Mourning Moonlight, Evaluating Housewives' "Bad Seed," Ending the Brothers & Sisters Debate and More!
Alex O'Loughlin, Moonlight
Question: I know you'll be getting millions of heartbroken letters from fans of TV shows (in addition to
Moonlight) that were cancelled, but I'm writing because my feelings this season are bigger than my normal disappointment from upfronts. I actually think I'm done with network TV. I am so upset with the trend to cancel shows that don't instantly perform that I will be tuning out and going to cable. First
Veronica Mars, then
Jericho and finally the stake in the heart of
Moonlight. It is so depressing to invest in great shows that deserve a bigger audience, but never get them because they are labeled as "quirky" or "genre" or are in "TV death slots." At times it feels like we (the TV watchers) work harder than the networks to create buzz for shows. The one network that may have succeeded in picking me up as a viewer again may be the CW. After
Veronica Mars, I boycotted the station, but the loyalty the network seems to be showing to promising shows with low ratings like
Gossip Girl and
Reaper may have won me over for at least a trial run this year. All I have been hearing about is the drop in viewers for prime time, but it seems like the networks don't understand that they play a big part in this. Why be loyal to a station that isn't loyal to its shows or its viewers? So, stick a fork in me, CBS — I'm done. I and my wallet will be watching commercials on another station.
— A.M.
Matt Roush: With all due respect, and with all possible sympathy, I hear variations on this rant every year at this time. There's always some show (often more than one) that triggers this kind of outpouring, and I don't deny it's genuine, but it's nothing new. Shows get canceled every season. It's a function of the business, which has a terribly high casualty rate, especially for shows that don't hew to a particular network's formula. And while I freely admit that CBS's axing of
Moonlight took me by disappointed surprise, you'll never get me to advocate a boycott. Life, and TV, goes on. You never know where the next terrific show will turn up, maybe even on CBS, maybe even on Fridays. I can't afford not to keep an open mind. Getting hooked on a TV show always carries an element of risk. I still think it's worth it. As for giving too much credit to the CW for sticking with its low-rated shows, what choice does it have? If
Moonlight had aired on the CW, it probably would have survived. But given that network's parameters, Mick would probably have been a teenage vampire, so it's a bit apples and oranges, no?
Question: Is there
any possibility that another network might pick up
Moonlight, now that CBS has canceled it? I know that the show was on the bubble, but I was really surprised by its demise, considering all the buzz that surrounds it. I hope that you are enjoying the upfronts!
— Sarah Anne
Matt Roush: Thanks, but I'd be enjoying them a lot more if they didn't throw curveballs like the
Moonlight cancellation my way. My instinct, as always, is to say there's little if no chance that anyone will come along to rescue
Moonlight, although as I write this column on a crazy Upfront-week deadline,
there's a report that the company renting space on Sunday from the CW may be mulling over putting
Moonlight into their mix. I'll believe that when it becomes a reality, but until then, no false hope from this corner.
Question: I read with interest
Jamie's comments this week about
Desperate Housewives' possible "time warp" plotline and how viewers condemn the show/plot prior to seeing it. Well, after seeing this past week's episode with the rising of Kayla the "bad seed," I'm thinking the show already jumped the shark on this one. I was really enjoying
DH not focusing as much on Lynette's children (which frankly was exceptionally frustrating to watch the first season), but watching evil Kayla and seeing the promo for the next episode with cops handcuffing Lynette has me cringing. I always thought a great plotline on
DH would have been to have Kayla perish in the tornado. Lynette would then have had to struggle with her feelings of guilt at feeling some relief that the little witch was gone. I don't understand why
DH thought it had to add to the number of children on this show. It always seems like a desperate measure and an indication that writers must be running out of ideas. Recall the useless additions of cousin Pam on
The Cosby Show, the Ingalls adopting children on
Little House, or Oliver on
The Brady Bunch. I think the writers could have come up with something better on this front. While I'm on a
DH crazy plot wave, what is up with Bree condemning Orson for running over Mike? Does she (or the writers) forget that her own son fatally hit Carlos' mother with his car in Season 1? I think the writers are missing some continuity here, which should not have been missed. I'll keep watching
DH, but I'll record it so I can fast forward through Lynette's new hell.
— Judy
Matt Roush: Like you, I hope this "bad seed" storyline is resolved sooner than later — I hadn't seen the promo, but the thought of Lynette facing child-abuse charges is as distasteful as it is instantly tiresome. Still, I draw the line at wishing death on a child character, even when they're as insufferable as Lynette's brats, biological or adopted. Send them to boarding school, a la Bree's wayward daughter? I'm cool with that. But by its very nature as a spoof of suburban domestic soap opera, Desperate Housewives is going to be about wives who are also mothers, and keeping the tykes off camera (like Bree's seldom-seen grandchild) can be as problematic as shoehorning them into the plot without annoying the bejabbers out of us. (Maybe that's part of why they're mulling this fast-forward option.) As for Bree's behavior toward Orson: It's one thing for a mother to protect her son, but to put up with a husband lying about purposefully running down a neighbor? I'd have some trouble getting over that one myself.
