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, but there’s always closed-captioning.)
One caution: This is a spoiler-free zone, so we won’t be addressing upcoming storylines or developments here unless it’s already common knowledge. Please send your questions and comments to askmatt@tvinsider.com. Look for Ask Matt columns on most Tuesdays.
Is Natalie Morales a Keeper on Grey’s Anatomy?
Question: Ever since Natalie Morales joined the recurring cast of Grey’s Anatomy, I’ve been worried about her status going forward. I know when she was initially announced to be joining the cast, it was published as a one-episode-only appearance, but she appeared in five out of 10 this season and I’m hoping for way more next year. Do you think she’ll be staying? Obviously, a promotion to series regular isn’t likely because of the recent budget cuts, but is it likely that she will stay on as recurring? She’s been intertwined in a bunch of plots this season and has seemed to be advertised as if she was a series regular (on social media, in episode descriptions, etc.). She’s a great actress and I don’t know if she would stay on if another project offered her a greater audience. I just don’t want to see broadcast TV screw Natalie Morales over once again! Looking at you, The Grinder, Abby’s, Trophy Wife … — Mason N.
Matt Roush: As far as I know, nothing’s been confirmed about the regular and recurring cast for this long-running medical show beyond a few reported departures and the news that everyone’s going to miss an episode or a few for budget purposes. But of all the recent changes on Grey’s, the arrival of Natalie Morales as Dr. Monica Beltran has been one of the brightest spots. She fits right into the ensemble, her tone (part earnest, part arrogant) is perfect, and she’s already causing waves in the sexual chemistry department (with Winston and with Amelia, hmmm). So while nothing’s determined yet, it’s clear she’ll be around for at least part of next season, and let’s hope that if things work out, she’ll be working and playing at Grey Sloan for the foreseeable future. She’s way more interesting than the current class of interns.
RelatedAsk Matt: Thoughts About Finales: ‘Good Doctor,’ ‘Grey’s’ and ‘Station 19,’ ‘Young Sheldon’ & More
Tired of Being Left Hanging (Sometimes Forever)
Question: Do you think we’ll ever see the end of season finale cliffhangers, especially after the recent spate of surprise cancellations that left major storylines hanging? I’ve always hated them. I wish shows would wrap up their stories with actual endings, and not repay loyal fans with nail-biting months-long waits, or forever ones. It doesn’t even make sense to me: What fan needs that extra incentive to tune in come fall? Now, even limited-run series don’t really end because they’re hoping for a second season. It’s poor storytelling and makes me less likely to take a chance on new shows. What do you think? — Katalin K.
Matt Roush: Without question, the cliffhanger is an overused device, and all would likely agree it’s a foolish gambit for a producer of a show that’s on the fence to add one last twist, in a false belief that it might keep the network from dropping the axe. But will it ever just disappear? Unlikely. Most producers and networks see cliffhangers as promotional hooks to keep the audience engaged between seasons, giving them natural headlines for when they return. My favorite sort of cliffhanger is not of the “who got shot, who will die, who will leave” variety, but more like one that offers a new piece of information that sets the course for the following season. (I’m thinking of Alias and Sydney uttering “Mom?” in the Season 1 finale.) As always on TV, not all cliffhangers are created equal, and I also prefer most seasons to end with resolution rather than an artificial jaw-dropper.
With the Emmys, Less Is Often More (Appealing)
Question: As we look to Emmy season, a quick question: Is it fair to compare a broadcast network show with “normally” 22 or so episodes with a show that has 6 or 8 episodes? Of course, if the 22-episode show were to cut the season down to 6 or 8 episodes, they could trim a lot of the bloated fat to make 6 or 8 amazing episodes. — Scott S.
Matt Roush: Network shows have plenty of disadvantages when it comes to competing with premium cable and streaming for recognition, and this is one of the most obvious, along with content, time and format restrictions. And since we’re on the subject, I’d add that the bias against network shows stems as well from a perceived lack of ambition, much of which is a result of their parent companies siphoning off many of their most promising projects in development to their streaming platforms. There are exceptions — Abbott Elementary, Ghosts (which also deserves some Emmy love) — but it’s hard for even an above-par medical or crime drama to get noticed in the way they used to in the heyday of Steven Bochco and his peers. To get back to the subject, the imperative for most network series (in a non-strike year) to produce a full season of 18 to 20-odd episodes, as opposed to the more limited output of a boutique streaming or cable series, means the likelihood of each one being a polished gem is greatly diminished.
