Theorizing on Big Bang's Emmy Chances, Praising L&O's Return to Order, Begging for Project Runway and More!
Jim Parsons, The Big Bang Theory
Question: I can't tell you what a sigh of relief I took when I saw ratings for
The Big Bang Theory's return. It had the same amount of viewers in the 18 to 49 demo that it did at 8:30 pm/ET. Considering it moved to the tougher time period, these ratings are actually better than it was getting before the strike. Kudos to CBS for moving it to an anchor slot — the show got higher ratings than
How I Met Your Mother ever got pre-Britney. I know it's early, but do you think there is any chance of
Jim Parsons getting an Emmy nomination for his role as Sheldon? This guy is the funniest thing to hit TV in a long time. I am so glad the strike did not ruin this great new sitcom.
— Scott
Matt Roush: I haven't been studying the ratings, but I have been watching the show, and am glad to think that CBS' terrific sitcoms (with or without celebrity stunt casting) are holding their own against the Dancing with the Stars juggernaut. Jim Parsons is without doubt doing inspired work as Sheldon, one of the most exasperating and hilarious fussbudgets since Felix Unger, and it would be very cool if the Emmys took notice. But you'd have to consider him, for now, a dark horse because the show is new, he's new to the scene himself and the field is crowded with longtime nominees who are shoo-ins for nomination: Steve Carell, Alec Baldwin, Tony Shalhoub, Charlie Sheen, possibly Larry David and don't count out Pushing Daisies' breakthrough Lee Pace, who may be hurt by that show's strike-curtained season. Regardless of the Emmys, the good news is that Big Bang Theory is back. With a bang.
Question: Have you seen the last few episodes of
The New Adventures of Old Christine? I hope so, because this underrated show has been a gem lately. From Christine meeting the new dad at school to the pot-obsessed episode, I have found myself laughing more and more. When Julia Louis-Dreyfus threw herself down on the couch in a tantrum, I was laughing so hard I had to pause the show so I could hear what happened after. She throws herself into the role 125 percent. Elaine who? This show truly is on a high right now (pun intended) and deserves to be mentioned in the same breath as
The Office and
30 Rock as modern TV comedy greats. I also think this show should pick up Emmy nominations, not only for lead actress, but also supporting actress (Wanda Sykes is brilliant), supporting actor (Hamish Linklater is excellent), writing (Aaron Shure has scored two home runs this season) and best comedy series. I know the Emmys are a crapshoot, but is there some buzz building for this little show that could? And why is CBS not behind this more? This could easily be the biggest ratings hit since
Friends if they treated it as such.
— Michael K.
Matt Roush: I've been watching (and enjoying), and I just love it when someone writes in to gush without embarrassment. That said, here's a little perspective. Old Christine is a terrific example of the well-made, well-cast, "traditional" sitcom, which unfortunately isn't the flavor of the media moment, which is why (outside of the star) it may struggle in the Emmy nominations, although Wanda Sykes is a riot and well-known enough to have a shot. As for CBS and the show itself: Christine has never shown signs of being able to anchor the night the way Everybody Loves Raymond and now Two and a Half Men have done. In other words, I'm not sure when we'll see another Friends sitcom phenom, but if and when we do, it won't be this one. Which doesn't mean it doesn't deserve more buzz and a bigger audience — we should do all we can to encourage CBS to stand behind this one. If it does get another season, I wouldn't be surprised if, like this year, it's held back for midseason purposes while CBS tests the waters with at least one new Monday title.
Question: Over the past few months, I began hunting for new installments of shows I hadn't seen in a while, and I decided to give
Law & Order a look. Over the past many years, I had written it off completely, although I always watched
CI and
SVU. It seemed they just couldn't get the casting right, and too many of the actors looked like they were "acting." There was also a huge problem with chemistry, as evidenced by the huge turnover to no avail. I must now say, however, that I find the current cast to be dead-on, with a chemistry to be proud of. Jeremy Sisto is very good, Sam Waterston is in a more comfortable place and Linus Roache and Alana de la Garza are very convincing and interesting, not to mention far more credible than some of the past cast. I hear Jesse Martin is leaving, and that is unfortunate at such a time when the show has renewed energy. He seems to be a reliable go-to guy and is doing a great job lately. Your take?
— Steve
Matt Roush: No question, Law & Order got its act (and cast) together this season, and it's better than it's been in a long while. Which is why it's too bad that the revolving door is swinging yet again. Out: Jesse Martin. In: Anthony Anderson, who I hope will prove as good a fit as the brooding Jeremy Sisto instantly did. (Is it wrong of me, though, to wish they would pair Detective Lupo with a Jerry Orbach-style veteran cop?) After all these years, it is refreshing to see the show get some of its old spark back, and much as I admire Sam Waterston, a lot of it has to do with shaking up the back half of the show and letting McCoy sit back and watch new ADA Michael Cutter make his bones.