Question: OK, here is the thing for me with
Brothers & Sisters. I have watched every minute of every episode since the pilot, and, to me, this whole Rebecca-Justin situation smacks of lazy writing. Now, I don't throw that accusation out lightly, and I don't consider myself an "alarmist TV viewer." I let stuff play out until the finale, and I did enjoy the great acting. But as a viewer, I became so invested in the first season and in these relationships. While the overarching theme for the first season was dealing with the betrayal of William Walker on different levels, the prime example of this betrayal — and what I felt was the centerpiece of the season — was Rebecca. This last half of the second season where they have totally undone it makes me feel cheated for emotionally investing to begin with. Compound that with the fact that this is only the second season. For them to do such an about-face in plot by the end of Season 2 really makes me wonder if they know where they are going with the stories. And don't get me started on this new illegitimate Walker. Maybe I am spoiled by shows like
Lost or
Battlestar Galactica that have their arcs laid out by the writers and (seem to) know where they are going. Is it unreasonable for me to have this reaction? I haven't felt cheated by a show like this in awhile.
— Ed
Matt Roush: This is without doubt still the most contentious and polarizing topic in my mailbag (even counting the cancellation of Moonlight, at least for now). I think the objection here is more about clumsy plotting than writing, which tends to be pretty good on Brothers & Sisters even when I don't like where the story is going (as in this case). I have been assured this twist was long in the works, almost from the time the character of Rebecca was introduced, so maybe it's a blessing of sorts that they confronted it as early as the second season, so we can eventually get over it (if that's possible). And yes, the additional twist of yet another secret Walker sibling does take the show into the realm of the hokiest soap opera. Which leads me to my next question.
Question: A few of my family members and friends will often complain that a show has gotten to be "too much of a soap opera." This is a
huge pet peeve of mine. Granted, I think a show can be an overly cutesy "soap opera" masquerading as another genre, but I will never say something has become
too much of a soap opera, mostly because I don't entirely know what that means. Do things happen on TV that wouldn't happen in real life? Probably. No one I know passes their teenage daughter's kid off as their own kid and walks around with a pregnant belly for months like
Desperate Housewives' Bree Hodge. But is it still good TV? I'd say so. So I get
extra upset when I hear this complaint most often about
Brothers & Sisters. Would a brother and a sister who bonded for a year before un-brothering and sistering start making out? I don't know, but it still makes for more than decent TV on this show. I was one of the first to vow to strike down what seemed like an asinine storyline of Rebecca and Justin's coupling. But it turned out OK. What makes a show or a storyline too soapy? Because I'm pretty sure
B&S can keep introducing illegitimate Walker children and de-Walkering them and having them date other Walkers, as long as it continues to churn out dynamite writing and acting from all involved.
— Dennis
Matt Roush: Interesting points. I'm not a snob about prime-time soaps at all, but the dilemma here seems to be more about tone. Brothers & Sisters is unquestionably as sudsy as any family saga I've ever sat through, but this one at least initially seemed to be aiming a little higher with a bit more emotional sophistication. These twists involving Rebecca and now the mystery Ryan are, to my taste, a bit laughable — a little too Dynasty baroque even when played as well as it is here. What I'm learning in this case is it's possible to still embrace a show even when I want to slap some of its characters silly.
Question: In the season finale of
Brothers & Sisters, did you have an
Everwood flashback as Rebecca and Justin sat together on the bench on the hill? I know I did, and it got me thinking about the crazy storylines Emily VanCamp was saddled with on
that show: Boyfriend in a coma wakes up, but has amnesia and dies anyway, not to mention that the guy who ends up being her character's soul mate fathered a child with his sister's babysitter! Don't get me wrong, I loved
Everwood and miss it terribly. But every show has some storylines that push the envelope of believability. Those of us who fell in love with VanCamp as Amy Abbott did so, at times, in spite of what she had to work with, which I think is quite a testament to this young actress. The Rebecca-Justin storyline is just one more opportunity for VanCamp — and the entire
B&S cast, really — to rise above their material. I don't love this direction the writers have chosen, but I do look forward to seeing how it plays out. Frankly, I'm more annoyed with the idea of yet another storyline involving an illegitimate Walker. You?
— Jordana
Matt Roush: Well, yeah. But as for the Everwood comparison: You're absolutely right. It was possible to love that show despite or possibly because of its soapy excesses. The fact that it aired on the young-skewing WB (how we miss it) and passed itself off as a teen soap — a genre it often transcended — probably allowed us to be more forgiving of its crazier twists. Emily VanCamp earned her stripes on that show, and it's a compliment to Brothers & Sisters to say that it occasionally evokes the vibe of that exquisite tear-jerker. Which prompts my final question for now (I promise) about the show, from an unrattled fan.
