Ask Matt

Question: Last year, I was one of the avid Jericho fans who petitioned for its return. I thought the idea of a show based around survival in an apocalyptic society was intriguing. I loved watching the scientific as well as the emotional sides of the situation, and I overlooked much of the mediocre acting in doing so. But as it started to turn into a complex espionage-laced quagmire, I became very disenchanted. With all of the procedural military, FBI and police shows out there, why couldn't they leave well enough alone and let the average viewer watch as a town relearned how to get out of the fetal position and organize itself? When I watch it now, I find myself confused by the many new characters, acronyms and conspiracies. Is there hope that it will someday get back to its roots, or is this what we should expect for as long as the show can survive?— Kerensa R., Clifton Park, Penn.

Question: Once I got wind of the writers' strike, I stopped watching live TV and started to save as much as possible on my TiVo for the lean months. Last night, I was looking for something to watch and saw that I had three episodes of ER saved. But instead of watching, I deleted them. I decided that I just didn't want to deal with how negative and dark this show has become. Yes, I know that it is set in a hospital and that sickness and injury do lend themselves to morbid themes, but back in the day, this show seemed to be able to balance the depressing storylines with some lighthearted ones, as well. In the earlier years, even with so much death and disaster surrounding them, the characters still had some moments of happiness in their lives. That's what kept so many people watching. Sure, there were gunshot wounds and heart-attack patients, but we also got to see people falling in love, getting together (and remaining faithful), forming solid friendships and having babies. These days, even when the main characters do these things, the writers put a negative spin on it. Yes, Neela fell in love and got married, but her husband got killed in Iraq. Yes, there was a wedding last season, but Ray and Greg got into a fistfight and then Ray got hit by a truck and lost both of his legs. Yes, Abby had a baby, but she almost died delivering him and had to have a hysterectomy. Oh, and now that her husband has been in Croatia, she has started drinking again and recently slept with her boss. I know that drama supposedly makes for good TV, but I've had enough. ER has become a total downer. At the beginning of the season, people were saying that ER had gotten its grove back, but I don't see it. Also, do you think Grey's Anatomy is headed in the same direction? I know that Shonda Rhimes promised a more light-hearted fourth season, but I haven't seen much of that. Maybe that's the fault of the abbreviated schedule. I really don't like the morose and brooding Meredith who surfaced last season, and unfortunately she's staying around. Nobody else at Seattle Grace seems to be having anything good happen in their lives, either. Is Grey's going to become the dark and depressing mess that ER has become? Can't anyone please have just a little something good happen to them every once in a while?— Kristin A.

Question: While I have read the books, I'd never seen Dexter before as I'm not a Showtime subscriber. So I was ecstatic when CBS launched it in reruns. And the show was amazing! But now the Parents Television Council is trying to get CBS to take it off the air. It's not a family show and I agree that it's not appropriate for children. But it airs at 10 pm/ET, so if any kids are up watching television at that time of night, shouldn't their parents be responsible for saying, "No, you can't watch this"? Is there an anti-PTC out there that I can join up with and flood CBS with letters about how much I love Dexter and can't wait to watch more? Help me, Matt. I'm just trying to enjoy watching TV!— Terry

Question: During the strike, I had the chance to watch Dexter on DVD, and I have to say I was kind of disappointed after all of the critical raves. Don't get me wrong, I watched multiple episodes at a time and enjoyed the premise, the character of Dexter, the cinematography and the acting... for the most part. That's what ruined it for me. From the first episode, I thought there were a few weak performances — most notably his sister, Lt. Laguerta and Sgt. Doakes, although the former two progressed along the way. The actor who plays Doakes, however, made me cringe every time he was on-screen, to the point where I had to force myself not to fast-forward through those scenes. There were multiple points in each episode where I hoped that his character would be killed off. None of the reviews I read after watching the show mentioned this issue, and I've desperately searched for validation. Now that it's airing on CBS (which I haven't caught), I wonder if you've gotten other mail regarding this, or if you had a similar problem with it. Doakes' relationship to Dexter fascinates me, but the actor's overacting and stilted dialogue makes the writing look bad, so much so that I'm apprehensive about wasting my time on the second season, just because I can't stand this one guy. Does he get any better? Or is Season 2 so amazing that I should suck it up and work through the pain? (Spoiler alert) I already know that I finally get my wish, so maybe I should just pick up again next season.— Peter

