Giving Miley a Break, Pinpointing Jericho's Fatal Flaws, Reacting to Prison Break's Mind-blowing Twist and More!
Miley Cyrus
Question: This is in response to
the recent letter about
Miley Cyrus. As a 31-year-old female, I want to throw in my two cents and admit to enjoying
Hannah Montana. As a child of the '80s, I grew up watching sweet (but cheesy) family sitcoms like
Growing Pains,
The Facts of Life,
Who's the Boss and
The Hogan Family, and what I like about
Hannah Montana is how much it reminds me of those simple, innocent family shows of yore. I wonder if these family sitcoms ever would've made it to network TV today. I can imagine that
The Facts of Life probably would have ended up on Disney Channel, Nickelodeon or even ABC Family rather than a major network. I'm an adult, and I can enjoy the humor in
Hannah Montana. It makes me laugh, and television could use a few good laughs these days, since there aren't many comedies gracing the major networks. And just for the record, I also enjoy shows like
The Office and
How I Met Your Mother, and I absolutely adored
Arrested Development. But that doesn't mean I can't find something charming in a show for the tweens as well. As for Miley Cyrus being all over the place, I can remember being a tween that couldn't pass by a teen magazine that didn't have Kirk Cameron on the cover.
— Jenn
Matt Roush: In my case, I seem to remember living through the Bobby Sherman and David Cassidy phases, among others I've happily forgotten. I figured that unexpected rant against Miley/Hannah would get a response, and so it did, but this one tied it back into TV the best. Every time I see a kids' cable breakthrough like Hannah Montana or the High School Musical movies, I am struck by how clueless the broadcast networks are to be ignoring this large and lucrative audience. The classic "TGIF" comedies were never critical favorites — I've dissed a few in my time, and I remember as a kid being ticked at the TV Guide critic of that era when he beat up on shows like The Brady Bunch and (gulp) Nanny and the Professor — but harmless comedies like these will always have their place, and should have a place on regular network TV. This would be one relatively inexpensive alternative to the current glut of reality/game shows.
Question: I feel the need to defend
Jericho. Now that the show has (presumably) aired its last episode, a lot of fans are crying foul, berating the writers for "not offering closure." I don't understand what these people expected. The writers were given seven episodes and absolutely no idea if that would be it or not. This run was supposed to give the fans
more than what the first season finale gave us (now
that would have been an insufficient ending.) They brought it back, showed the resolution of the New Bern storyline, moved through the conspiracy and resolved exactly who was behind the bombs and why. They also took steps towards exposing the conspiracy (another continuing thread from Season 1), and we have an idea where all the characters are at. I don't understand what people wanted out of this finale. Did they want everything folded into a perfect little package like the
Third Watch finale? No thanks. They resolved the central mystery of the show, furthered relationships and left us with an idea of where it's going. I understand they set up a great story (Civil War II), but it's not like the season ended in the
middle of the battle like Season 1 did. Sorry for the rant, but all this complaining over what I see as the best possible thing we could have hoped for under the circumstances is leaving me with a bad taste in my mouth.
— Mike R.
Matt Roush: Complaining comes with the territory, hadn't you heard? As always with this show, it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. (And damned if you cancel it again, as another fan campaign gets underway.) I tend to agree that while Jericho was never a personal favorite, the producers ended the show as best they could given the circumstances. There was a sense of closure regarding the immediate bomb threat, at least one relatively exciting action scene (pilot Jake rescued by the Texas Air National Guard) and a clear direction that our heroes would continue fighting the good fight, without being left in some contrived immediate cliffhanger peril. If the show had continued with this larger civil war storyline, I'm not sure how the town of Jericho and its citizens would have stayed as integral to the narrative, so as far as I'm concerned, it ended just in time.
Question: Recently,
Mike L. griped that the creators of the show destroyed
Jericho. I didn't watch
Jericho, but my husband did, so this comment is really for him. He often complains to me that there aren't shows for men any more. He actually liked the fact that they reduced the family drama emphasis, and he would have been very interested in
The Unit except for the heavy emphasis on the home front. He gripes that men in most shows don't even behave like "real men." I'd suggest that he watch
Supernatural with me since I see Dean as a more realistic guy, but my husband really isn't into horror/supernatural.
