Editor's Note: Due to vacation, the next Ask Matt column will appear on Friday, June 20, 2008.
Did House's Finale Redeem It? Will Foreign Shows Do Well This Fall? Are Procedurals Using the Same Story? And More!
Hugh Laurie, House
Question: Is it just me, or did
House seal up its nomination for Best Drama Series with that two-part season finale? Holy cow, what a whopper. TV like that is exactly why I watch TV in the first place. Not only was absolutely every aspect of the show done to perfection (writing, directing, acting, editing, music), the episode somehow managed to pull it all off without looking like an Emmy grab. It was the next step in the Gregory House progression: How hard can he push before his friends turn their backs? Of all the things House has done to push Wilson, the one that he couldn't prevent and/or stop was the straw that finally broke the camel's back. I don't think anyone can argue that these final two hours were two of the best episodes to hit the airwaves all season.
— Dan
Matt Roush: These were excellent episodes in a season that in my book overall didn't otherwise measure up. So if House is nominated for best drama — which wouldn't be a surprise given it has been in the running the last few seasons — these episodes (along with the terrific post-Super Bowl episode guest-starring Mira Sorvino) would probably be justification enough. But if the show is overlooked, despite these episodes, you won't hear me howling. The Emmys rarely take into account the totality of a season, but House was too uneven for my taste to have earned a spot in my own top five, the power of the finale notwithstanding.
Question: Looking back over the season, I can't help but notice the oddity that three hit procedural shows (
Law & Order,
CSI and
SVU) over the last month chose to write out characters through use of the exact same premise: "Cop is under investigation for a suspicious shooting." I'm not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, it's a rather glaring example of the overwhelming sameness among so many procedurals. On the other hand,
Law & Order and
CSI managed to craft very powerful episodes around the premise, while
SVU had its usual melodramatic, incoherent mess. So, it also shows that superior shows can still excel even though they're not breaking any new ground. However, the very fact that these shows are all trying to execute the same premise seems to also showcase a basic lack of creativity on a foundational level. In a more general sense that applies to all procedurals, I can't help but wonder if we really need so many shows that are basically all telling variations on the exact same story week after week. What say you? Am I nuts?
— Andrew
Matt Roush: Are there too many procedural crime dramas? And do they hit the same notes too often? Absolutely, but the fact that you witnessed this same general storyline playing out on three of them is clear evidence that people are still watching these shows, and the appetite hasn't diminished despite the years-long glut. The more pertinent observation to me is the one about quality of execution. Even though we gripe about the overabundance of crime dramas, they're not all created equal (much like sitcoms, much like reality shows), and they shouldn't all be tarred with equal derision. While the motherships of the Law & Order and CSI brands each chose to engineer the exit of a major character with morally ambiguous storylines, both episodes also rose to the occasion with episodes well worth watching. That clearly isn't always the case.
Question: I was just wondering how you think the improved quality of original cable shows affects the cancellation decisions of the networks? I have been eagerly anticipating the new season of
Burn Notice and it got me to thinking. Do the networks even see cable shows as viable competition? Has the success of cable summer premieres changed the network opinion of new summer programming? I don't know how it all works out, but I'm sure they analyze and overanalyze the numbers. My thought is: What stops them from trying to push the more demographically specific shows (like
Moonlight, which I didn't watch out of blind allegiance to Joss Whedon, which I know sounds stupid) during the summer? It seems there is more and more evidence that new summer shows can work, so it just makes sense to me that this should be tried (the sooner the better) before the audiences go somewhere else.
— Craig
Matt Roush: That's a lot of questions to consider, and I'm not sure the reasoning tracks from subject to subject. The broadcast and cable networks still have widely varying differences when it comes to summer programming philosophy, although CBS and NBC are at least trying something different by offering scripted series like Swingtown and Fear Itself (naturally, both airing against each other on Thursdays), which are both looked at as long shots. Cable, meanwhile, uses the summer to market signature shows like Burn Notice, The Closer, etc., and while some of these shows are of network quality (at least), in very few cases do they attract an audience that would translate into hit status if they aired on network TV. (The Closer probably comes the closest.) The networks still are unlikely to channel their resources into producing much in the way of expensive scripted programming during the summer months, when viewing levels are generally depressed. They're going to stick mainly with reality: some good, some dreadful. Do they look at cable as competition? Cumulatively, yes. But individually, not so much, in most cases. And I don't see what any of that has to do with cancellation decisions made during the regular season.
