Ask Matt

Matt Roush: Funny. But also kind of serious, when it comes to taking a show like this at face value. Now that the first two episodes have aired (in advance of the show moving to its regular Monday time period for the next few weeks), we're beginning to see where New Amsterdam may be headed, should it get the chance. What interests me much more than the present-day crime stories are the glimpses we get of John Amsterdam in past times: who he was, who he pretended to be, who knew his secret at the time and why they were keeping it. Already with the reveals from Thursday's episode (I won't give them away for those who haven't yet watched), it's clear that some of the personal attachments he makes stay with him even as he moves on from generation to generation, never aging while everyone else does. But it does beg the question of how a lawyer from the 1940s becomes a detective 60 years later with little sign that his worlds, then and now, ever overlap. Maybe those who know him best protect him and help provide a new cover story for him as he assumes a new identity. Or maybe we just shouldn't obsess on these details just yet. If you're unwilling to suspend your disbelief, this may not be the show for you.

Matt Roush: As often happens in situations like this, those involved in the show's creation have disavowed any prior knowledge of the book until it was called to their attention. Which I suppose is possible. They said much the same thing when similarities to Highlander were brought to their attention. Let's just chalk it up to the fact that immortality is a favorite go-to device for genre writers, and there are only so many ways to make it original. Pete Hamill earned my respect by publicly stating that he's not going to waste his time or money by suing. He no doubt has a point. The odds are pretty steep that New Amsterdam will be history long before people stop reading Hamill and Forever (it's been on my shelf for a while, and now I'm curious).

Matt Roush: I guess you missed my review, in which I suggest the biggest mistake was moving it from the Internet to network TV in the first place. As a media CEO told Television Week earlier this week, "NBC has proven that content that no one watched online can also be watched by no one on TV." An exaggeration, but not by much. The numbers were so pitiful for Quarterlife's Tuesday tryout, even in the target demo, that NBC had no choice but to yank it before it moved to Sundays. I hated the fact that I hated this show (and I didn't like it much when I sampled it online either, but at least there it felt appropriate), because I admire the show's creators (Marshall Herskovitz and Ed Zwick) so much. Back in the day, I was always irked whenever critics blasted their earlier shows like thirtysomething and Once and Again for being whiny, because I felt so passionately about the emotional truths those shows conveyed. I didn't feel the same was true with the callow, self-absorbed and self-impressed characters in Quarterlife, but then, I'm an outsider when it comes to the Facebook/MySpace generation, so maybe I just don't speak their language. Even so, there was universality to the earlier Herskovitz-Zwick shows that I felt was lacking here. Plus, I pretty much hated all of the characters, especially Blog Girl.

Matt Roush: Recently I had what I believe was a perfect day (it was Valentine's Day in Key West, for those who care), and I made a point of acknowledging it at the time, thinking it wise never to take such things for granted. Which is why I totally get what you're saying about Lost right now. When something is this good, you not only want to embrace it but to shout about it from the rooftops. I got so many personal e-mails after raving about last week's episode ("The Constant"), from people I know well and people I hardly know at all, that it left me as euphoric as the show clearly leaves you. So what will we do when Lost calls it a wrap? I'm hoping (and trusting) we'll still be regarding it with affection and possibly awe, that we salute it appropriately and then look toward the next great thing. Because being an optimist at heart, I am convinced there's always going to be something else to get excited about just over the horizon.

Matt Roush: And here's where my optimism hits the wall. It's possible, especially given the nature of this truncated season, that Lost will once again get its due at the Emmys, where it has been largely ignored (with a few acting exceptions) since winning for its breakthrough first season. It certainly deserves to make the cut. But given last year's Emmy debacle, with Boston Legal (of all shows) getting a nod, I can't say my confidence is high. Let's do the math. The Sopranos is no longer a factor, but maybe this will be The Wire's year. (Let's hope.) And I'd be shocked if AMC's Mad Men doesn't get nominated (bye-bye, Boston Legal). In Lost's favor is the fact that Heroes' second season wasn't exactly a smash or critical hit, so maybe it's that show's turn to fall off the list to make room for the superior-in-every-way Lost. I'd love to be pleasantly surprised.

And in my long tradition of giving space to opposing points of view, here's this reaction to last week's Lost episode from Mildred of Hilltown, Pennsylvania: "I think it's time to cancel Lost or end it this season. That episode with Desmond was ridiculous! It was one of the worst episodes ever. The show is confusing enough, but last night's was over the top. Thanks."

I respectfully... disagree. (Sorry, I zoned out there for a second and traveled back to 2004, a happier time when just about everyone was still on board with Lost.)