Question: How will Jesse L. Martin leaving Law & Order affect the show? He has been the anchor of the "law" half since the departure of Jerry Orbach. Any word on who will replace him? On a related note, is NBC going to keep Law & Order: Criminal Intent, or is USA going to get it back when the show goes back into production?— Brian B.

Question: Any update on the Lifetime program Side Order of Life? I read an item you wrote back in October and am wondering if there's any news.— Michelle

Question: I was surprised to hear that both the Grammys and Oscars suffered some of their lowest ratings ever this year. Initially, I thought viewership would be "normal" considering the lack of new television on the air due to the writers' strike. Do you think the popularity of nominees affects awards-show viewership?— Sarah S.

Question: I see that The Big Bang Theory has been picked up for a 24-episode order next year. I am glad to see CBS is showing faith in this show by moving it to 8 pm/ET and giving it a full-season renewal. But do you think the ratings will decline, because fewer people watch TV at 8 pm?— Scott G.

Question: Even taking into account the cost of making a Terminator: The Sarah Connor Chronicles episode, why is Fox not happy with the ratings the show has been getting? Its ratings are stronger than its lead-in (every week) and it's competing against game shows and reality shows that started the hour before (90-minute episodes), and viewers from those aren't going to change the channel once the 9 pm/ET slot starts (when Terminator airs). I think Fox had unrealistic expectations of how the show was going to perform during the strike, when fewer serial dramas were airing, and in fact Deal or No Deal and those other reality shows are even tougher competition. Getting 8 million viewers plus every episode is nothing to sneeze at, and when you add in its high number of DVR, iTunes, Amazon, etc. views, its numbers total easily above 10 million every week. What are you hearing about the chances for it returning next season?— J.

Question: I'm responding to the recent Knight Rider-related exchange, in which you said, "I've got nothing against harmless escapism, and I wouldn't argue with the person who commented on my Dispatch that not everything on TV should have to be Masterpiece Theatre." I would argue with that person — not by saying that everything should be Masterpiece Theatre, but by saying that it's a rhetorical sleight of hand, using the loaded term "Masterpiece Theatre" to justify mediocrity (or, more precisely, to rationalize his or her own willingness to put up with it). Surely not all TV should be highbrow culture. I enjoy a good deal of middlebrow escapism: shows whose goal isn't to challenge viewers but to provide fast-paced, immediately emotionally gratifying, predictable and low-stress entertainment, often with fantasy or magical-realist elements (though many of these shows transcend escapism: Chuck, Psych, Monk, Gilmore Girls, Reaper, 24, My Name Is Earl, Desperate Housewives, Supernatural, even Pushing Daisies). The rhetorical sleight of hand in saying "not everything has to be Masterpiece Theater" is that it's really suggesting "not everything has to be high quality." That's just false. There's no reason we oughtn't demand that everything be high quality. There's no reason we can't expect the writers, actors, directors, set designers and editors who produce middlebrow escapism to be good at their craft — and to call them on it when they aren't. I suspect you'd agree that that's a critic's role: not to hector people into favoring weightier, higher-culture genres over escapist ones (like a nutritionist urging them to eat whole grains instead of donuts), but to tell them which shows within each genre are well or poorly executed in the genre's terms (as well as when and how seemingly escapist shows bend or mix or wildly transcend their genres, like Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Veronica Mars — which is often when things get most exciting.... though that's another e-mail).— Keith