Ask Matt: Sports Fatigue, ‘Buffy’ and Other Reboots, Unlikable Characters and More

Welcome to the Q&A with longtime 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 every other Tuesday.

The Madness of Sports Interruptions

Question: We just endured the winter break, and then the Olympics, and along comes March Madness, another reason to delay our regularly scheduled programs. With the advent of so many sports-oriented cable channels, not to mention the numerous streaming services, why do we viewers have to have our favorite programs interrupted by this event? Can’t March Madness find itself another home? We already had to wait for our programs to return and now we must wait another, what is it, two weeks before programs are back on schedule.

As you probably have guessed, I am not a fan of college basketball, or sports for that matter. Yes, I love it when the local teams win, but I also enjoy watching TV programs. As you have noted in this column many times, the times are a’ changin’, so why not move the Madness to a new home and let the regular programs continue their run. — Rob Bob, Woonsocket, R.I.

Related

Which CBS Shows Aren't Airing Because of March Madness?

Matt Roush: I’ll admit to a conflict of interest when addressing this particular situation. I have a particular fondness for March Madness and the Final Four — my alma mater, Indiana University, won the NCAA championship my senior year (I’ll let you guess when), and a member of my household works the main event each year. I also find the games, and the prospects of dramatic upsets, at least as exciting as most of the shows the networks deign to air anymore. But my real answer here, as it is whenever the issue of sports-vs-scripted TV comes up, is that without live sports programming, with its ratings and demographics and ad dollars, the networks would lose even more relevance than they already have. It’s still sometimes shocking to me that cable (first ESPN, and in this case the Turner networks) and now streaming have encroached into the live sports marketplace and that the NCAA championship game will air on TBS instead of CBS. (The women’s championship airs on ABC, but not in primetime.) If you forced them to choose one over the other, which will never happen, I’m not sure scripted shows would win out.

Reboot Sadness and Glee

Question: Talk about whiplash! First, we learned that Hulu is not moving forward with the Buffy the Vampire Slayer reboot, which was shocking news. But maybe they knew what they were doing after they saw the pilot. Do you have any info on the why of it? And then the next day we learned that another Joss Whedon creation, Firefly, could be coming back! If I hadn’t just learned from the Buffy experience, I would have just written how exciting it is that Firefly IS coming back. Fool me once…

With Scrubs back in rather fine form, I was kind of looking forward to many more favorite shows being rebooted. (While it wasn’t nearly as good as the original Frasier, I did enjoy watching that reboot). — Mike in N.J.

Matt Roush: For context on why Hulu nixed Buffy the Vampire Slayer: New Sunnydale, a decision I admit surprised me as well, check out this story. The gist is that the project lacked corporate support, which didn’t bode well for its long-term future even if they’d given it a green light past the pilot. You’ll be hard pressed to find a Buffy fan more ardent than me — moderating a Buffy cast reunion and screening during the 2008 Paley Fest in Los Angeles remains a treasured memory — but I was anticipating the reboot with equal parts excitement and trepidation, so I’ll hope for the best if they ever take another stab at it. Likewise, should Firefly rise from the cancellation ashes in animated form and find a happier home, I’ll be there.

Who’s to Like, Sitcom Version

Question: Serious question: Who are we supposed to like in NBC’s The Fall and Rise of Reggie Dinkins? I’ve been watching it because I like Daniel Radcliffe and haven’t been able to resist seeing him every week. Like many, I was a big Harry Potter kid and grew up alongside him in those movies. But as much as he has been a significant figure in my life, I don’t know that I like Reggie Dinkins. There have been some funny lines here and there that I’ve laughed at, and it’s a pleasure to see him, and the cast is doing well with what they’re being asked to do. But I don’t find the show particularly pleasurable. The sitcoms that I enjoy most (currently, Ghosts and Abbott Elementary, but also historically things like The Middle, Modern Family, The Good Place, Suburgatory, and let’s throw in Golden Girls repeats) I have responded to because I like those characters. It was fun to spend time with them every week and I looked forward to their company as much as I did to laughing at whatever situations they found themselves in.