Question: Brothers & Sisters was great this year. The highlights for me were the evolution of the relationships between Kevin and Scotty and Justin and Rebecca. The performances and writing have really sold me on both pairings. I think if Matthew Rhys and Emily VanCamp are not nominated for Emmys this year, it will be a travesty. What do you think their chances are?
— Kelly
Matt Roush: Honestly, pretty slim. No reflection on them, but the Emmy nominating process is notoriously imperfect, especially where the large ensembles from this golden age of TV drama are concerned. Even in our own upcoming Dream Emmy Ballot, on display in the issue hitting stands this week, we weren't able to make room for one of the actors you mention. (And we argued about it incessantly, I promise you.) With Brothers & Sisters, the most likely nominees are still the ones with the highest industry profile, like Sally Field and Rachel Griffiths.
Question: Do you find it a tad hypocritical of ABC and
Grey's Anatomy to use
Isaiah Washington's character and picture for a story line? If he is the rotten person that all involved claim he is, it seems they wouldn't want anything to do with him and surely wouldn't want his homophobic face on the show ever again. Oh, the joys of sweeps, I guess. Your thoughts?
— Kenny E.
Matt Roush: Bitter, are we? Actually, I didn't find it hypocritical for
Grey's to make reference to the character of Dr. Burke, even at the risk of showing an image of the actor's face. (It also didn't surprise me
to read that Washington filed a complaint with SAG over the allegedly unauthorized use of his picture in that fake newspaper column.) For
Grey's to pretend that Burke never existed is an insult not just to the actor and to the character, but to the show's fans. It led to an amazing cathartic moment for Sandra Oh as Cristina, and for that, I give
Grey's some credit, not scorn.
Question: I live for Thursdays when I can get my
Office and
30 Rock fixes, but last Thursday, I found myself much more interested in the
CSI episode written by the
Two and a Half Men scribes. My two favorites had to take a back seat because that was the most fun I've had watching TV in a long time. With the puns, in-jokes and fast pace, it out-rocked
30 Rock. I hadn't watched
CSI in four or five years, but this is what I want TV to be every week. In my opinion, it's time for the glut of procedurals to die a natural death and make way for more comedy — either the smarty-pants, in-joke variety that this episode reveled in or the old-fashioned kind that
The Big Bang Theory does so well. I have a theory that the sitcom died when they all became smutty workplace comedies in which no one did any work because they were too busy talking about things you couldn't let your children hear until they were 21. It's time the put-upon comedy writers so hilariously portrayed in the "Two and a Half Deaths" episode had some more work to do. Work that preferably does not involve an autopsy.
— Sarah
Matt Roush: Loved that CSI episode, and I know all too well (because I know too many people in the business) that a lot of talented TV-comedy writers are being underemployed these days. So let's all hope that CBS's decision to open up a new comedy night on Wednesdays in the fall is successful (it won't be easy, judging from past efforts) and that other networks follow suit. Wouldn't I love for there to be more laughs on a night of the week currently overrun by reality and crime dramas? (Not a fan of Fox's comedies on Wednesday, proving, I guess, that my affection for this neglected genre only goes so far.)
Question: I just wanted to gather your thoughts about what I think is the one really annoying thing about
Lost. Don't get me wrong, I love the show, and I roll my eyes at all of the impatient naysayers and nitpickers. But there's just one thing that truly aggravates me: When the opportunity for revealing an answer to any of the many questions we've been asking presents itself, we get nothing. For example, at the end of Season 2, when Michael asked Ben, "Who are you people?" and Ben simply replied, "We're the good guys." And most recently, when the ghost (or whatever) of Jack and Claire's father said he didn't have time to answer questions (does he have a ghost meeting to go to?) and John could only ask one question that "mattered," despite Ben previously telling him that Jacob will answer any questions he has. It's the writers baiting us and then slapping us in the face with a big fish. I'd rather they not present these opportune moments if they are only going to tease us endlessly, laughing all the way to the bank. Wouldn't you agree?
— Gene
Matt Roush: A fair, and frequent, complaint, to be sure. (And in this case, funny: Ghost meeting, I love it.) Personally, I'm kind of afraid of the day when one of these characters actually answers a question with some of that good old-fashioned exposition. Given the bizarre conundrums like Jacob's cabin and the smoke monster, I'm not sure any answer is going to satisfy me, and I'm easy compared to the average Lost fan. With this show, it would probably make more sense in some of these big moments simply to render the characters speechless, struck dumb with wonder. On TV, it's almost always about the dialogue, but on Lost, an image and a mystery is often worth at least a thousand words.