Question: Recently in a
TV Guide online interview,
Grey's Anatomy creator Shonda Rhimes said about the future of the show's lead couple Meredith and Derek: "I am pretty dedicated to the idea that Meredith and Derek are to be together for good by the end of this season." But in another interview online, when asked about the couple uniting, she said, "Meredith and Derek should either be over by the end of the season, or she should make it on her own." Are the uneven messages by Rhimes intentional, or do you feel she really has a stable relationship in the works for our favorite TV couple? The mixed answers to the same question make it seem like she's just trying to create buzz and ratings at the fans' expense. How do you feel about Rhimes' early spoilers, given that she almost never gives them out? Is this too good to be true?
— Amy J.
Matt Roush: She could be toying with us, I suppose, but the quote she gave TV Guide (which appears in our current Returning Favorites double issue, on stands now; don't miss it or the awesome gatefold cover) seems to represent where the show is heading once it returns for its remaining five hours in late April. Sounds to me like she's listening to fan unrest again, and while Meredith and Derek undoubtedly have major emotional issues still to sort out, the appetite is huge for the writers not to throw contrived curveballs in their way (like, say, Rose). As always, I prefer not to judge a show on its hype, but on what's actually on screen, so let's just wait and see. But some of the other information in the Grey's article in our issue made me hopeful and eager for what's to come.
Question: I was wondering what your thoughts were on
Miss Guided. I've watched all the episodes so far and have found it smart, funny and very enjoyable. I feel like I haven't heard a lot about it in the media, though. Did it pull in good ratings? I'm assuming once
Ugly Betty returns, ABC is not planning to keep it on Thursday nights — which is fine by me since that night is already crowded enough with good TV. Does the show have a chance?
— Laura
Matt Roush: Blink and you’ll miss this one, especially with ABC’s curious strategy of airing it back-to-back on Thursdays for just a few weeks. If my calendar's correct
, Miss Guided's season finale is this Thursday .
I reviewed it recently with more props to the star, Judy Greer, than to the show, which I found very cute but not particularly special. Still, I’d love to see how it would fare if paired with the still-promising
Samantha Who? These are not shows that will turn a network’s fortunes around, but they do bring a smile to the face. And on ABC, you’d think that might mean something.
Question: In response to
Sarah's letter on TV being better 30 years ago (mentioning
Little House on the Prairie), I pulled up the schedule from one of the years
Little House ran. Among the listings:
Operation Petticoat, Battlestar
Galactica (the hokey original),
Kaz,
Grandpa Goes to Washington,
What's Happening!!,
Project UFO,
The New Adventures of Wonder Woman,
Flying High,
Who's Watching the Kids,
Carter Country. I watch a lot of TV, but I don't remember most of this list. When comparing to the past, it's best to remember (a paraphrasing of) Sturgeon's Law: 90 percent of everything is junk. Some of these shows may have been popular, but they're not the shows we remember. I happen to think we're in a new golden age of TV drama. But 30 years from now when we remember
Lost,
Buffy,
Friday Night Lights,
The Sopranos, and
Dexter,
we'll conveniently forget
Moment of Truth,
The Swan,
Bionic Woman,
'Til Death,
According to Jim,
Dirt and a host of shows (both popular and unpopular) that are equally forgettable. On a completely unrelated note, thanks for the recommendation of the recent
Great Performances telecast of
Company. I don't always like Sondheim, but this production was terrific. I'm willing to bet more people saw Raul Esparza on that one telecast than did in the entire run of the production. But why isn't there more theater on TV? If we're lucky, there is a show on PBS every three years or so, interrupted by pledge breaks. Why is this the one venue where performances are not immortalized in some way? I'm sure there are millions of people who can't get to New York who would love the opportunity to see these productions.
— Rick C.
Matt Roush: Thanks for taking me back to a time when I'm so glad I wasn't yet on the beat. That drumbeat of mediocrity might have made me second-guess my career choice. But you're absolutely right. Almost every era since TV started can be seen as "golden" in one way or another, but there's always a best of times/worst of times element as well. As for your Broadway question: The reason more shows don't make the transfer to TV is complicated, but as usual, it boils down to money. It's not cheap to put these shows on film, there are all kinds of rights issues to consider, plus a number of unions (remember the recent stagehands' strike) to take into account here as well. I'd love to have a TV/DVD library archive of each season's theatrical highlights, but easier said than done.
Question: Why doesn't NBC rerun
Project Runway? I know because of the strike, the network turned to alternative programming like
Quarterlife, My Dad Is Better Than Your Dad and the awful list goes on. NBC is even planning to play USA's
Monk and
Psych, so why not
Project Runway? I don't get Bravo, and wish I had a chance to view it. I think it would get better ratings than any of the other options NBC is using right now. NBC doesn't have to worry about stealing viewers since the whole season has played on Bravo already. Even though I know the outcome of this season, I wish I could see all of the episodes.
