Welcome to the Q&A with TV critic — also known to some TV fans as their “TV therapist” — Matt Roush, who’ll try to address whatever you love, loathe, are confused or frustrated or thrilled by in today’s vast TV landscape. (We know background music is too loud, it’s the most frequent complaint, but there’s always closed-captioning. Check out this story for more tips.)
One caution: This is a spoiler-free zone, so we won’t be addressing upcoming storylines here unless it’s already common knowledge. Please send your questions and comments to [email protected]. Look for Ask Matt columns on most Tuesdays.
Bored by TV’s Deadly Tactics
Question: We’re back in the fall season and already my biggest gripe with TV storytelling is already well into play: “let’s kill off characters” as the only idea writers seem to have. The perennially notorious Grey’s Anatomy is already doing it, and HBO’s Task is frustrating me, as it seems that’s the only thing that happens each episode. And I have yet to finish the last few episodes of 9-1-1 last season and am not ready to dive back into this season because of what they did to Peter Krause.
I’ll always blame 24 which pioneered it back in the 2000s as the trend. There’s more to just killing off characters as shock value. Sometimes it’s gripping television (I still remember Maggie’s demise in Falcon Crest, which haunted me as a kid) but a lot of it is just lazy storytelling and pretty disrespectful to the viewer when it’s a little unnecessary. I mean characters can have happy endings, too.
First, Grey’s: I am shocked the producers had the audacity to defend it as necessary. Task is frustrating me on a lot of levels—it’s no Mare of Easttown, that’s for sure. Every episode someone is killed. Yawn. Always the more interesting characters. A lot of the other characters look the same, and I really can’t distinguish between a few of them. Mark Ruffalo appears sedated too. I am just waiting for the most interesting one, the always wonderful Martha Plimpton, to bite the dust (she hasn’t yet). What’s your take on the one-note storytelling theme of TV writers? I mean, it’s super lazy. — Alex
Matt Roush: This is an awfully dark take on a dark subject, and because I tend to look at each situation and show differently, I’ll start by pushing back on the whole idea of “lazy” storytelling. The very fact that you still remember Maggie’s death on Falcon Crest all these years later is an indication that under the right circumstances, a character’s demise can have dramatic impact, and that’s all I require to justify this sort of twist. It’s also helpful to remember that most serialized TV shows operate in the world of melodrama, which means there are going to be tragic lows and occasionally shocking losses (9-1-1 sacrificing its lead character qualifies) along the way. It’s how showrunners hope to keep things interesting over the long run, which sometimes works and sometimes backfires, but because many of these shows (like 24) tell stories with life-and-death stakes, there inevitably will be casualties. Sometimes major ones.
That’s my general view of the subject. To zero in on your more recent examples, I would have been more surprised if Grey’s Anatomy hadn’t killed somebody off after that cliffhanger explosion. It can be argued that they played it safe by sacrificing a recent and relatively marginal character who wasn’t a regular—killing Link would have been much more polarizing. And I’m not as down on Task as Alex. It’s definitely a downbeat show, fatalistic in fact, which accounts for the high body count among key characters. But in most of these cases, the deaths felt almost inevitable because of their circumstances, which could translate as predictable, I suppose. I agree Task doesn’t have the cumulative impact of Mare of Easttown, but I was still moved by the end. And very happy that Martha Plimpton’s fabulously sardonic character survived.
To Binge or Not to Binge
Question: I was delighted to see that you gave a 5-star review to the latest season of The Diplomat. This series has become a favorite and, as you pointed out, it was a pleasant surprise to discover I didn’t have to wait multiple years between Season 2 and Season 3 to resolve that cliffhanger. What a treat! My only complaint is that Netflix still insists on releasing all episodes at once. Last year, I told myself I would only watch one episode a week, allowing my entertainment pleasure to linger. I failed miserably, though, and binged the six episodes over two nights. It’s very difficult to hold back when the storytelling is this good. I’m going to try again and hope I find more discipline.
My question for you: Now that so many shows offer far fewer episodes than the once-standard 22 (and entire seasons are available before the first episode airs), do you binge-watch shows or do you allow yourself to consume some seasons on a week-by-week basis? I would imagine that, as a TV critic, being able to complete an entire season before giving a full review has its benefits. If you do binge an entire season, do you feel it impacts your enjoyment, one way or the other? I love the “Ask Matt” column! – Kelly D.
Matt Roush: This is a topic I struggle with quite frequently. I’m not a fan of the binge model, feeling that it tends to amplify a show’s weaknesses when consuming a number of episodes in fast succession. I also selfishly like being able to call attention to specific episodes during the weekly run of a show in my daily “Worth Watching” column, something you can’t do when a show drops its entire season at once—and in the case of Netflix, drops another dozen or so shows within a week, effectively cannibalizing anyone’s attention span.
But then there are shows like The Diplomat, where waiting a week between episodes would feel like torture, and with only eight episodes (two more than in Season 2), it feels more like what happens when you experience a gripping page-turner you can’t put down, and you race to the end. The downside, of course, is that when you consume something so quickly, the wait for the next season is even more excruciating.
But since you asked about my process, when previewing a new series, I do tend to watch an entire season at once, or however many episodes they make available, before premiere. Or if I’m preparing a stand-alone review of a new season, as in the case of The Diplomat, I’ll try to watch it in its entirety as well. But even we who do this for a living only have so much time in a day or a week, so in many cases with ongoing streaming series, I’ll watch the episodes weekly to preview in the “Worth Watching” space, experiencing them much as anyone else does. And that is my preferred way of watching most weekly series, enjoying the anticipation of what’s next. The way it used to be.