24 would be good, but he has trouble playing along when they take illogical liberties. Yes, the guy's picky, and he's the first to admit it. I feel lucky that he suspended disbelief enough to watch
Chuck with me. The TV industry is largely run by men, so you'd think there'd be more out there for guys. Or is it just my husband? Could it be that producers are trying so hard to appeal to a broader audience that their action shows start to lose their core audience as they add in family drama elements?
— Mary L.
Matt Roush: Good question, because it hits on the fact that the male audience is traditionally the most fickle and hard to reach, and why any network series that can attract a loyal male fan base — like, say, 24 — is relished by advertisers. (One explanation for why sports rights fees are so high). The reason even most action shows tend to throw in "emotional" elements — which according to the tone of this particular question is somehow unmanly — is because the networks believe a show won't be successful if it can't at least in part attract a female audience as well. This is wildly simplifying the situation, not to mention buying into the notion that "real men" don't like shows with heart as well as muscle. (And that "real women" don't dig action). Personally, I can see why a guy might not want to settle down with a show like Army Wives, but to object to The Unit because it focuses on the domestic as well as military lives of its heroes, I think that misses the point of what makes this particular show even more interesting than your average shoot-em-up.
Question: I know you're no fan of
Prison Break, and on that we'll have to agree to disagree. But what do you think of the show's producers spoiling their own plotline by announcing the return of Sarah Wayne Callies as Dr. Sara? Couldn't they have left that surprise for the viewers? Just like when the producers of
Lost announced Michael's return before the season even started, they sort of took the fun out of it for me. I had some suspicions that Dr. Sara could be coming back, but couldn't they have let me mull it over during the summer and given me a shocker in the season premiere? Must they continually keep flipping to the last page of the book before I even start reading it? They're called spoilers for a reason. Can you imagine producers today keeping their mouths shut about who shot J.R.?
— Cyndy M.
Matt Roush: Oh, don't get me started on this ridiculous show. And the very idea of even mentioning Prison Break in the same breath as a legendary TV phenom like Dallas — or Lost for that matter. Heresy. Can anyone really say they're surprised that the shrunken heads who run this show have decided that it wasn't Sara's head in the box after all? It was a disgusting stunt to begin with, and now it's just an insult to common sense. All the fans who think the producers have listened to their complaints by restoring Sara to the show should think again. This show is responding to only one thing: creative desperation. I agree that Lost and ABC could have kept Michael's return a secret, and we and they would have better off, but in the case of this grisly cartoon, nothing they do would surprise or shock — or interest — me anymore.
Question: You provided us with
a good review of
Eli Stone at the beginning of its run at ABC. I would like to know how the show is doing and the possibility for a second season. I do not find the show similar to
Ally McBeal in any way. On the contrary, the show has a good foundation: George Michael's music sets the pace for the episode, a unique premise. I also found the chemistry between Eli and Jordan very appealing, but not so much between Jordan's daughter and Eli. Finally, I believe that associating music to certain activities in our life is very common among individuals, and the show is clever enough to capture that in a compelling actor.
— Carmina
Matt Roush: I agree the show has moved well beyond the early surface comparisons to Ally McBeal. It could, however, use a bit of that early Ally buzz. I'm afraid like most of the midseason shows on most of the networks, Eli Stone hasn't set the ratings on fire (especially now that Lost isn't giving it a potent lead-in anymore). The show has grown on me more and more by the week — I'm also a big fan of the chemistry between Jonny Lee Miller and the terrific Victor Garber (can he sing in every episode, please?) — and I'll be sorry to see it go. (April 17 is the season finale.) Because so much is in flux in this strike-addled season, I wouldn't want to give odds for Eli's renewal. I'm not overly optimistic, but given creator Greg Berlanti's track record and status at the network, I'm also not without (cue George Michael) faith.
Question: Just wondering about your thoughts on this season's
Celebrity Apprentice. I personally stopped watching after the third season due to a lack of creativity and diminishing quality of candidates, but I was intrigued enough to keep up with the show most of this season (probably more of a decision based on the sparse TV options). The finale actually did fairly well in the ratings. Maybe it's our obsession with anything celebrity, but do you think this mild success might translate into a rejuvenation of the show, or do you think it took advantage of the the writer's strike to induce the otherwise non-interested viewer?
— M.J.
Matt Roush: The Celebrity Apprentice finale aired after Lost had gone dark and without significant competition beyond the NCAA regionals, so I think that helps account for any ratings spike. I actually found this celebrity season the least watchable of any Apprentice cycle, not so much because of the personalities (such as they were) but because of the ridiculous way so many of the challenges were structured to take advantage of the contestants' fame and deep-pocketed connections. So bogus. From where I sit, the Apprentice franchise is in its last gasps, and while this celebrity version may have bought it a temporary new lease on life, that has as much to do with NBC's overall malaise than with any qualities of the show itself.
