Ask Matt: Cancellations (‘Equalizer’), Finales (‘Conners’), Changes (‘Elsbeth’), Reboots & More

Carrie Preston and Carra Patterson in 'Elsbeth'
Michael Parmelee / CBS
Elsbeth

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.

No Longer an Equal(izer) Playing Field

Question: Once again, shame on CBS. Even though it appears The Equalizer had higher ratings than other shows, it didn’t matter. They canceled the show anyway. I agree wholeheartedly with fan comments in the email announcing the cancellation. The Equalizer is in the Top 25 (per TV Guide Magazine). Where’s NCIS: Origins or NCIS: Sydney? Not in the top 25! So frustrating and disappointing. — Sharon

Matt Roush: It’s becoming something of a refrain this season to keep explaining that ratings don’t tell the whole story anymore. (And in the most recent issue, seeing that the live numbers for The Equalizer, tied for 20th — behind Sydney for a change — amounted to a mere 3.8 million tells you a lot about the decline in live-TV watching in today’s digital world, although CBS traditionally does better than most.) As we’ve explained repeatedly in this space, decisions like these are more driven by the economics of series production, with less regard to ratings, and because CBS’s parent company of Paramount doesn’t own properties like The Equalizer or Dick Wolf‘s Universal-produced FBI series or S.W.A.T. from Sony, negotiations become more complicated (license fees, budgets, etc.) the longer these shows run, all of which sealed the fate of many of these “on the bubble” shows during a year when CBS’s parent company is in the process of being sold.

Regarding The Equalizer specifically, the writing was already on the wall once the network moved the show to the 10/9c Sunday hour, which often results in airing very late (in Eastern and Central time zones) or even being bumped on nights of sports overruns. For a while, it looked like the parties involved were aiming for a shortened final season, but ultimately, that didn’t happen. It’s a disappointing but increasingly common development.

Fond Farewell to The Conners

Comment: I commend The Conners finishing off an impressive run with a pleasing final episode. It’s always great when the writers have the time to craft an ending that is respectful to the characters and the viewers who supported the series. If anything, it was even better than Roseanne‘s final episode, which was during an awkward final year. And honestly, I didn’t understand why they needed to even finish it — clearly again all about money.

My only quibble: the absence of Michael Fishman‘s DJ and his family left a sour note. When they got rid of him a few years back, it made sense structurally (he wasn’t doing anything) but negated a bit of the “family” vibe that the series was always known for. I mean, just ignoring him feels off. I thought they could have at least gotten him and his daughter in the last episode to wrap up the Conners’ arc. Fishman has indicated that he would have been open to a return, so it appears the closeness of the cast and production isn’t as cozy as they have indicated over the years. — Linda

Matt Roush: I’ve seen complaints elsewhere that Roseanne Barr herself was missing from the vintage clips that ended the series finale — though considering the acrimonious way she left the reboot (and what they might have had to pay to use her image), I wasn’t at all surprised. The fact that they brought the family together at Roseanne Conner’s graveside to remind us of where it all began felt like an appropriate homage. Given that ABC only gave The Conners six episodes to wrap things up, the absence of DJ and his daughter wasn’t a shock, although I understand why that would be unsatisfying to those who remember the family back in the day. I wholeheartedly agree that The Conners ended on a better note, however hasty and incomplete, than that terrible final season of the original Roseanne.

Sorry to See Elsbeth’s Sidekick Go

Question: I have always been a big Columbo fan, so when I first watched Elsbeth, I was hooked. I liked the way you knew from the beginning who did it and the journey she took to finding the killer. I was so disappointed when I read that the character of Kaya (played by Carra Patterson) has been reduced to the status of a guest star and not a regular. While I enjoy the quirky nature of Elsbeth and the rest of the cast, the true heart of the show was the friendship between Kaya and Elsbeth. It was so touching and so natural. I was glad to see Kaya was promoted, but when they kept having different people to work with Elsbeth each week, I had a sinking feeling that her promotion meant the two would be pairing up again. Do you know if the actress decided to cut back on her hours? If it was the writers’ decision, it just makes no sense to me. — Laura