Question: My wife and I like to watch several shows, and on every single one that we watch, one of the lead characters has been killed, shot or blown up in the last few weeks. The list:
Bones,
CSI: Miami,
CSI,
Criminal Minds,
House (OK, Amber is not a lead character, and didn't get killed/shot/blown-up, but she did get seriously injured) and
Supernatural. What's up with all of the death and destruction? Is this just a combination of season finales and luck of the draw, or is there some sort of determined push here on the part of the writers? Is it maybe because of the writers' strike, and the writers feeling the need to keep people's attention?
— Flint D.
Matt Roush: Basically, you're suffering from a bad case of season finale-itis. I surely wish the idiots who make TV would someday wake up to the fact that they don't need to end every season of every show with some cataclysmic incident (although as noted above, sometimes — like with House — they're done exceedingly well). It just tends to make them look silly, and us feel stupid for having watched.
Question: I actually liked the
Bones reveal of Zack being the Gormogon's apprentice. If they were going to have one of the characters be the apprentice, he is the only one that makes sense. Zack, to me, is a genius child in an adult body. Obviously, he was immature socially and not at the same social level as other people his own age. He was childlike, and who better to manipulate than a child. He is the only character that I would believe is capable of being turned. The only thing I did have an issue with is if he hadn't killed the lobbyist, they could have brought him back into the fold eventually. Through therapy with Sweets, they could have explored why he became the apprentice. Which I guess they could still do, but a murder rap is a little harder to beat (unless you're Brennan's father). I will find it interesting to see how the team reacts to the fact that none of them had a clue he was the apprentice till the end, and how they interact with and "trust" each other now.
— Cynthia W.
Matt Roush: After earlier saying that virtually no one liked this storyline, I guess I should have expected to hear from defenders. Some good points here, although I tend to side more with Karen L.'s take. She wrote: "Unlike many, I'm perfectly fine with the
concept of the Zack reveal on
Bones. It's the
execution that bothered me. I understand the writers' strike screwed things up, but why not have the Gormogon-revisited storyline be a season-ending cliff hanger, and then have the Zack reveal next season? I could have really enjoyed the twist if it hadn't been so rushed and had been better supported."
I'm not sure I ever would have bought it completely, but it was the clumsiness of the finale that really threw me as well. And I'll give the final word for now to Brett H., whose analysis qualifies as the most, shall we say, heartfelt. He explains, in part:
"The show at its core is about the need as human beings to integrate and sometimes supersede cold logic with a warm heart. That is the basis for the sexual tension between Booth and Bones as well as the foundation for the best relationships on the show. They have used Bones to show the positive, and yes messy, impact of moving in a heart direction. I think they wanted to show the negative impact of not being able to move in a heart direction. Zack was the character who couldn't connect at a heart level. He was dedicated to cold logic and saw little if any value in anything else, which made him capable of horrible things while being able to rationalize it."
Question: Why is it that certain shows with relatively small audiences get so much more publicity and buzz (and renewal notices) than shows with much larger audiences?
Gossip Girl is watched by virtually no one, yet is written about as if it is the highest-rated show on TV! (Ditto for
Supernatural and
One Tree Hill). On the other hand,
Shark gets canceled despite having a much larger following. Granted, I'm not a fan of any of these shows, but something is terribly wrong with the media wagon, and it has been for years. I first noticed way back when the failed prime-time soap
Savannah was all over TV Guide week after week, yet was the lowest-rated show all year on the old WB. Since then, it seems like shows are buying publicity in hopes of creating an illusion that everyone is watching and that perhaps one day everyone
will watch. I can't really recall this tactic working, so I have to wonder why it still goes on after all these years. Is it just my imagination? Or did I just overlook all of the
NCIS,
The Unit,
Cold Case,
'Til Death,
Medium,
Women's Murder Club and
Back To You articles?
