Ask Matt: The Emmys, ‘The Pitt’ and Other Medical Dramas & 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, 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.
Seven Takes on the Emmys
Comment: Your review of the Emmys show was pretty spot-on. I’ve read several online reviews, and one found the opening sketch lame and boring, while the other liked it a lot, as did you. At any rate, a couple of observations:
1) Voters actually watched the shows this year, and didn’t just give them all to the usual, or expected, people.
2) Kudos to the edited Creative Arts Emmys the night before. That’s the way to do these shows. For example, no waiting for people to come to the stage, etc. And it was cool to have commercial actors present in the commercial category.
3) Nate Bargatze is not an inherently funny person, by which I mean that he is funny only if the material is very good. What I mean by that is, if you ask Letterman or Amy Poehler, for example, what they did today, they’d be hilarious describing whatever it was, while Bargatze and others might not be. There’s nothing wrong with not being inherently funny; it applies to people like Jimmy Kimmel, Seth Meyers, etc., among others. Fortunately, the opening sketch was great material, and Bargatze kept his remarks short in the rest of the show.
4) What was up with James Burrows, who looked unhappy when he lost? Or is that just how he always looks?
5) Owen Cooper (Adolescence) wins with the most startling acting performance I ever saw, but it was touching to see how nervous he was waiting to see whether his name would be called. He had his head down and couldn’t look up until it was announced. And the most poignant part was that Stephen Graham seemed more excited for Owen’s award than for his own.
6) Inexplicably, they are still focusing more on the singers than the departed during the In Memoriam section. If they’re going to do that, let’s have “Sad Dead Journalists” from The Paper!
7) You mentioned the two presenters who nearly stole the show, Jennifer Coolidge and Ray Romano/Brad Garrett. If all the presenters’ banter were as funny as these two, I’d vote for having more of them in the future, though, of course, presenter banter is usually just silly and a waste of time. Fortunately, the banter of the other presenters was mostly mercifully short. — D.P.
Matt Roush: I probably could have been rougher on the host and that countdown-clock gimmick (and fake threat to take money away from the Boys & Girls Clubs), but I enjoyed the opening sketch so much, and this comedian’s outsider attitude in general (despite some deer-in-the-headlights fumbling at inopportune times), that I gave him a pass, maybe because I was so satisfied by many of this year’s recipients and the fact that I had no idea where the top drama prize was heading until the very end. Such unpredictability is rare anymore. Agreed on the In Memoriam segment, which, the more of them I see, I feel they should stop booking famous singers and just let instrumental music underscore the roll call. (And it seemed quite jarring that in a year when we lost Linda Lavin, they couldn’t make a late addition of her co-star, Polly Holliday, the indelible Flo.) As for James Burrows, I’ve read his memoir and believe he’d be the first to admit to a tendency towards resting grouch face. (Although I wouldn’t be surprised if he were truly disgruntled by how underappreciated his specialty of multi-camera sitcoms has become at the Emmys.)
No Longer in Love with Nobody?
Question: A request for clarification: In your Emmy comedy nominations column, you wrote, “The year’s other newbie, Netflix‘s romcom Nobody Wants This, has its champions, but feels awfully slight by comparison.” This rather surprised me, since you gave Nobody Wants This the number 2 spot on your Best of 2024 list (yours and Peter Travers’s inclusion of it was the impetus of my watching and loving that show). Has the fizz simply faded with time, like a too-long-uncorked champagne bottle?
My second question: What the bleep were they thinking writing out Dr. Collins on The Pitt? Lord knows that show’s bench is deep enough that we’ll still get plenty of rich material next season, but the character and Tracy Ifeachor‘s performance were so relatable, touching, and emotionally intelligent that this still counts as a serious loss. There was so much potential here: further exploration of her past with Dr. Robby, possible transference of her maternal instincts to her patients, and/or the newbie doctors. I’m just baffled. — Ryan
Matt Roush: Regarding Nobody Likes This, I should point out that trying to read the Emmy tea leaves isn’t necessarily a reflection on my own feelings about the shows in competition, more a statement about how these two series (of which I’m a champion of both) are operating on a very different level. When I wrote about Nobody at the end of 2024, I hadn’t yet seen The Studio, and while I’m very eager to see the upcoming new season of Netflix’s fabulous romcom, which was one of last year’s most pleasant surprises, my affection is dwarfed by how blown away I was by the formal daring and high-risk execution of The Studio‘s Hollywood satire. (The current standings of my 2025 Top 10 list have The Pitt at the top and The Studio a strong No. 2.)
As for The Pitt not bringing back Dr. Collins and Tracy Ifeachor for Season 2, I’ll reserve judgment until we see the new season (can’t wait), but I agree that she was a key part of the first half of the first season and will likely be missed. I hope they explain or at least acknowledge her absence. But given the hyper-realistic approach that The Pitt takes to a day in the life of a busy emergency room, it’s probably also a fact that these staffs don’t stay constant over time, and the character may have pursued an opportunity elsewhere (or works a different shift). All I know about the situation is that they’ve explained this move as dictated by the story they’re telling, and for now I’ll take them at their word.
