[ad_1]
Welcome to the Q&A with TV critic — also known to some TV fans as their “TV therapist” — Matt Roush, who’ll try to address whatever you love, loathe, are confused or frustrated or thrilled by in today’s vast TV landscape. (We know background music is too loud, it’s the most frequent complaint, but there’s always closed-captioning. Check out this story for more tips.)
One caution: This is a spoiler-free zone, so we won’t be addressing upcoming storylines here unless it’s already common knowledge. Please send your questions and comments to [email protected]. Look for Ask Matt columns on most Tuesdays.
[Editor’s note: I’m still sifting through the responses from readers weighing in on shows that were canceled too soon and which they’d love to see revived. We’ll revisit the topic soon in a future column. — Matt]
Does Alan Cumming Have an Advantage in the Emmy Race?
Question: I’m a huge fan of The Traitors and enjoying Season 3 (Go Boston Rob!). Yet again, host Alan Cumming does an incredible job playing the over-the-top, extravagant host. This made me reflect on his 2024 Emmy win for “Outstanding Host for a Reality or Competition Program.” Initially, I thought it was well-deserved. However, on second thought I wonder if it’s even fair that he’s included in the category. Unlike his competitors (Jeff Probst, Kristen Kish, RuPaul, and the Shark Tank sharks), Cummings is clearly acting in The Traitors. He does an outstanding job, but there’s no doubt he’s playing a character on the show whereas other reality show hosts are being themselves as they host their show. It’s like voting for Roy Hobbs or Ricky “Wild Thing” Vaughn for baseball MVP. Thoughts?— Joe
Matt Roush: I wouldn’t second-guess this win for a second. Not just because I’m a great fan of Alan Cumming and what he’s doing on The Traitors, but aren’t all of these hosts (or sharks) performing a role in one way or another? They’re all appearing as heightened versions of themselves, playing to the camera in a structured format. Cumming may have an advantage (not unlike RuPaul, who previously won the Emmy eight times in a row) because the role he’s playing is so flamboyant and theatrical, but that shouldn’t negate his accomplishment. This is a category that’s all about personality, and Cumming has a surplus of that.
A Franchise Without a Franchise
Question: I didn’t start watching HBO’s The Franchise when it started, and when I started watching, I didn’t want to stop. I thought for sure it would be renewed. Sadly, I just learned it’s been canceled. Why?? —Marci G
Matt Roush: As the playwright George S. Kaufman was famously quoted as saying, “Satire is what closes on Saturday night.” (Or Sundays on HBO, perhaps.) Shows about show business are also traditionally tough sells, in this case, a behind-the-scenes sendup of a fictional superhero movie in a Marvel-like cinematic universe. For whatever reason, The Franchise didn’t draw a big enough audience for HBO to order a second season. Which is a shame. I liked it, too.
No Chance of an Emergency Crossover
Question: Regarding last week’s speculation on Tuesday night crossovers of Will Trent, High Potential, and The Rookie, the latter’s executive producer Alexi Hawley was recently asked about the possibility of a crossover with 9-1-1, another L.A. based show on ABC. He was dismissive of that idea, saying basically that one stunt crossover would have the audience expecting more. And if 9-1-1 and The Rookie are in the same universe, they should be stumbling over each other all the time. I think he’s overthinking things. Other shows in the same universes co-exist without characters crossing paths. Law & Order’s Detectives Riley and Shaw never run across SVU’s Benson and Tutuola. Those shows are definitely in the same universe and the audience doesn’t seem confused about the lack of interaction. If Hawley doesn’t want to do a crossover, fine, but blaming audience expectations seems kind of weak. — Lizzie
Matt Roush: First off, the Law & Order shows have a long history of crossovers with each other, maybe not since the latest iteration, I’ve lost track, but it’s not all that rare. What is rare is for shows with entirely different production crews like The Rookie and 9-1-1 to cross over into each other’s worlds, where it’s already a challenge to crank out a season’s worth of episodes. Sounds to me like the Rookie producer was trying to manage expectations and not give false hope, more than putting the onus on viewers. 9-1-1 in particular is likely to be spinning off again next season, so if there are any crossovers in its future, it will be within its own franchise, I’d bet.
