Ask Matt: Betrayed by ‘Traitors,’ Oscars In Memoriam Fail, ‘Ghosts’ & More
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 [email protected]. Look for Ask Matt columns on most Tuesdays.
The “Faithfuls” Were Traitors at the End
Comment: I absolutely love The Traitors on Peacock, but the Season 2 finale was extremely disappointing and exposed some major flaws in the game. The idea of the game is to eliminate all the traitors, and once the final traitor Kate was eliminated, the game should’ve ended as all contestants knew there were no more traitors. However, in a purely greedy move to split the pot two ways instead of three, CT and Trishelle (both of The Challenge fame) voted out fellow “faithful” MJ. This goes against the whole spirit of the game, where the “faithfuls” unite to attempt to oust all the “traitors” throughout the season. Yes, the game is built on lies and deception. But the way this ended feels like the producers of the show deceived MJ, as she played the game of eliminating traitors, only to be betrayed by two scheming faithfuls in the end. — Joe, Georgia
Matt Roush: When you watch a show that bills itself as purposefully cutthroat, why are you surprised when the final act includes one last backstabbing? I’m sure you’re not alone, and from what I gather, MJ has been given suitable opportunity to vent about this climactic betrayal. But to say this sort of move comes with the territory is an understatement (Full disclosure: I currently have zero time in my cluttered viewing schedule to follow any reality competition on a regular basis, but if I did, The Traitors would be high on the list. I have followed some of the coverage, including of the “shocking” finale, so I’m sharing Joe’s outrage with sympathy, because I’ve been there before when exposed to the ruthlessness of reality-TV contestants.)
Ripping the R.I.P.’s
Comment: Since they were on so late and so politically charged the last 5-10 years, I ceased watching the Oscars live, but always recorded it so I can see one of my favorite parts, “In Memoriam.” Well, this year’s tribute was a JOKE! Those who wanted to see it could care less about seeing the dancers and/or the singers. The camera set-up was so far from the screen showing the tribute, that even on my 65″ TV I could not see it well enough to see who was being remembered, except when the camera cut away to show just the screen. I guess I’ll have to find it on YouTube. That was just horrible! — John C., Denver, N.C.
Matt Roush: In my otherwise positive review of Sunday’s Oscar show, which aired at a blissfully early hour for a change and actually ended on time (if not before), my harshest criticism was of the misbegotten “In Memoriam” segment. Almost no one presents this sort of tribute properly anymore, continually upstaging the names and images of those we lost with too much focus on the performers, but rarely has it been produced as egregiously as this year’s, with interpretative dancers filling the stage, distracting the eye from the names we could barely read. (The wall of names at the end was ludicrous enough, but good luck reading it!) This year’s Oscars show wasn’t nearly as “politically charged” as in some years, which some people will celebrate and others lament, but for me, I tune in to watch a celebration of movies, and this year’s ceremony mostly did that very well and made me want to watch the movies I’ve so far missed. Except for the “In Memoriam” debacle, which is a more essential element of the show than producers seem to understand, it was a job well done. (A thought: Next year just go with an instrumental theme and let us dwell on the stars and industry figures we’re meant to remember.)
What Are They Hiding on Ghosts?
Question: Is it my imagination, or are the writers of Ghosts hiding Rose McIver’s pregnancy by having her wear jackets, or holding items, or sitting behind her laptop, etc.? I believe I read it here first that she was pregnant, but the pregnancy wouldn’t be written into the show. — Adrienne O., Winter Garden, FL
Matt Roush: You’re absolutely right. The producers have decided it’s not the right time yet to add a baby to the Sam (McIver) and Jay (Utkarsh Ambudkar) mix — which is completely understandable — and in classic sitcom tradition, they’re doing their best to hide it, though it’s becoming increasingly obvious. (The bulbous pumpkin costume in the Halloween episode was especially amusing.) One of my favorite examples of this practice was Modern Family hiding Julie Bowen’s (Claire) pregnancy during the filming of that classic pilot. This is not an uncommon practice.