— Jill
Matt Roush: The few times NBC has migrated one of its Bravo properties (like Queer Eye for the Straight Guy) to prime time, the numbers have been underwhelming, if memory serves. Monk and Psych at least make sense as broadly appealing crime capers, and I would think the expectations aren't great for this crossover exposure, but still, a win-win of sorts. Project Runway is much more niche, and while the fact that Bravo runs endless marathons of these shows won't matter to those who don't get the channel, even NBC probably isn't desperate enough yet to turn over a prime time slot (maybe on Saturday?) to reality repeats of a show whose conclusion is well known to most of those who care.
Question: Thanks for recommending a show that I probably would not have watched otherwise:
Dexter. I know there has been some controversy about airing a "diluted" version on CBS, but as a TV fan who can't afford premium cable, I appreciate the chance to see the show. It's dark and disturbing, but sometimes quite funny and surprisingly touching. It's definitely not for everyone, but I'm hooked! At the opposite end of the spectrum,
The Return of Jezebel James was awful! I tried to be fair and watch both episodes, but it was a chore. Parker Posey seemed to force every line, none of which were particularly funny or interesting. (She may be the indie film queen, but I was not impressed.) I didn't believe the premise for a moment. What happened here?? Is Amy Sherman-Palladino a one-hit wonder?
— Lenore
Matt Roush: You're right about both shows, but don't jump the gun to write off someone just because their latest show didn't work. The failure rate in TV is formidable, and if a miserable flop show was enough to drum somebody out of the business, hardly anyone would be left standing. There's always next time. While it's true that you rarely find the stars aligning as magically as they did on Gilmore Girls — and magic was lacking in just about every aspect of Jezebel James — I'm hoping the Palladinos will get back in the saddle soon. As was suggested in an earlier column, maybe next time Amy and Dan should go back to the hour comedy-drama format, which might better showcase her distinctive style of writing. But one-hit wonder? Hardly fair.
Question: I am loving
Lost this season. The Sun flash-forward and the Jin flashback was unexpected and fun storytelling. But there's something that's been bothering me from a production standpoint since the introduction of the flash-forward at the end of last season. The final season of
The West Wing began with a flash-forward to a point when Bartlet was out of office. They absolutely dodged a bullet by not including John Spencer in that flash-forward. I am not suggesting that anything nearly as drastic as what happened to Spencer would befall the cast members of
Lost, but other things could happen (jail, for example) that could affect the flash-forwards. I remember thinking after Spencer's death that no producing team would now risk ever telling a story via a long-term flash-forward in fear of risking continuity problems, but, of course, that is exactly what is happening with
Lost. I realize that
Lost has more license in terms of death and time to establish continuity than
The West Wing, but do you think there was even a thought of a back-up plan if one of the Oceanic 6 or Ben becomes unavoidably unable to complete production?
— Erin
Matt Roush: That sound you hear is me knocking on every wood surface within reach. Wow, the things TV fans worry about. Should an act of God or some celebrity-meltdown calamity affect anyone currently involved in the flash-forwards — and let's go on the record here and say let's hope not for everyone's sake, OK? — it won't be a secret to the viewer or to those who make the show. So in the worst case, we'd just have to accept the fact that the producers would have to improvise (keeping a character off-camera or recasting or whatever) and we'd all have to make do. It may not always seem so, but we're all grown-ups here.
Question: I just wanted to say thanks for the
flag on Bush's War — if I hadn't seen the piece, I would've missed it. In addition to being a horrifying look at just what led to this morass, it also provided an understandable and compelling explanation of how the administration manipulated the law (because this isn't an excuse to rant about the war, really). Giving information that was new to someone who has been following this as closely as a person without a security clearance can, the program also showed what a powerful medium TV can be — that there is a place for thoughtful, insightful analysis outside the madness that is the 24-hour news business. This was as good as any number of Oscar-nominated documentaries, and given the flexibility of the medium — the ability to show serialized pieces, rather than holding people in a theatre for four hours — it was able to delve more deeply into issues that might otherwise have been glossed over or dropped. While this may not have the same level of artistry/innovation in filmmaking of Oscar-worthy documentaries, it was beautifully put together and created a narrative that managed edge-of-your-seat tension even though I already know how the story ends. Honestly, I think in the restraint and thoughtfulness of making their case, those responsible for
Bush's War level a far more stinging and convincing indictment than any of Michael Moore's bombastic attempts. One can only hope that this piece wasn't only preaching to the choir, but also got the broader audience it deserved.
— Kelly L.
Matt Roush: Politics aside (if that's possible),
Frontline has provided such a service over the years with its excellent reporting and analysis, and I completely agree that the exhaustive, lucid narrative presented in
Bush's War resonates with more power and authority (though no doubt with less populist appeal) than in Michael Moore's shrill attacks. This was easily the most dramatic and meaningful piece of TV that aired last week.