Networks a No-Show at the Emmys
Question: Why aren’t such great dramas like Law & Order, SVU, the Chicago shows, Fire Country, so many more, ever nominated for Emmy awards anymore? I’ve never heard of most of the nominated shows this year. I started to watch the Emmys and gave up. — Christine K, Belmont
Matt Roush: I’ll spare you my explanation of why broadcast network procedurals no longer register at the Emmys. (This subject has been covered at length in this space, and you can do your own research from past columns, especially around the time nominations are announced, when this subject inevitably resurfaces.) I found it somewhat nostalgic when Law & Order and SVU veterans appeared Sunday night in a recreation of the precinct set to announce the drama winner. (For reference, Law & Order won its sole Best Drama Emmy in 1997 and was last nominated in 2002. SVU was never nominated for best drama, and while Mariska Hargitay won in 2006, she hasn’t been nominated for lead actress since 2011.) To put it mildly, formula crime, hospital, and first-responder dramas aren’t the sorts of shows that are on the Emmy voters’ radar, the success of The Pitt notwithstanding.
However, I would like to comment on Christine’s reaction to seeing so many shows she’s never heard of on the ballot. And this is a failing of Emmy telecast producers, who should find a way to structure the show in a way that helps put these nominees in context with clips or, as the Oscars show has done at times, with gatherings of past winners, to honor the nominees by explaining what they’re all about, who they’re playing and why they’re special. This would also help limit witless banter and focus the show on the nominees and winners, and not on annoying time-wasting gimmicks about saving time. I can imagine viewers on Sunday who haven’t joined the streaming revolution—actually, I can’t imagine such people watching this ceremony anymore — who saw all of those winners for Adolescence without ever understanding why the show had Emmy voters so excited. A good Emmys show should get you curious about the shows you haven’t seen. Instead, they leave many in the dark.
Medical Shows That Aren’t the Pits
Question: I’m guessing from your Emmy commentary that your favorite medical drama is The Pitt. What is your second favorite? The only one I currently watch is Grey’s Anatomy (hopelessly addicted). My mom also loves Chicago Med. I hear Doc is pretty good as well. — Fred
Matt Roush: By default, I’d have to say that Grey’s Anatomy is my current other favorite medical drama. I can’t explain why I still watch it outside of habit, and after this many seasons with so many highs and lows, why stop now? (My previous other favorite used to be The Good Doctor.) I sample some of the others from time to time, and the premise of Doc is intriguing enough to recommend it, but The Pitt moved me in a way I haven’t felt for a long time, maybe since the first years of ER, or going back further, the classic St. Elsewhere.
Network TV’s Fall from Grace
Question: Referring to a recent column involving broadcast network television and TV Guide Magazine’s annual Fall Preview issue, I have to say that with the exception of series from streaming services, which are well covered, that broadcast television for Fall 2025 appears to be the bleakest looking schedule that I have seen in the history of Fall Previews! Newton Minow’s “vast wasteland” may be coming to pass at least for broadcast television. Even the once exciting and youth-oriented, “home of superheroes” network, The CW, has disappeared from the grid for the fall! Frankly, with the dearth of dramas and sitcoms between the three original networks, all those few remaining shows could probably be shuffled together onto one broadcast network, and the remaining networks could shut down! The schedule is THAT barren! Are we finally seeing the beginning of the end of broadcast network television, in your opinion? — David S.
Matt Roush: I wouldn’t go that far, and when you see the upcoming Returning Favorites issue of TV Guide Magazine to remind you of the ongoing shows coming back for new seasons, maybe that will feel less bleak. What’s happening is that the broadcast networks no longer feel confident in launching a bunch of new shows in the fall (this year, even waiting until October or later), instead playing it safe with a schedule of mostly returning series and leaning heavily on reality-TV franchises and sports to fill what used to be busy and often self-defeating lineups of new dramas and comedies. The days of dozens of new shows being promoted in the fall are over. Which doesn’t mean network TV is over, but it’s certainly evolving into a system that turns over entire new nights to sports and event programming rather than the scripted shows to which we were long accustomed.
And Finally …
Question: I was very happy to see Project Runway on Freeform after missing it for so long when it was streaming, and I was unable to get it. I don’t have streaming capabilities. My one big complaint is that the ending of the episode is not complete before going to The 700 Club. Is this a way of making sure you watch next week’s episode?
As a P.S.: Why do so many ads have to have a dedicated spokesperson? I hate the Allstate person and the new Walmart ads. — Jackie M.
Matt Roush: I did not realize this was a problem, and I can’t imagine a greater tonal disconnect than between the inclusive flamboyance of Project Runway and The 700 Club. (Disclosure: I get advance screeners of Runway, though I haven’t had time to check out much of this season, and given the choice, I’d probably be watching it on Disney+, where this wouldn’t be an issue.) Most often, when one show bleeds into another, which isn’t that uncommon on basic cable, that’s an attempt by the network to keep you from turning the channel. In this case, it sounds like a turnoff for many.
As for product pitchpersons on TV ads, they’ve been around since the dawn of the medium, with Mrs. Olson forever preparing Folger’s coffee and Mr. Whipple squeezing the Charmin while telling others not to. Annoying or not (and many of them are), they’re an effective way of branding, and the fact that you associate these characters with their brands tells me that they’re still working, like it or not.
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.)
Law & Order: Special Victims Unit where to stream
Project Runway where to stream
Watchlist Easy access to only the shows you care about — all in one simple place
Alerts Only important notifications — when a show is returning, when it becomes available to stream, and more.
Special Offers Exclusive products we release related to your favorite shows and streaming services