Ask Matt: ‘Heated Rivalry’ Hype, TV Taking Backseat to Movies at Awards Shows & More
Happy New Year! And 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.
Did Heated Rivalry Live Up to the Hype?
Question: Every so often, seemingly out of nowhere, a TV series becomes a runaway word-of-mouth hit. The first seasons of Squid Game, Yellowjackets and Stranger Things come to mind. Not to mention the ne plus ultra: Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Now we can add Heated Rivalry to the ranks. I started the first episode and must say that I have my doubts. So far, it bears far too great a resemblance to such “sports=sex and vice versa” stories as Personal Best and Challengers. What are your thoughts? Is it worth it? — Ryan
Matt Roush: Is it worth it? Of course it is. Who am I to rain on any show that breaks through the clutter the way this unexpected sleeper hit from Canada somehow managed? I trust you kept going and would be curious if it grew on you, the way the relationship between Shane and Ilya grew during the over-too-soon six episodes. I’d agree that the first episode, which took so many time jumps to establish the world of these characters, was pretty disjointed, and I doubt if it’s going to win any acting or writing awards outside the GLAAD circuit, but once it settled down it was the show’s combustible and irresistible mix of frank sexuality and earnest romance against the odds that made it the rare show that played to both the cult gay audience and the mainstream. Its success doesn’t feel quite as explosive as that of Squid Game or Stranger Things or even Buffy, but it’s still culturally significant.
Why Does TV Play Second Fiddle in Awards Shows?
Question: Regarding Sunday’s Critics Choice Awards: What’s the point of having a “Young Actor” award if it applies only to movie actors? I mean, it seems a bit bizarre to have an award like that when Owen Cooper is in the room and isn’t even nominated for it. And I really dislike the way awards shows, which cover both movies and TV, seem to make the TV awards less important by getting them out of the way before the main movie awards are given. If I remember correctly, at least the Golden Globes will usually do supporting actors in movies early to mix it up a bit. And if the awards show is going to give awards for directing, writing, music, special effects, etc., in movies, it should do so for TV shows, too. — D.P.
Matt Roush: These are all fair points. The “young actor” trophy especially seems odd to only include movie actors, although if Owen Cooper had been in that category, he’d probably have walked away with two Critics Choice wins this year (not that there’s anything wrong with that). It’s even more absurd, of course, to not recognize the writers, directors and other craftspeople involved in making TV, which also applies to the Golden Globes. But on a pragmatic level, I get it. This time of year, movies take the spotlight (deservedly or not) over TV as the awards season inevitably builds to the Oscars.
If these awards shows that combine the two mediums were to give TV equal footing, would that entail giving writing and directing awards separately to comedy and drama and limited series? (With movies, even if they separate the comedies from the dramas the way the Globes do — begging the question, One Battle After Another is a comedy? — the crafts awards put them in the same category.) Adding more TV awards might entail bestowing some of them off camera, which is a minefield of its own, or bloating the shows even further. All of which just reinforces the status of the Emmys, for all of its imperfections, as the most definitive TV awards institution. (Full disclosure: I’m a member of the Critics Choice Association and served on several of the TV nominating committees.)
Is CBS Still Committed to NCIS?
Question: Given recent events, do you think CBS will remain committed to keeping the NCIS franchise alive and well in the 2026/27 Season? — Maria
Matt Roush: By recent events, I take it you’re referring to the cancellation of the one-and-done Tony & Ziva spinoff. I wouldn’t read too much into that. In so many ways, that felt like a self-contained adventure, which might have worked even better as a movie-of-the-week (remember those?). CBS and its parent studio aren’t abandoning the NCIS franchise, at least in the immediate future, although under Paramount’s new ownership, we might see further contraction in years to come. I’d be very surprised not to see the mothership and the Origins spinoff back next season at the very least.
Are Variety Shows a Thing of the Past?
Question: Do you believe that the variety show format is dead, or are there performers who could revive it? — Robert D.