Matt Roush: If you liked last week's episode, wait till you see this Sunday's finale. It gets back to the mix of wild dark comedy and nail-biting suspense that characterized the first few episodes, and both Bryan Cranston and Aaron Paul (Jesse) are terrific. The season may have been cut a few episodes short by the strike, but it's still a great finish. And while AMC hasn't officially green-lighted a second season, I'm led to believe they're pleased with the numbers and thrilled with the show's quality as well as with the critical reception (not as across-the-board glowing as for Mad Men, but close).

Another take on Breaking Bad, from Lauren: "I've been thoroughly enjoying AMC's Breaking Bad — or at least as much as one can 'enjoy' the show. Bryan Cranston is phenomenal and the story is intriguing. As next week's seventh episode is the season finale, can you tell me what the prospects are for a second season? I have no idea how it's done in the ratings and what, if any, critical acclaim it has received. Obviously the story has a finite arc, but I can imagine that its writers can keep it going for a while longer. Also, why does AMC produce a show with swearing in it when clearly their policy is to censor all swearing?"

I covered most of this ground in the previous answer — bottom line, AMC hasn't renewed the show yet, but as soon as they can make the appropriate deals, I'm betting we'll hear it's a go for Season 2. I agree this may not be a premise that can be extended indefinitely, but there's at least a second season's worth of story here. As for the curious decision to film profane dialogue but then silence (or, I guess, "censor") the actual words from actually being heard, it seems to me this is AMC's way of making an adult series as realistically as possible. We're all grown-up enough to know what it is they're saying, but this is basic (not pay) cable and there are still some content restrictions at play, although not nearly as strict as at the broadcast networks. I imagine when this is released on DVD, we'll get the unaltered version of what is basically an R-rated series. (Last month, the Independent Film Channel ran the first episodes of Breaking Bad with profanities unmuted.)

Matt Roush: All very true, and a number of fans made this very point in responding to my earlier criticisms of this season, which many (no surprise) found to be unfair. But this is the hand Jericho was dealt to secure its against-the-odds comeback, and my critical take is that it resulted in a lesser show, one with arguably more suspense but less of a human dimension. (Or at least until this week's shocking killing of Bonnie.)

I got a ton of mail after Monday's Jericho exchange, and much of it went like this one, from Kevin R. of Lafayette, Georgia: "After reading the question from the fan and your response, I wonder if we were all watching the same show last year and now. When was this not about a conspiracy to bring down the current government and replace it with a more 'conservative' one as they have done with the creation of Cheyenne? I'll grant you that a lot of the first season was developing the community into one that was recovering and supporting itself and others, but never did the underlying facts stop being leaked out during each episode. I think the true problem with this show is it shows a future that is more than just a fantasy! Our current president has already said that in the case of a major terrorist attack, the next presidential election can be postponed. If that statement alone is not enough to scare the normal American, then I don't know what is. Jericho still rocks!" No comment on that last part, but to me, the problem here — and it happens a lot with high-concept shows — is when the mythology, or in this case the conspiracy, takes over the show, robbing it of many of its initial virtues. The same thing happened to Prison Break with even more cartoonish results.

Matt Roush: I'd think this role will be a game-changer for the former teen throb — and seriously, you liked Steve Sanders more than David Silver? Anyway, let's just hope he gets some more time to play this multifaceted role before he has to go hunting for the next one.

Matt Roush: An embarrassment of riches, to be sure, with so many discoveries in this cast, including the four young actors who were at the core of Season 4 (a few of who went on to make this season memorably heartbreaking as well). The Wire is way overdue one of those SAG ensemble-cast awards, but the naturalistic tone of the show probably works against it making "stars" out of these actors, fine as they are. There's also an argument that a geographic bias exists against a show that films in Baltimore, operating outside the New York-L.A. power corridors and contributing to keeping it under the usual show-biz radar.

Matt Roush: I'm not really sure what Moment of Truth has to do with any of this, and to be fair, the Oscar show failed to properly ID Seth Rogen and Jonah Hill. I'm sure more than a few who fall outside the Judd Apatow demographic wondered who the heck those clowns were. As for Once, you're right that the best thing about an Oscar win like that is how it tends to expose a much larger audience to an undiscovered gem. (If only the Emmys had been as generously disposed toward Friday Night Lights.) Thanks for the Once recommendation, and thanks as well to my Chicago buddie Maureen Ryan, who called it to my attention long before it won that Oscar (and as much as I enjoyed Enchanted, a charmer like Once needed the boost quite a bit more).