— Mark
Matt Roush: Once again, I'll remind readers that TV Guide has given plenty of coverage to mainstream hits like NCIS, Cold Case and Medium — and even The Unit, when it's not on hiatus as it has been since the strike. But to address this very interesting question, it really boils down to demographics, the intangibility of buzz and the very nature of commercial media. Advertisers are obsessed with youth (surely that doesn't surprise you), and even if a show has a relatively tiny viewership, if it's being watched and talked about by the "right" audience — in this case, the notoriously fickle and hard-to-attract post-Internet generation — then no one wants to be left out of the conversation. Just look at all of the coverage The Hills gets. Tons more people may watch formulaic procedurals, and they do get coverage in some circles (including, again, in our publication), but it's also a fact that some of these "buzz" and "cult" shows are simply more fun to write about and get a bigger response. It may not seem fair, but that's the business. And to compare the renewal of Gossip Girl with the cancellation of Shark ignores the relative status, goals — and yes, demographics — of the CW and CBS networks.
Question: I just wanted to respond to
L.B.'s thoughtful and beautiful letter about the
Brothers & Sisters gay wedding — I agree 100 percent with everything that was said. But while pointing out there have been previous gay weddings, I also want to echo the statement that I find it amazing and refreshing that not only did
Brothers & Sisters air the gay wedding without any huge backlash or negative attention, but that the entire ABC network seemingly has become the home for quality gay programming.
Brothers & Sisters,
Desperate Housewives (which also featured a gay wedding this season),
Grey's Anatomy and
Ugly Betty have all explored gay issues with utter respect and dignity.
Betty is a prime example of a show that can incorporate gay characters into the plot without making a mockery of them: Alexis/Alex Mead as a post-op transsexual has been a revolutionary step in bringing gay issues into the mainstream. As a proud gay viewer, I just want to give a shout-out to ABC for being so willing to accept and embrace a vocal, proud and loyal fan base who
truly appreciates their support and willingness to cast a positive light on our issues. It is truly a good day to see that we've come so far from the days when shows like
thirtysomething,
Ellen or
Dawson's Creek were bombarded with loads of hate mail and nearly canceled because they featured gay characters and gay issues. Thanks to ABC for being so brave and to the world as a whole for
finally becoming more open-minded. Lastly I just want to say that I wish daytime soap operas were as open-minded about gay characters.
— Matthew C.
Matt Roush: I remember thinking, when watching the
Grey's Anatomy episode with the subplot about the gay soldiers (one dying of a brain disease) shortly after watching the
Brothers & Sisters ceremony, how far TV, and particularly ABC, had come in the presentation of stories and characters like this. Even the Callie-Hahn kiss in the
Grey's finale didn't stop the presses the way it played out years ago when C.J. and Abby locked lips on
L.A. Law. The difference in part being that it's no longer intended to have shock value, just part of the variety of life. Which again shows you how far we've come.
And Howard B. weighs in as well: "In your response to a question about the gay wedding in Brothers & Sisters, you mentioned the furor caused by the gay couple in a short story arc in thirtysomething. Yes, it was a first for prime time, but I feel that the series (inadvertently) made the reaction much bigger by suddenly throwing two brand-new characters into prominence. The audience had not seen these characters before — they were not regulars — and many in the audience probably felt that this was something inserted into the series to be 'in your face.' Contrast the Willow-Tara relationship in Buffy the Vampire Slayer, which caused no similar controversy. Yes, it was 15 years later (yada, yada, yada), but these were characters who were regulars and that the audience had grown to know and love."
All very true, but I don't think you can dismiss the passage of time in this instance as a "yada yada yada." Without the earlier breakthroughs, there would likely have been no Willow-Tara story, and don't think that relationship got on the air easily. To the contrary. And it seems a little churlish to chastise thirtysomething for revealing the gay personal lives of two relatively minor characters, at a time when no serious show (even one as groundbreaking as that one) would have been allowed to consider a regular cast member who was anything but heterosexual. Unless of course he or she conformed to some stereotype.