Question: Many people I know, including my wife, my sister and several friends (including a psychotherapist), are completely enthralled by
In Treatment. We all look forward to each episode and discuss it at length. Gabriel Byrne is a marvel, as are the other actors, particularly Sophie. I can't understand why it will likely not return on HBO. I tried to find a place on the HBO Web site where we could voice our concerns, but the shows listed on the site for comment do not include
In Treatment. Can you convey to the HBO folks our wishes for the show's retrun, or is there a way we can communicate our sentiments to them directly?
— David
Matt Roush: Consider me the middleman between you and HBO. Not that HBO has shown that much concern about its viewers' desires lately, dating back at least to the shelving of Deadwood in favor of the inexplicable John From Cincinnati. As you may be aware, HBO is currently in the middle of a significant regime change, in large part stemming from the network's lack of watercooler hits, which has at least a little to do with the puzzling decision to air back-to-back series involving dour therapists (however well-acted): Tell Me You Love Me and In Treatment. I wouldn't even try to predict whether HBO will renew this show. Tell Me You Love Me earned a second season, so anything's possible.
Question: Just wanted to comment on
Amy J.'s question regarding
Shonda Rhimes' messing with fans' heads. The quote "Meredith and Derek should either be over by the end of the season, or she should make it on her own" was a typo, and the
correct quote from Shonda was in fact that "Meredith and Derek should either be
together by the end of the season or she should make it on her own." I don't think she's playing games here. I do know that nobody believes her because she has lied to fans over and over in the past in a desperate attempt to garner ratings. And considering Nurse Plot Device is sticking around for all five episodes, no one believes this reunion will be done realistically, especially if we're going to be subjected to Derek actually being
torn between the admitted love of his life and some nurse he never noticed in over 30 surgeries. What I want to see more than anything is Derek admitting that the failure of his and Meredith's relationship isn't all her fault, but since he seems incapable of ever admitting he's wrong (and Shonda excuses his behavior time and again because "He's McDreamy, people!"), I expect to be painfully disappointed.
— Shari
Matt Roush: Well, as long as you keep an open mind about it. But thanks for the clarification.
Question: Have you seen
Tracey Ullman's new series on Showtime yet? I think it's smart and hilarious, and as much as I love her old characters, I 'm glad that she created some new ones. Her celebrity impersonations killed me, especially Arianna Huffington and Campbell Brown. I can't believe HBO let her go. Oh, wait, I can!
— Aaron F.
Matt Roush: I
reviewed it recently, and while I'm also a longtime Tracey Ullman fan, I'm not sure
State of the Union represents her best work. Not so much her performance, which as always is amazing in its range, but in its scattershot choice of targets, especially a weekly sketch about Laurie David (who cares?). Many of the reviews tended to be more generous than mine, so maybe my expectations were too high. And there's much about the new series I like: the Bollywood numbers, her Buffalo news anchor character, the Renee Zellweger squint. But this is one of those shows where I felt it was giving me both too much and not enough.
Question: I just wanted to let you know how much I enjoyed
Monday's Ask Matt. I think it is the first Ask Matt I've ever read where all the letters were talking about how great certain shows, characters, actors and storylines are. There wasn't one of the usual rants about how stupid network programmers are, how a certain actor is completely messing up a show, how a storyline is the worst idea in the history of the world or how someone can't believe you, a critic, would dare to like/dislike/watch/recognize the existence of a certain show. (OK, there was a comment about how bad
The Return of Jezebel James is, but not much good can be said about that.) Can it be that losing our shows for a few months has reminded us how good most of them really all are? Like you, "I just love it when someone writes in to gush without embarrassment," and I hope we'll be seeing more of that in the coming weeks (with some criticism still mixed in, of course). Thanks for a pleasant start to my week!
— Megan
Matt Roush: I hadn't noticed, so I guess it was just a happy (emphasis on happy) coincidence. Maybe it had something to do with the fact that I was working on that particular column while in beautiful, sunny Los Angeles — for the Paley Fest, from which I'm still basking in the afterglow — and maybe I just felt like accentuating the positive. Glad you enjoyed the change of pace. Now let's find something to gripe about. See you again on Monday.