Related‘Fargo’s Lamorne Morris Breaks Down Witt’s Hospital Face-Off With Roy & Gator
Too Many Hosts, Not Enough Time
Comment: I’m in my 7th decade, so I may just be getting cranky. But two things on TV really bother me. First: Why do talk shows feel the need to have multiple hosts? Sometimes they’re all talking over each other. Remember when the Today show and Good Morning America had just two hosts. Harry Smith was the sole host on CBS in the morning. I still enjoy CBS Sunday Morning, where Jane Pauley (formerly of Today!) or a substitute host introduces segments that are informative and entertaining. Talented reporters lead those segments, but they’re not all on at one time!
My second pet peeve are game shows where the host is reading questions while a clock ticks away the time. There are gaffes in the reading of the questions, pauses, and hesitations while reading. I find this so unfair. Couldn’t the clock start after the question is read, be stopped when the contestant is answering then restarted, all the while counting off the total allotted time? I’m a big game show fan. Thanks for reading my rant. Keep up the great work here, I love Ask Matt! — Adrienne, Winter Garden, Florida
Matt Roush: And I love hearing new pet peeves! These are pretty good ones. Regarding too many hosts spoiling the morning mood: I’m afraid that format is probably here to stay, the theory being the more personalities the better (especially later in the morning). The success of The View and its ilk has led to the rise of a genre that I think of as the “squawk” show. I’m happy to share this observation if only to add my two cents in lavishing praise on Sunday Morning and the classy hosting of Jane Pauley, as well as the reporting and story choices, which are almost always illuminating and often uplifting.
Regarding quiz shows with a ticking clock: The Chase comes to mind, and I guess I’d agree that if they stopped the clock while the host read the question and started up again when either the Chaser or the contestants puzzled over the answer, that would be more reasonable. (To stem off another popular query, I don’t know when or whether ABC will bring The Chase back. It’s clearly not happening this summer.)
Related‘Evil’ Team Talks Kristen & David’s Feelings and Ben’s Major Struggle
Lost in the Stream
Question: With so many TV shows moving from broadcast or cable to other pay services, how does that affect their viewership? Does it increase or decrease? For me, no matter how much I like a show. I will not subscribe to a pay service to watch that show. I have cable and do not need more services. — Larry D.
Matt Roush: I’m not a numbers cruncher, and streamers aren’t all that forthcoming or reliable with their ratings, but it would only make sense that limiting a show’s reach by putting it behind a streaming paywall would almost certainly decrease its viewership. With one mighty example: Netflix, the streaming giant which manages to breathe new life into shows when they move to the platform: see Breaking Bad, Suits, and currently Evil, which is spiking on Netflix even while the current final season is streaming on Paramount+.
The point of moving a first-run series from broadcast to streaming is often to keep a show in production that would otherwise likely be canceled on a broadcast network, with the added belief that a recognizable title (think SEAL Team) might draw new subscribers to the service. That’s clearly not an option for everyone, although I hear from more and more people who have cut the cable cord in favor of streaming bundles and more affordable portals.
RelatedTom Brokaw Talks Blood Cancer Battle, NBC News Exit: ‘I Had to Walk Away’
And Finally …
Question: Where can I watch The Gray House, the Civil War drama referenced in TV Insider’s recent interview with Morgan Freeman? — Sharon
Matt Roush: Right now you can’t. The series is currently on the festival screening circuit, which is often a step toward making a deal with a distributor. Once that happens, we’ll likely hear soon what network or streamer has acquired the series.
That’s all for now. We can’t do this without your participation, so please keep sending questions and comments about TV to askmatt@tvinsider.com or shoot me a line on X (formerly) Twitter @TVGMMattRoush. (Please include a first name with your question.)
More Headlines:
‘Farmer Wants a Wife’ Star Ty Ferrell Says He Was ‘a Wreck’ After Shocking Finale Decision‘Wheel of Fortune’: The Game Show by the NumbersAsk Matt: ‘Grey’s New Doctor, Cliffhanger Fatigue & MoreUEFA Euro 2024 Soccer TV Schedule on Fox Sports‘Modern Family’ Reboot: Sarah Hyland Has Big Plans for Haley if Show Returns