I don’t think Reggie Dinkins is poorly made, and I haven’t tuned out yet. But I also don’t really feel like I like any of the characters as people, and I’m admiring it on a technical level more than I am connecting with it emotionally. If the same show existed without Daniel Radcliffe in the documentarian role, I wouldn’t even be writing you this email because I wouldn’t have made it past the pilot. And yet I’m still watching it and finding it reasonably amusing, but it’s not resonating with me like other sitcoms do. I don’t get it. What am I missing here? — Jake

Matt Roush: I’m not sure you’re missing anything. You’ve found yourself in that weird but not uncommon state of being drawn to a show that you can appreciate without it being your proverbial cup of tea. Reggie Dinkins falls into that school of TV comedy maybe best described as willful absurdism, where the characters are ridiculous without being particularly empathetic. I find myself drawn more to Radcliffe as the more subtly played on-the-skids filmmaker Arthur than to Reggie, the latest in Tracy Morgan‘s gallery of obtuse and bellowing buffoons, but even Arthur has a creepy manipulative side that makes his comeback mission more pathetic than funny and not that easy to root for or care about in the long term. It doesn’t surprise me that you’re having trouble warming up to a show that doesn’t exude very much warmth.

Related

Midseason 2026 New TV Shows Ratings: 'Scrubs,' 'Marshals,' 'Memory of a Killer, and More

Who’s to Like, Drama Version

Question: I am so perplexed by Matlock. On one hand I can’t wait for each episode (although CBS has been very disjointed with its scheduling), the cast is terrific (Skye P. Marshall and Sam Anderson my favorites) and the secondary cases remind me of great legal dramas of the 2000s. However, the Matty storyline really frustrates me by its sheer disbelief and how preposterously it is being padded out. This woman has broken so many laws, has zero moral compass, and although Kathy Bates does her best, she is really unlikeable as a character. I really dislike her; she’s just selfish and I don’t really care for the motive. I am assuming CBS has long-term plans for the series, but how much longer do we need to tolerate this storyline. And really, what happens when she gets her justice? I mean, she should be fired, disbarred and probably arrested for what she has done here. I know it’ll never happen, but I would be happy if the series continues with a story-of-the-week concept with Olympia leading the charge rather than the rotten Matlock. I love the great Kathy Bates, but nobody can make a despicable character sympathetic. — Liam

Matt Roush: This issue has dogged the “reinvented” Matlock from the beginning, at least in my mailbag, but the show’s success seems to indicate that a majority of viewers still believe in Matty’s mission if not her methods, which are questionable at best. It’s interesting that someone who takes such a viral dislike to the main character can still enjoy the bones of the show: the legal setting, the supporting cast, especially Marshall, who really is delivering a star-making performance here. With a new version of The Count of Monte Cristo now airing on Masterpiece, I’m reminded that elaborate revenge plots are nothing new, and for some, Matty’s crusade for accountability to ensure that her daughter didn’t die in vain puts her on the side of the angels, even when her deception goes over the top.

Should Their Dramatic License Be Revoked?

Question: What do you think of the controversy about the portrayal of Daryl Hannah in Love Story: John F. Kennedy Jr. and Carolyn Bessette? How can TV shows get away with just making stuff up for dramatic effect about living people whose reputations they are tarnishing, even alleging criminal activity? I’ve read that she is considering suing. I’ve also read that the people behind the show acknowledge that what they say about her is untrue, and that they just don’t care. Making things up about living people is not new. The Crown would be nowhere if they hadn’t done it. And even Olivia de Havilland sued about her portrayal in Feud, but she was already 101 and died before the suit could go anywhere. — D.P.

Matt Roush: While I liked much about Love Story, especially Sarah Pidgeon as Carolyn, the depiction of Daryl Hannah as so whiny and needy struck me as needlessly crude, and I’m not surprised the actual person would take offense. Whether it rises, or sinks, to the level of such character assassination as to merit legal recourse, I’m not equipped to say. I might be fearful that by taking them to court, it gives the whole project more oxygen.