Matt Roush: The classic variety show, where a singular musical or comedic personality or duo hosted a weekly mix of sketch comedy and musical performance, has attempted several comebacks during the time I’ve been covering the beat. (Dolly Parton‘s one-season show on ABC in 1987 was one of the most significant and costly failures.) It would be a major gamble to try to bring this sort of show back again, and if it were to happen, it probably wouldn’t look or feel like the ones we remember best from their late heyday (The Carol Burnett Show, Donny & Marie and the like). Saturday Night Live arrived on the scene just as the format was beginning to fade, and seems more the template of what’s to come. Music-based reality competitions, most notably Dancing with the Stars, or talk shows like The Kelly Clarkson Show, also have variety elements that give me hope that this sort of entertainment isn’t altogether dead. But I’m not holding my breath for a prime-time renaissance.
Before Ramón Was Will
Question: To celebrate its long-awaited return this week, I wanted to sing the praises of Will Trent. It is, in my opinion, the best show on TV today and, like many procedurals, is severely underappreciated by the various awards organizations. It deserves the awards, DVD releases and, yes, Funko Pops. I think one featuring Will holding Betty would sell a lot, and I’ve already suggested it to Funko. I’ve been a Ramón Rodríguez fan for a long time, which brings me to my question. In the summer of 2014, he played the protagonist on Gang Related, a different procedural on Fox which was cancelled after one season, but, since then, has gained quite a cult following. I like to describe it as a mix of The Godfather, The Departed and a dash of Sicario. Do you have any memories of this show, and if so, what did you think of it? — Kyle
Matt Roush: I’m afraid Gang Related is one of those shows that’s lost to memory — I doubt I watched the entire season once it was clear it wasn’t a keeper — and I had to do a pretty deep dive to discover anything I’d written about it. Here’s what I found: “Is Ryan Lopez a good or bad cop? That question, reminiscent of the moral ambiguities that distinguished FX‘s The Shield, makes Gang Related more intriguing than the average police drama, even if an undertow of earnestness — he’s actually a good cop in a bad bind — keeps the show from being truly electrifying. Ryan (the appealing Ramón Rodríguez) is torn between two families: his colleagues on the LAPD’s elite Gang Task Force (including Lost‘s Terry O’Quinn as his boss) and the members of the underworld Acosta clan, a prime GTF target, who raised Ryan as an orphan and expect him to be their informant on the inside. As his worlds tumultuously collide, Ryan’s divided loyalties illuminate corruption on both sides of the law. The action scenes are impressive, the cast admirably diverse (with Cliff Curtis especially strong as Ryan’s demanding surrogate father), and the tone suitably rugged. All Gang Related needs to up the ante is a hero who’s a little more “anti-.”
I’m glad Rodríguez found his second act on TV with Will Trent. It’s in many ways a very different characterization than in Karin Slaughter‘s book series, but it works.
And Finally …
Question: Did you see the stories last month about Bryan Fuller (while promoting his film Dust Bunny) once again saying he was pitching a third season of the long-defunct Pushing Daisies? I loved that show and am still disappointed by its early cancellation. I bought the series and still watch it from time to time. However, this news gives me pause. Fuller has said he wanted to continue the show before; I remember he wanted to do a comic book after ABC cancelled it, and there had been some chatter about a musical, but none of that ever became substantial. It would be fun to see those characters again, but it’s been such a long time that I have let this go. If, after all this time, they are able to revive it, but it’s not as good, that would be worse than letting it rest in peace. What do you think? — Jake
Matt Roush: Not to be a cynic, especially about a show this delightfully original, but I’ll believe it when I see it, and this sounds an awful lot like wishful thinking. But then, I suppose Pushing Daisies is one of those TV miracles (like the musical comedy Galivant) that inspires wishful thinking. It’s amazing to me that this ever aired on a broadcast network (2007-09), even more so that ABC gave it a second season. Maybe if an adventurous and eclectic streamer (like Apple TV, home for a while of Schmigadoon!) bought Fuller’s pitch, I’d be hopeful that magic could happen again. But until then, I’ll just consider this a pleasant dream.
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.)







