing writing and humor that graced the first eight seasons. They transitioned beautifully into this New Scrubs; they allowed me to fall in love with the new characters as I had fallen in love with the original characters before. It was so perfectly done that they could have – and part of me feels they should have – made New Scrubs a spin-off rather than a ninth season. The new characters weren’t replacements or clones of other characters; there were some similarities, but the new characters were unique. For example, Lucy was not a clone of JD or Elliot, but she clearly exhibited some of their traits while maintaining her own unique and lovable characteristics. I love Lucy (hehehe, I think that’s why they named her Lucy), and I love New Scrubs. I would watch more New Scrubs if it were on. I will watch New Scrubs reruns where I find them on the TV and on the DVDs that I will buy.

However, I need a new show to replace New Scrubs – a new New Scrubs if you will. I was informed recently of a relatively new programme called Modern Family, and I was told I would love it, and that it is worth the addiction that would surely ensue. My informant was right; I watched one episode on abc.com, entitled “Fifteen Percent” (it was the oldest episode still there at that time), and I loved it. It was hilarious, with a bit of an Arrested Development-ness about it, and I already love many if not all of the characters. The reflective introspection that comes from the mockumentary style of it, as well as the lovability of all the characters give it a nice sense of Scrubsiness. I believe Modern Family shall be my new New Scrubs.

I encountered several fun surprises while watching Modern Family. First, Kristen Schaal showed up at the door of the show (I don't believe she is a recurring character), causing me to exclaim to myself (but aloud of course), “Hey, that’s the girl from The Daily Show!” Towards the end of the episode, I suddenly realized, and once again exclaimed aloud to myself, “Omg! That’s Al Bundy!” Indeed, the main character of Modern Family is Ed O’Neill. My excitement grew. As a side note, it’s nice that ABC is taking care of most of the Bundys; Al Bundy (Ed O'Neill) is on Modern Family, Kelly Bundy (Christina Applegate) is on Samantha Who, Peggy Bundy (Katey Sagal) has a recurring role on Lost; where is Bud Bundy (David Faustino)? Perhaps ABC should turn his web series Star-ving into a TV show, or give him some other show, to complete the Bundy fun. Getting back to the fun surprises on that Modern Family episode, at the end of the episode, I was shocked to see the 20th Century Fox thingie – this show is on ABC, but apparently is produced by Fox! That’s crazy! Finally, when I went to write this blog posting, as I searched through Zach Braff’s Myface page looking for the article above that I ended up finding on the Scrubs Myface page, I noticed that Zach Braff also enjoys and recommended Modern Family. Everything came together beautifully.

UPDATE May 26, 2011
At some point since writing this posting, I have discovered that the more accurate new New Scrubs is the funny and Scrubs-like Cougar Town, because Cougar Town is a Bill Lawrence creation, as were Scrubs and New Scrubs.

4 ways to Make Lots of Money!

I read somewhere that when using Google Adsense (I mean Topeka Adsense), the higher paying ads are the ones about money and commerce. This amused me. I guess the old adage is true: You have to [use] money to make money.


So I decided to sell out (pun intended of course) and write a blog posting about making money.

I can think of four ways to get lots of money:

1) Work really hard. This doesn’t always work, but it will probably make you a better person. Unless you become a workaholic, or alienate the people you love and who love you for the sake of working hard. If that’s the case, then it will be your downfall.

2) Be born into a family that already has lots of money. This is the easiest way of going about getting lots of money. But it might make you a worser person (hahahahahaha, get it?) Or maybe it won’t. I guess that’s up to you, if you decide to be born into money.

3) Screw people over, in a Madoffian (Madovian?) manner. You could make lots of money, but you might lose it all and end up in prison for 150 years. Additionally, you’ll be a horrible person. The world will hate you. This is probably not the best route for making lots of money.

4) Be lucky and win the lottery. If you succeed in this unlikely event, this is a great way to make money. However, as with any money-making technique, this can lead to terrible things like greed or the money consuming you, or worse, you could (SPOILER ALERT) end up on some crazy island like Hurley did in Lost after he won the lottery. But then again, maybe that island is a blessing for Hurley and the others, and maybe also the Others.

I imagine there might be other ways to make money as well. For example, you could win a big lawsuit or a big settlement in a lawsuit. However, that would technically require that you (or your lawyer) work hard in the lawsuit, so that would fall under the category of working hard for the money (so you better be treated right). It might also require some good luck, and could thus fall into the “Being Lucky” category as well.

You might think there are ways to make money that require work that is easy, or that don’t require any work at all. However, difficulty is relative, so if something is easy for you, it might be hard for someone else, and so it still fits in the category of working hard. Similarly, if something doesn’t feel like work to you, because it’s so easy or you simply enjoy it, that is also relative – you might not have to put any effort into something, but someone else might struggle with the same thing, and you might enjoy something, but someone else might not,.