Matt Roush: On the plus side, the producers and Carra Patterson herself have maintained that Kaya will remain a part of the world of the show, though on a potentially recurring guest-star basis. If Patterson has said anything to suggest she wanted to reduce her presence, I’ve missed it, so I’m looking at this as primarily a creative decision. And it seems to me that the show’s writers and producers laid the groundwork for this shift throughout the season. Given Kara’s promotion to detective (even before her new gig that’s taking her away from New York City), it would be odd for her to remain Elsbeth’s full-time sidekick, since we’ve seen the quirky consultant work alongside many other detectives. I get that this leaves a hole in a show where, besides Elsbeth, there were only two other full-time regulars (Patterson and Wendell Pierce as Capt. Wagner), but I’m keeping an open mind as the show continues to evolve. I enjoy Elsbeth‘s formula, but some of my favorite episodes have been when they shake things up a bit, and this move could be part of that.

The Growing Pains of a Reboot

Question: I recently heard about NBC developing a Royal Pains reboot. It seems only the main star (Mark Feuerstein) has signed on for it so far. I am worried that if more cast members from the original don’t come back, it will end up like Suits LA. Do you have any information on this reboot? — Nancy F.

Matt Roush: You know as much as we do, given that the late April announcement was all very preliminary, and “in development” is the key takeaway here. We’ll be hearing more about casting as the show takes form, and we’re still far away from the network actually giving the show a green light, but it sounds like the premise is to take the concierge doctor into a new direction with a new purpose, which could mean an entirely new supporting cast. Which wouldn’t necessarily be fatal, as long as the new Royal Pains doesn’t make the same mistake as Suits LA and forgets certain elements like preserving the original’s “tone” and “fun” and “good storytelling.”

Are We Desperate for a New Housewives?

Question: Given the tendency toward reviving established IP (intellectual property), I probably should have expected Disney to try to use Desperate Housewives again at some point. But I have to admit that a reboot was not on my Bingo card. I was a fan of the original series. Although its quality varied wildly throughout its run, I generally think of it very fondly now. I know and like Kerry Washington from Scandal, but the one name that seems to be missing is Marc Cherry. Although Disney owns the property and can do whatever they want with it legally, it feels like the show was very much his vision. I’m not sure doing this is a good idea if he is not involved at all. Also, the logline basically sounds exactly like Desperate Housewives, so I’m not sure why they would need to change the name to Wisteria Lane. What are your thoughts on this? — Jake

Matt Roush: I gather, since this new version from Kerry Washington’s production company would be for Onyx Collective, which typically streams its shows on Hulu, that we’d be seeing an even more diverse cast should it go forward. And it’s too soon to know whether Marc Cherry will have an advisory or some other relationship with the show, though you’d think out of respect, they wouldn’t entirely ignore him. As with most things at this stage, I’ll keep an open mind, while expressing some skepticism at recycling old titles with the hope that creative lightning will strike twice with miracle casting. I’m OK with renaming the series Wisteria Lane, which has an iconic soap feel to it in the tradition of one of my all-time faves, Knots Landing.

And Finally …

Question: I just finished with Season 3 of Yellowjackets, and boy, am I exhausted. It’s not easy to watch with all that evil and insanity and cannibalism and stuff. Surely, isn’t it time to bring this series to an end? What else do we need to understand about these characters? Any further episodes will just be more of the same. And I promise you, I truly never did, after three seasons, completely work out who in the past were all the people in the present. (Though there are two dozen people with bigger and more important roles, I did love Elijah Wood, especially in episode 5.) — D.P.

Matt Roush: Given where they left things at the end of the third season (an improvement on the dragged-out Season 2), with Shauna past and present exposed as the main villain but with consequences then and now somewhat unresolved, and with at least one major character (Hilary Swank‘s adult Melissa) still on the loose, I’d be OK with another season, as long as the fourth was confirmed as the last. I’ve had enough.

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.)