Ask Matt

Matt Roush: Sorry, my friend, but while American Idol may be down — the law of diminishing returns is finally applying to the show this season — it's not yet out. The show is still a juggernaut, albeit no longer one that's on the rise, as The Biz column recently put into perspective. Its young demographics are especially notable, which is why the CW has moved one of its strongest new assets (Gossip Girl, and isn't it fun) out of the way of the Wednesday Idol tsunami. Idol is still what we like to call a "show killer," but I appreciate your point that the other networks shouldn't have to roll over to the point that the other nights of the week become so unmanageable. Now that Fox has put Bones and House on Mondays, that night really is a logistical nightmare, isn't it? And Wednesdays are pretty much a dead zone — although for that, you can also blame the strike. Because if it was business as usual, we might still have shows like Pushing Daisies and Dirty Sexy Money battling it out on the night instead of waiting it out until the fall.

Matt Roush: Thanks for that very kind shout-out. I love knowing that people love that I love TV (and so on), and kudos to the open mind in regards to Two and a Half Men, which obviously isn't for everyone — and even some weeks, not for me. You pose a really interesting question about The Big Bang Theory, which I just reviewed in the current issue. As is often the case, the review is positive enough to attract nay-sayers, who've written me to say that they find the portrayal of the genius geeks too stereotypical, the sitcom rhythms too predictable and so on. I look at the show as something of an instant classic — and yes, "classic" in a sense that it is playing by old rules and succeeding wonderfully although breaking no new ground. Comfort food, let's call it. I find the eccentric characters, including Sheldon, truly and unapologetically funny. And even Penny scores more often than not. So is Sheldon too much? Not for me, yet, but it's true that a character designed to get on people's nerves could easily get on a viewer's nerves as well. I like the fact that his arrogance cost him his friend's allegiance, and ultimately the win, in the Physics Bowl episode. And when he got fired earlier in the season, the vulnerability of this man-child humanized him a bit. But no question, Sheldon is an extreme character and most weeks he's going to be the primary comic engine of conflict. I think he's hilarious, and I'm not ready to see him toned down just yet. Which probably isn't in the cards anyway.

Matt Roush: I vote for gimmickry, especially where the Robin Williams episode was concerned. I found that episode especially ludicrous, even before the superstar guest villain arranged to have Benson tied in a chair and threatened with torture while Stabler looked on. And his final escape was beyond loony tunes. That was a sweeps stunt, pure and simple, and whoever broke that story was obviously trying to cram a movie's worth of plot (and a bad movie at that) into a single hour. I wasn't as bothered by the prison episode, as over-the-top as it was, because it's obviously Mariska Hargitay's Emmy-bait submission this year. The details blur in my head given the tonnage of TV I'm watching lately, but you might have missed a twist at the end of that episode. Seems to me they ultimately got the goods on the bad guys in the prison — Benson remembering certain very private details about the rapist's anatomy — but I can understand being exasperated by a show that deals so heavily in melodrama despite its surface veneer of gritty realism. This season, the original Law & Order has regained its place as the best of the franchise.

Matt Roush: Yes, I was making an assumption about How I Met Your Mother's renewal, but the show's recent ratings resurgence coupled with the brilliance of the last batch of episodes and the high profile of the Britney stunt all convince me that CBS has no option but to bring the show back. Mother wasn't included in the network's long list of early renewals, and I'm guessing since the network doesn't have to make a public call until the upfront presentations next week, CBS may wait until then to make it official. I don't know why they let it hang out there. It, and its fans, deserve better.

Matt Roush: Talk about damning with faint praise. A TV show that improves if you multi-task isn't my idea of good TV, but still, I agree that Reaper has improved a lot lately, and the gay demon neighbors were an inspired and very funny twist, as was the introduction of the demon-rebellion storyline. (I loved how Sam's avoidance of the neighbors — his "demophobia" — could be construed as homophobia. Clever.) These elements added some zing, and more importantly, some meat to the previously thin storylines. I still wish they'd find a way to make Sam's soul-catching missions more intensely compelling — they're pretty much an afterthought many weeks, which makes me think the writers have given up on that part of the premise — and I'm not convinced that Sam's romantic-comedy misadventures are amusing enough to carry the load otherwise. Ultimately, Reaper strikes me as a show that continues to struggle to live up to the promise of its inspired pilot, but it's getting closer. (Look for my review column, weighing in on this show and Moonlight, later this week.)

Matt Roush: Look for it on Masterpiece Mystery! (the new umbrella title) for three weekends in July, from July 13-27. This season (which PBS is calling "Series V," having apparently combined two British seasons in a past year) is billed as the last for the WWII whodunit series. The other summer Mystery franchises include the Inspector Morse spin-off Inspector Lewis starting June 22 and two installments of The Inspector Lynley Mysteries in August.

Matt Roush: That's an interesting question, because it's impossible to review in a vacuum, especially where remakes are concerned. Life on Mars may not be such a problem, because if it makes ABC's schedule, I'm going to assume that the majority of viewers won't have seen the original. Despite my having reviewed it positively several times during its run, access to BBC America and its shows is hardly universal. I'll have to put the show in context with the original version — that's part of the job — but I'll also attempt to judge its look and tone, its approach and most critically, the appeal of its cast on its own merits. And if the show continues for the long run (unlike the limited run of the original series), it will by necessity take on a life of its own. The Office was probably the trickiest remake I've ever covered. At first, it seemed to be copying too closely the British original (a cult fave as well at the time, but already much better known here than Mars), inviting some inevitably negative comparisons — I still feel Dwight can't hold a candle to the character of Gareth — but as the NBC Office developed its own personality, especially as the side characters came into sharper and funnier focus, it emerged from the "remake" shadow and became its own fascinating creature. Which is as it should be.

Matt Roush: Let's hope so. I don't deal much with spoilers myself, so am not sure what's on the agenda for next season. But on the basis of last week's episode, when she and House fought hilariously for custody of Wilson, the sparks were such that the producers would have to be blind not to notice. Even if House ultimately breaks up Wilson and Amber, she could continue to be a thorn in his side in any number of ways. Even if she's just a recurring character in the future, I think she'd always be a welcome unwelcome presence in House's life.

Matt Roush: It is weird to see these former core characters so awkwardly inserted into episodes this season, although I give the show credit for not ignoring the awkwardness. It still doesn't make for a very satisfying ensemble experience, though, and I wish the writers could find a way to integrate the new and old teams more efficiently, so it doesn't look as if anyone's being wasted. As I've said before, this season feels like House tried to fix what wasn't broke and has ended up with an awfully unwieldy cast of characters.

Matt Roush: Heroes will eventually get canceled — every show (except possibly Law & Order) does — but it's not going to happen next year, and probably not for a while to come, unless the bottom completely drops out of the show, which I can't imagine. Even this spring, we've seen many of TV's most popular shows return from strike hiatus to lower numbers than usual, and the punishingly long absence of Heroes (due in part to the show's inability to construct a complete story arc between now and the end of the season) is very likely going to impact it as well. But NBC understands this. Expectations will be tempered by the reality of the long break. At the same time, the hype for a new season will be pretty intense, nurtured by summer events like Comic-Con. From my perspective, the real issue for Heroes is a creative one. Will the producers learn the right lessons from last season's woefully uneven "Origins" arc and deliver a more tightly focused, less frustratingly scattered story? That above all will help determine the show's long-term future.