Ghosts’ Happy Sucking Sound
Question: What did you think of Carol being “sucked off” on Ghosts? I think it was pretty clear that Jay was not going to die and go to hell because that would have been an extremely dark turn for this show. But I loved that I didn’t have a clue how the issue of his deal with Elias would be resolved.
When Carol first died a couple of seasons ago without being upgraded to series regular, I expected her to have a quick arc to reconcile with Pete and then get sucked off. When that didn’t happen, I kind of forgot about that idea and got used to her being one of those ghosts we just see from time to time. So by the time this episode rolled around, I was actually legitimately surprised. I would not have thought to tie Carol to the resolution of Jay’s fate, but they did a really great job of making this work. I loved that she was able to do right by Pete for once and that the writers were able to give closure to that relationship. At the same time, it was great to see the ghosts rally around Jay and how much he means to them. The only shame is that we won’t be seeing Caroline Aaron on the show again. I would not have expected saving Jay to cause reconciliation between Pete and Carol, but the writers really pulled this off in a satisfying way. Your thoughts? — Jake
Matt Roush: No argument here. It was a terrific dilemma for Jay to find himself in, and the writers concocted a clever solution that also gave appropriate closure and even redemption for Carol. The strongest episodes of Ghosts are those where most of the spirits get caught up in the situation, and that was the case here. It was also great seeing Patience again, not to mention Nancy from the basement in the “B” story about Pete and Alberta. Happy to say Ghosts is off to a good start.
Will Philly Ever Get the Emmy Love It Deserves?
Question: I’m a big fan and have been reading your articles for years. Part of me is shocked that It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia is still on—and has been since the first email you answered of mine back when TGIF was coming to a close for the second time—but I also feel the shift to every 18 months or so has reignited their comedic timing and overall writing. While I don’t think they ever really declined to the point of other long-lasting sitcoms, the episodes they delivered this year were hilarious (the Abbott crossover), brilliant (rehearsing for the dinner party), shockingly heart-warming (the tribute to Lynne Marie Stewart at the end of episode 7 had me in tears), and/or one of the funniest episodes I’ve ever seen of any show (“Mac and Dennis become EMTs”).
While I know the Emmys invited them to present last year, do you think there’s any chance they actually get recognized in the future, especially when they’re delivering consistently funny performances, especially this late in their record-breaking run, as opposed to drama/comedy hybrid performances like other popular shows, or do you think it’s been on too long for critics to notice at this point? Kaitlin Olson, in particular, has given year after year of self-deprecating physical humor to her role, only to never be recognized as (what I see as) one of the all-time great performances in a sitcom by a female performer, yet has yet to secure a nomination in any major category. Just wondering your thoughts about Sunny, or if you’ve watched any of the show recently. Thanks for always having a great column to read! — Bill
Matt Roush: I agree that Philadelphia‘s latest compact season, with only eight episodes, had lots of memorable high points amidst the reliably low comedy. But as you probably suspect, my reading of the Emmy tea leaves leans toward the opinion that if the show and its cast were ever going to get acknowledged, that would have happened by now. I’ve learned never to say never, but for this show, its longevity may be reward enough.
Is Fox’s Reality Strategy Paying Off?
Question: Have you heard how the ratings are for the regular Fox broadcasting network? Considering there’s only one night right now, of actual legit SCRIPTED drama. I know it’s cheaper to do that, but the network can suffer anyway, you know. What they are doing is reminding me of when ABC put on Who Wants to Be a Millionaire every night of the week. I didn’t watch it, but I’m well aware the people got burned out on it, because it aired too much. Do you think that’s happening with Fox and them airing “reality” shows most nights? I’m not a fan of them. Game shows are a little better. — Andrew R.
Matt Roush: I really don’t pay much attention to ratings, unless a show really breaks through, because linear viewership is only part of the metrics gauging success or failure anymore. But I checked out a couple of ratings websites in response to this question (looking back at the most recent available week of Oct. 6) and wasn’t surprised that most of Fox’s shows (that aren’t sports) are pretty far down the list. The Fox schedule, with most nights devoted to either game shows or reality competitions, cooking and otherwise, is largely a consequence of the network being separated from its original studio. (If they were still aligned with 20th Television, for example, 9-1-1 would almost certainly still be thriving there instead of on ABC.) These relatively inexpensive reality and game shows represent a survival tactic, and while there are diminishing returns with so much sameness and so few scripted tentpoles (if you don’t count animation), that’s becoming ever more common on broadcast TV.
And Finally …
Comment: I know you have addressed this plenty of times before, but network executives have no one but themselves to blame for their shrinking ratings. It is completely confusing to have new seasons of TV shows start at different times, and then they make it worse by airing a show on a different night. I completely missed that Matlock was on Sunday night until I saw the story on your website, since I thought it started Thursday with the other Thursday CBS shows. I realize appointment television days are over, but this is just total chaos for viewers to have to keep track of 100 different start times. Bring back season premiere week after the Emmys, so we have a clue when shows are even on. – Teri
Matt Roush: I also find it jarring that CBS waited until mid-October to launch its traditional lineup, with the apparent reasoning having something to do with using the first weeks of the NFL season as a promotional tool. The stunt of launching Matlock on Sunday instead of its regular Thursday time period seems to have paid off with robust numbers following football and 60 Minutes, and there are ways either On Demand or on CBS’s website to catch up with episodes you missed (for those who aren’t also subscribers to Paramount+). But I get it. Confusing viewers is never a good strategy.
That’s all for now. We can’t do this without your participation, so please keep sending questions and comments about TV to [email protected]. (Please include a first name with your question.)