Perhaps you might be thinking that another way to get money would be via theft. However, this could fit into two of the categories above: screwing people over and working hard. In fact, screwing people over could itself fit into the working hard category, so perhaps it is redundant. Anyway, with theft, you’re obviously screwing someone over, though not exactly in a Madoffian way, for the latter was probably a bit more creative than simply robbing someone and also the latter involved screwing over a large number of people. I think it’s clear, however, how the two methods fit in the same category.

Both of these screwing-people-over methods of getting money also fit into the working hard category; all the scheming, planning, and preparing for any of the ways to screw people over (Madoffian or more traditional theft) all require hard work. Arguably, it’s not hard work at all, but then we’re back to the relative nature of difficulty. Theft might be easy for some people, but it might be difficult for other people, particularly people who come equipped with consciences. In addition to conscience-ridden people, another example of someone who might feel that theft is hard work would be a shy individual. I imagine it would be rather difficult for a shy person to go up to someone and rob them – they might have to talk to their victim, and if the robber is overcome with stage fright, they might not succeed in their endeavors to screw someone over. Therefore, the robber would have to work really hard to conquer his or her shyness and fears. It’s clear then, the screwing-people-over method of getting money should fall into the category of working hard, and it is therefore a redundant category. However, since I am lazy, I will leave it as a separate category above and continue to claim that there are four ways to make money.

Perhaps being lucky is also a redundant category. After all, in order to win the lottery, you have to play the lottery, and in order to do that, effort (to buy lottery tickets) and pre-existing money are necessary. However, if one were truly lucky, then buying a lottery ticket wouldn’t be difficult, rendering the relative nature of difficulty irrelevant given luckiness. Therefore, being lucky shall remain a separate category, irrelevant of my lazy inclinations.

I should mention that these methods of getting money have some degree of uncertainty. For example, you could work really hard, but make very little money, or no money at all, or you could be a really lucky person, but you might only be lucky in more sentimental ways rather than fiscally. (Does that make sense? Should I have said “financially”? I don’t care, “fiscally” sounds more fun.) You could screw people over, but the people you screwed over might not have much money for you to steal. You could be born into money, but your family might be very stingy in life and then not bequeath any of the money to you. Therefore, my methods of getting money are not guaranteed methods. Also, they are void where prohibited. (What? That doesn’t even make sense.)

I’ve been discussing ways to get money, however my list o’ categories does not reflect keeping the money that is gotten. Keeping money is also important; if you use all the money you get, you won’t have anymore. However, keeping all of it is no fun, because what is the point of getting all that money if you don’t enjoy any of it. Swimming in your money like Uncle Scrooge would probably get boring eventually. It’s important to find a nice balance between saving money and using it for nice things and survival – well, survival is also a nice thing, but you know what I mean.

I like money. It’s a good thing to have around. However, it can also be evil – the root of all evil, in fact. Furthermore, it’s dirty – everyone touches it with their germy hands. That’s why credit and debit cards are better: they’re touched by fewer people. I’m a germaphobe.

I hope this has been helpful in your endeavors to make or get lots of money! Good luck, and when you do, share some with me!

DISCLAIMER: Don’t steal things or otherwise screw people over – it’s wrong, there are consequences that are not good, and you will suffer them in some way, even if your just deserts are served later on, or if it’s in the form of guilt, for that guilt will defeat you.

SPOILER ALERT: Is Thirteen Leaving House MD?

UPDATE July 14, 2010
SPOILER ALERT - HOUSE SEASON 7
Well, it seems that Thirteen will temporarily be leaving House MD to do a movie that was co-written by one of the Lost producers (Damon Lindelof).  The House Facebook page posted this article about some other actress (Amber Tamblyn) being on a few episodes of House this coming season, and that article sent me to the one about Olivia Wilde (Thirteen).  Thirteen's impending temporary absence came as a surprise to me, because I apparently forgot that she said she would be taking a leave of absence in the season 6 finale.  Now that my memory has been jogged, I was rather worried about Thirteen at the end of last season -- I bet something is going on with her Huntington's Disease, or maybe there is something else somehow ailing her.  I hope she is okay, and it's funny how concerned we become for fictional characters.  Anyway, I'm glad her absence will only be temporary, and I'm glad the House producer said (in that article) that the story will all make sense, because it's nice when things make sense.

Original Posting from October 20, 2009 Begins Here
(MILD SPOILER ALERT - HOUSE SEASON 6)

I've been rather distraught at the thought of Thirteen (Olivia Wilde) appearing to be leaving House MD. So, to find out if Olivia will emerge from House MD oblivion, I google-news’d to see if there's any news about it.

According to this spoiler-containing thingie from Entertainment Weekly, Olivia Wilde's and Peter Jacobson's trailers have not been cleaned out, so hopefully they're not leaving. I mean, hopefully Thirteen isn't leaving, I'm sort of indifferent regarding Taub (Peter Jacobson). Poor Taub.