Question: I read your response about the Flower situation on Ghosts in the recent issue of TV Guide Magazine. Are you going to abridge your response later? — William U.
Matt Roush: To refresh our collective memory, the season opener suggested the hippie ghost Flower (Sheila Carrasco) had been “sucked off” to heaven — the mystery of who was taken away was the Season 2 cliffhanger — but (spoiler alert) in the finale of last week’s terrific Halloween episode, it was revealed she was actually stuck in a well on the estate’s grounds. My initial reaction after the premiere was to applaud the producers for choosing a character from the core cast to be written out, reasserting my long-held belief that a character death (even when the character has already passed) is justifiable if it has impact, which it certainly does for the smitten Thor (Devan Chandler Long) and the remaining spirits.
So who if anyone was actually “sucked off?” What does this new twist signify? Those who pay attention to such things know that Carrasco became a new mother right around the time production started on Season 3, so Flower’s absence could be another case of accommodating maternity within the ensemble cast. But if the cliffhanger turns out to have been a cheat, that would be a rare letdown for such a creative series. Still, I’m awaiting judgment until I see how they play this storyline out. (I’ve only seen up to this week’s episode, which doesn’t address Flower in the well, being much more preoccupied with the new ghost in their midst, and the fallout from Pete’s unfaithful wife, Carol, joining the ranks of the dead in limbo, though for how long we don’t know.) So yes, I will be adjusting my response as we learn more. That’s one of the joys, and challenges, of covering weekly TV.
A Jewel in Nature TV’s Crown
Comment: Thanks to your “Worth Watching” column, I recently discovered the fabulous National Geographic docuseries Queens on Hulu. This gorgeously shot wildlife series focuses on the female leadership of a variety of species from the awe-inspiring African elephant to the dazzling orchid bee. As a wildlife biologist, I found the series to be enthralling, especially episode 7 where we learn about the female rangers, Team Lioness, protecting wildlife from poachers and retaliatory killings in Kenya and the dedicated women raising and caring for orphaned bonobos in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The commitment of the all-female production team behind Queens is equally inspiring. Thanks so much for letting me know about this wonderful docuseries. I hope this letter will help others find the series, too. – Kelly
Matt Roush: It’s always gratifying when I hear that the daily column helps people find something they otherwise would have missed. For those who didn’t catch this terrific series when it aired the last two Mondays on National Geographic, the episodes are streaming on Hulu and Disney+ as well as online on National Geographic TV’s website.
In Love with One Day
Comment: The ongoing subtitle debate saddens me, because I fear that it really means that the anti-subtitle people have no interest in sampling all the superb movies and TV shows produced in foreign languages in other countries. It’s their loss, of course. One of the best features of this streaming age is being able to watch productions from all over the world. At any rate, for many years I have used subtitles even on most British and some U.S. productions, whenever I feel that the audio and dialogue is not crystal clear.
But I really wanted to write to say that Netflix’s One Day is one for the ages. What a perfect show! It should stand alongside Normal People as one of the great TV love stories. I just watched it all in two days and was so moved in so many episodes. And somehow I avoided having seen any spoilers, so the twist at the end of episode 13 was a total surprise. I had no inkling it was coming until about two seconds before it happened. — D.P.
Matt Roush: Thanks for not spoiling. And couldn’t agree with you more on both fronts. I wish I had time to sample more international fare, but there’s no argument that access to the global marketplace of TV is one of the more positive side-effects of the streaming boom. And I was unexpectedly disarmed by One Day as well — which, by the way, I often watched with the subtitles feature because of the thick British accents. Not having sampled the book (by David Nicholls) or the 2011 movie version (which was not nearly as well received), I experienced this story with fresh eyes and was captivated from start to finish. It’s one of the better surprises so far of 2024 TV.
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] or shoot me a line on X (formerly) Twitter @TVGMMattRoush. (Please include a first name with your question.)