The Reality of Reruns
Question: I remember that when TV shows returned after the writers’ and actors’ strikes, many like Elsbeth would air three episodes, break for three weeks and etc. I found this to be irritating and ended up banking episodes and waiting until near the end of each show’s run to finish viewing them. Do you know if this will happen again? I hope not because it was exasperating! — Judy
Matt Roush: We don’t get network schedules months in advance, but if this season is like every other TV season I’ve covered for longer than I care to mention, there will inevitably be breaks in the network schedule — maybe not so many for CBS, which delayed the return of its lineup longer than usual, using the AFC Championship game as a launching pad (as they did the Super Bowl last year in the strike-delayed season). Though I get mail complaining about this all the time, the network TV production model is still locked mostly into a fall-to-spring framework, and given the challenging economics of broadcast TV resulting in generally shorter seasons, we’re likely to still have to put up with a few weeks of repeats off and on in March and/or April if there’s to be any original product in May. Some shows will end their runs early, and ABC is hedging its bets by keeping its Thursday night shows (9-1-1, Grey’s Anatomy, and the ridiculous Doctor Odyssey) off the air until March, which will mean few if any repeats, though I’m sure the fans of those shows are annoyed about their long hiatus. There’s no perfect solution, and even the streaming model of dropping an entire season at once, or airing weekly without interruption, has the drawback of painfully long breaks between seasons.
Is Network Scheduling a Streaming Strategy in Disguise?
Question: Tell me you do not agree that the local channels (networks) are colluding with each other. They make sure that their programming is opposite the most-watched program on another channel at the same time, thus forcing people to sign up for their streaming service. It’s blackmail in the most basic form. Having to make a choice is not easy. They know that and are assured the money will come right on schedule like they planned. With so many ways to view things through modern technology, they can’t miss. I am an older person without all the bells and whistles available to me. Believe it or not, not all people can afford the many streaming services needed to fulfill the void. Well, I’ve had my say and do feel a little better to have someone to express my anger to. — Jackie, South Carolina
Matt Roush: That’s what we’re here for. But at the risk of undermining this conspiracy theory, I should point out that competitive counterprogramming on network TV has been part of the game since even before I started covering this beat. Because Fridays (except on CBS) and Saturdays are currently dead zones, and Sundays are often dominated by sports and event TV, there aren’t that many available time periods left for networks to schedule their most popular dramas and comedies, and it’s inevitable that some audience favorites will air opposite others. I can remember the furor when NBC moved Frasier opposite Home Improvement in the mid-1990s (yes, I was covering TV then), and both managed to survive. Most viewers should be able to record a program or playback On Demand, but for those who can’t, that’s the beauty of reruns (although nowadays, except for popular procedurals and sitcoms, even those can be scarce during the summer).
And Finally …
Question: As an 85-year-old gearhead, the idea of Tim Allen in Shifting Gears had great appeal. But the loud, raucous, fake laugh track just ruins it for my wife and me. I don’t like to be told what’s funny and when to laugh — I’m a big boy now, I can figure it out for myself. Other sitcoms have dropped the laugh track; why not Shifting Gears? — Dave A.
Matt Roush: Here’s an assignment. Go back and find an old episode of Tim Allen’s breakthrough show, Home Improvement, which was also filmed in front of a live audience (hence, the laughter), and see if that annoys you as much. Shifting Gears is a much less hilarious series, which is why the souped-up laughter probably annoys you more. (Producers hate the term “laugh track,” which only truly applies to shows filmed without an audience but adding laughter to the soundtrack.) To complain about laughter on a show filmed in front of an audience ignores a history that dates back to I Love Lucy and, as I’ve said many times in this space, is the form of sit-comedy that has traditionally been the most popular (as recently as The Big Bang Theory). What I can’t imagine is a show like Shifting Gears as a single-camera filmed comedy. That would just be bleak.
That’s all for now. We can’t do this without your participation, so please keep sending questions and comments about TV to [email protected]. (Please include a first name with your question.)
[ad_2]
Original Source Link