In my Google News searchings, I also saw a snippet containing a real spoiler, and I feel that I’ve been corrupted. It was about something specific happening in a December House MD episode. I don’t feel right sharing it with you, since I wish I hadn’t read it. Sorry.

But I will share another mild and less specific spoiler I found. In my searchings, I found this blog from The NY Times, where they say that Cameron (Jennifer Morrison) is leaving, and that was announced in September apparently. I know some people will be thrilled, since Chase-and-Cameron story-lines and b-stories can get incredibly irritating, but this totally sucks; as annoying as she can get, I heart Cameron, and I think the show needs her (and Chase (Jesse Spencer) too, but don't worry, I haven't seen anything about him leaving).

But if I had to choose, I would totally choose Thirteen over Cameron. That goes for both the characters and the actresses.

UPDATE November 5, 2209
MORE SPOILERS

Woohoo! It looks like we get to keep BOTH Thirteen AND Cameron! Yay! Apparently, both Olivia Wilde and Jennifer Morrison will be returning to House MD. The latter, however, might just be doing guest appearances after being absent from a few episodes, according to this spoiler-containing thing that House's Facebook fan page posted.

UPDATE November 17, 2009
QUASI-SPOILER ALERT

In last night's episode of House MD ("Teamwork"), Thirteen (Olivia Wilde) and Taub (Peter Jacobson) returned, confirming the above spoilers. As I discuss in this blog posting, we also saw Cameron (Jennifer Morrison) leaving as expected, which would've been sad if I hadn't known that (according to the above sources) she will be returning as a guest star in future episodes. Nonetheless, I will miss Cameron as a regular character. But I was very happy to see Thirteen, and somewhat strangely also Taub, return.

ABC/Disney is Discriminating against DVD Users!

I make this outlandish claim because I have discovered (well, they make it blatantly obvious) that Lost University will be exclusive to the Blu-ray version of the fifth season.

I was so ridiculously excited about Lost University when I saw Lost’s Myface (Facebook) fan page post something about it back in July. I couldn’t wait to enroll – it seems so incredibly interesting. I even felt that they had stolen and then morphed my idea, since I had thought it would be a great idea to have books like The Philosophy of Lost, The Psychology of Lost, and The Gospel According to Lost, like they do for The Simpsons, and it seemed that’s what Lost University was all about, sort of.

UPDATE April 29, 2010
I suddenly felt compelled to see whether the Lost books I envisioned might, in fact, already exist, and they do!  Well, 2 out of 3 -- The Psychology of Lost doesn't appear to exist at this time, but Lost and Philosophy and The Gospel According to Lost do exist!  Woohoo!

I had hoped at the time that they were only suggesting the purchase of Lost Season 5 on Blu-ray. But after I excitedly enrolled today, I discovered that not only is that a requirement, but almost the whole University exists solely on the Blu-ray. It’s not even on the DVD!

I vowed never to buy Blu-ray discs, largely because I do not own anything that will play such a format. I also vowed never to buy Windows Vista, and thanks to Windows 7, I will never have to, so it worked. (It seems my Blu-ray avoidance might have to come to an end at some point in the future, according to Wikipedia.)

I wasn’t even sure I would be willing to buy the DVD of Season 5, but if Lost University would be on it, I probably would have. But now I won’t. I won’t buy any Lost DVD now, in protest of their exclusionary behaviors.

Hey, ABC/Disney, why don’t you put Lost University on a separate DVD if you don’t want to put it on the Season 5 DVD? I would definitely buy that, even if it’s just the non-interactive portions. Or better yet, why not put the whole thing online, you know, like at the Lost University website that already exists (see link below)? You could throw some ads on there and make money that way, or you could even charge “students” to enroll. Despite my proclivity towards cheapness, I would probably pay for such a fun, exciting, and interesting online university. But I won’t buy a Blu-ray player just for the joys of said university.

If you own a Blu-ray player and want to enroll, or if you want to enroll and see what you can get out of it without the stupid Blu-ray like I’m doing, go here:

http://www.lostuniversity.org/

UPDATE January 24, 2010
Well, so much for that – I caved. Amazon has (or had – I don’t know how long the sale will last, if it’s not over already) the DVDs of all the past seasons (1-5) for really low prices, so I bought them – all of them. It was a difficult decision – I was filled with guilt for betraying my own (pointless) cause. My sister was kind enough to allow me to “pretend” I bought it for her (which works out nicely if they end up releasing a fabulous box set of the complete series that I would obviously need to buy), but alas, it is still a betrayal of my non-worthy cause. What can I say, I’m weak.

Of course, the Blu-ray versions of all 5 seasons are (or were ) also on sale at Amazon, but their sale prices are still high, of course, because it’s Blu-ray, and Blu-ray is expensive.

I really hope they put the Lost U things on a DVD, even if it is just the non-interactive potions, because (assuming it would be cheap enough) I would buy that.