Related

'Love Story' Boss Explains Why Carole Radziwill Is Missing From the Show (Exclusive)

Attracted to Coming Attractions

Question: Maybe I am old school or stuck in my ways from the era of broadcast where they would give promos/previews of the week or weeks ahead at the end of most episodes. My question is: Why don’t more streamers or shows in general on streaming platforms give those same tags for the next episode? I can’t imagine it costs a lot to do or takes too much more time in production. It appears that a lot more streaming shows are shifting into week to week instead of a binge drop, some shows like Cross (Prime Video) or Paradise (Hulu) at least give you a promo for the weeks ahead after the first episode/episodes of the season. The Pitt, in my opinion, is the gold standard of what streaming shows should be: a pretty full season with 15 episodes and constantly giving a look ahead (plus it actually comes out yearly). Like I said, I’m probably just a product of a bygone era, but would love to hear your opinion on the matter. — Brian

Matt Roush: For shows that drop episodes weekly, I get the appeal of a “what’s coming next” preview, although even in the good old days, I would get frustrated if they gave too much away. Teasing what’s next has always been part of the TV experience. I’ve also noticed the “coming this season” trailers they’re adding to many shows after the first drop, and while I tend to watch them, I sometime wish I hadn’t, because I’m so spoiler averse. I understand why shows being binge-dropped don’t put “coming next” tags after each episode, because they’re hoping you’ll just stay put as one episode bleeds into the next. Anticipating these tags has been built into our TV-watching DNA, and I don’t have a good answer why some platforms or producers of weekly series would willingly opt out.

An Autopsy of Scarpetta

Question: Can I share just how disappointed I was with Prime Video’s Scarpetta. It’s not the worst show at all, but it’s most dissatisfying and what a tremendous waste of a cast. I am aware of but never read the books so I am not even disappointed with how faithful the adaptation is. I am just underwhelmed by the story choices. The crime aspect is really secondary, like a background character focusing on this melodramatic narrative instead. The flashback scenes really take up too much time, and everyone feels like they’re stuck in 1978 not 1998. I don’t recall 1998 being so retro.

The cast. Oh, the cast. What a waste. Nicole Kidman may be one of the most interesting actresses today, zigzagging between TV shows and each time delivering something interesting. Here, she seems really bored, as if she’s sedated or something. I was excited to see Simon Baker back on our screens, but he is just as sedated as if asleep the whole way through. Bobby Cannavale fares better, but Ariana DeBose is proving that post-Oscar curse slump truly exists. Her role is pointless, the character cringe and the performance odd. But then there’s the fabulous Jamie Lee Curtis who, sad to say, is putting in her worst performance of her career. If Kidman is underacting, Curtis isn’t just over-acting, she’s hijacking and running amok. Did anyone have the guts to stop her when filming and tell her to stop? The character is rather vile already, but Curtis decided to make her even more vile, and then adds more vile on top. Also, Kidman and Curtis do a shocking job at playing Italians.

I got through all eight episodes, but by the end of it, I can’t recall any crime aspects and just remember Curtis running around screaming like a lunatic for eight hours. I thought this was done, but apparently there’s a second season already commissioned. So Prime Video has canned a lot of great one-season dramas recently, but star power alone gets Scarpetta to a second year, obviously. — Sean V.

Matt Roush: My own review of the series wasn’t much more positive, and I also felt the domestic scenes, especially those involving Jamie Lee Curtis’s overbearing character (I blame the writers and director more than the actor), drew focus away from the main storyline, and I hope the second season reduces or omits altogether the dual timelines. While I have my issues with over-simplified case-of-the-week procedurals, I’m also growing weary of overly drawn out, season-long mysteries as we’ve seen lately on this and the underwhelming second season of Cross, also on Prime Video.

And Finally …

Question: Something I’ve noticed lately on Chicago Fire is there are often episodes where not everyone is in it. Recently, three of the main actors were not in it and the next week Severide was out. Is there a reason this keeps happening? Are there too many main people that they can’t handle everyone being on at once anymore? — Amy D.

Matt Roush: What you’re noticing is something that’s afflicting many long-running ensemble dramas with large casts, and that would be budget cuts. In most of these shows, especially noticeable lately on Grey’s Anatomy as well as on some of Dick Wolf’s series, many actors are only contracted for a certain number of episodes, and for budgetary reasons won’t be used for a handful of episodes during the season. Sometimes characters are not included in an occasional episode for creative reasons, but when a major character like Severide goes MIA, it’s usually because of the bottom line.

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.)