Question: There's been much talk about how U.S. TV is "re-imagining" foreign shows.
Life on Mars comes immediately to mind (with great hope that they don't screw it up). But
Eleventh Hour doesn't even get mentioned as a remake. I saw maybe four or so episodes — constituting a British "series," I assume — of a drama by this name on DVD. It starred Patrick Stewart as a scientist investigating strange occurrences. It sounds to me like the one coming up on CBS is a remake of this one, but I'm wondering why, while
Life on Mars and
The Ex List are getting slapped hard with the import tag,
Eleventh Hour has escaped. I enjoyed it with Patrick Stewart, and I was hoping they'd be making more episodes in the U.K. (and releasing on DVD). I'm hoping the U.S. version is a quality product.
— Jen
Matt Roush: I'm not sure what you're reading, but no one I'm aware of (including CBS) is hiding the fact that Eleventh Hour was adapted from a British miniseries. I also am unaware that these shows are being "slapped hard" with an import tag like there's something wrong with them because they originated elsewhere. All we can hope for in each case is that they're at least as good as the source material, that they can be remade to appeal effectively to the broader American audience, and that they can sustain a long run if required. You know, my "open mind" theory.
Question: What are your thoughts on the potential of David E. Kelley's new vehicle,
Life on Mars? Given that the original series only contained 20-something episodes, is there a danger of it getting stale over the course of a standard North American broadcast schedule?
— Dave. S
Matt Roush: That's the multi-million dollar question, isn't it? And for the record, it's not quite accurate to keep referring to ABC's Life on Mars as David E. Kelley's anymore. He bought the rights to the show, brought it to ABC and developed the pilot (which apparently may yet be tweaked). But since then, he has left the show, turning over control to a new set of producers who will run the show for ABC. But as for its long-term future, the producers will have their work cut out for them to sustain the premise: modern detective wakes up from an accident in the '70s and wonders if it's all a coma dream. Most ABC viewers aren't likely to have seen the BBC version yet (which did present an actual ending to the overall mystery), but even so, they'll have to come up with some new twists to keep this engine running indefinitely.
Question: Aside from the three leftover episodes of
Men in Trees, have you noticed that not one single broadcast network is using the summer to burn off some shows that were canceled in the 2007/2008 season? Nearly all of the shows canceled had less than 10 episodes remaining, and you would think the networks would at least try and finish them off, even on a Saturday night. NBC had only one program with leftover episodes and that was
The Singing Bee with three episodes. Likewise the CW only had one program and that was
Online Nation with three episodes to screen. ABC has just two programs with
Cavemen (seven episodes) and
Notes from the Underbelly (eight episodes) and CBS has two episodes of
Power of 10 and six episodes of
Viva Laughlin. Finally, Fox has three shows with leftover episodes in
Back to You with four episodes (this is probably the priority),
K-Ville (one episode) and
The Return of Jezebel James with four episodes. I know some of these probably deserved cancellation, but with the writers' strike, there is less on this summer in new programming. These episodes would add up to very little airtime this summer. So networks, let's see them finish out!
— Aaron
Matt Roush: Dream on. The networks aren't even running repeats of many of their successful and ongoing shows during the summer. They're not about to devote time periods to shows considered losers. (Viva Laughlin, really?) As bad as summer programming may look, the networks aren't looking at the off-season as a dumping ground for leftovers anymore. (Remember when they used to air busted pilots? Those were the days.) It's more likely that some canceled shows would have their remaining episodes shown online, but even that's not a sure thing. (Depends on the show, the network, the studio, the deal.) And I must say, you've obviously kept track of these dead shows better than I have. I beg readers not to write in to correct the math if any of the above facts are wrong. I'm filing this a day before a long-planned vacation, which is my way of saying adios and happy viewing (or not) until mid-June.
