Ask Matt: Should We Take a Chance on a Show That’s Been Canceled? Vamping on ‘Lestat’ & 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.

Why Watch Something That Isn’t Coming Back?

Question: I was disheartened to hear about Netflix‘s cancellation of The Boroughs. The show had an excellent pedigree with the Duffer Brothers as well as a stellar cast of actors. I added it to my list of shows I want to watch, and then poof! It’s gone. This happens often enough to shows that I want to watch on various streaming services, so my question is this: Should I even bother watching them, since they won’t be around any longer, or should I cut my losses and move on to something else? If the show ends on a cliffhanger (which I wouldn’t know since I haven’t watched it), the frustration of knowing it won’t be resolved can be annoying, to say the least. Or should I watch these shows and enjoy them for whatever reason drew them to my attention in the first place? I’m curious about your opinion, since your job involves watching a lot of television, so your time is even more valuable than mine in this regard. — Tony

Matt Roush: Given that I tend to watch a show before its fate has been decided, my take on this issue has always been that if something is intriguing enough to put on your watchlist, you should probably give it a shot even if its run was cut short. That’s definitely my feeling regarding The Boroughs, which can be enjoyed as a limited series. There are some open-ended aspects to the story, but it’s a mostly self-contained adventure with many wonderful performances from a cast of veteran character actors who I’m sorry we won’t get to see take the show further. Why deny yourself the pleasure of enjoying something this good just because the powers that be are so short-sighted?

I faced a similar issue recently when NBC shelved the final episodes of Brilliant Minds, not bringing this unusually compelling medical drama back until after the broadcast season had officially ended, effectively sealing its doom even before the cancellation was made official. I had trouble convincing people who I knew were fans of the series to check back in because they knew it wasn’t getting a third year. They missed some good episodes, including a major resolution of the core love story. On the other hand, they also missed the last few scenes which set up some unnecessary cliffhangers, so they were spared that frustration.

To paraphrase a favorite saying, I tend to believe that it’s better to have loved and lost a show than never to have loved it at all.

Why did Vampire Lestat Go Rogue in the Finale?

Question: All through The Vampire Lestat, I was marveling at how faithful they were to the book and the established characters and canon. Sure, there were some things out of order and a few small changes, but mostly it was exactly what fans would have wanted (unlike the horrible Mayfair Witches adaptation). But what the *** was the final episode? Why, when your source material is one of the most successful and loved books ever, do you just invent an hour’s worth of stuff of your own to end the series? I don’t get it.

I do still give the series a “thumbs up,” though, and hope that they return to and remain with the canon in future seasons. — D.P.

Matt Roush: For the whys and wherefores of the creative decisions behind this season of The Vampire Lestat, I’m going to direct you toward our excellent coverage by Kelli Boyle of the series and the finale. My own take is rather complicated, because I believe shows based on properties with devoted cult followings should be able to live on their merits and be allowed to find their own way to tell the story. (A similar debate is raging over the liberties taken by Christopher Nolan‘s version of The Odyssey, as I’m sure most have noticed.)

It has been many years since I’ve read Anne Rice‘s Vampire Chronicles — I stalled several volumes in, to be honest — and my reaction to this rock-star season was mixed. Sam Reid was never less than mesmerizing as Lestat, but the narrative felt muddled to me in the way it jumbled and sometimes short-changed his backstory, and it often felt like it took for granted that viewers were in the know, so why should they bother clarifying matters? The penultimate episode involving Lestat and Louis was my favorite, as it harkened back to the romantic eroticism that distinguished the two seasons of Interview with the Vampire, which I loved (much as I loved the original novel more than anything that followed). Another high point: the Claudia séance a week earlier. But then the double beheading happened, and I was as “WTF” as anyone, I’m sure. I kind of enjoyed the scenes of Armand debating Louis’ disembodied head, something I’d never seen before, but Daniel carrying Lestat’s in a bowling bag just felt silly. So while I give them credit for the “long table” sequence as a metaphor for Lestat’s ongoing self-flagellating psychodrama, I get why purists might object. I’m going to anticipate the Season 4 Queen of the Damned as a reset — and maybe do some rereading in the meantime.

The Lowdown on The Lowdown

Question: Amid all of the Emmy nomination hubbub this month, one show that I saw very little discussion about was one of my favorites last year: FX‘s The Lowdown, with a sensational lead performance by Ethan Hawke as the woebegone “truthstorian” Lee Raybon. The show was completely ignored, and I can’t help wondering if you think it would have had a better shot if he and the show had submitted as a drama rather than a comedy? — Sean

Matt Roush: Hard to say. Shows like this that live on the border of comedy and drama can be hard to categorize properly. When it comes to Emmy recognition, something this offbeat might be regarded as too heavy for comedy — although then, how to explain the success in its first seasons of The Bear, which is much dourer, if that’s a word — and maybe wouldn’t be taken seriously enough alongside the top dramas (although The Diplomat, for one example, is often screamingly funny). I wouldn’t propose a separate dramedy category, because there are already too many, but I’ll admit I was rooting for Ethan Hawke, who’s a major talent coming off a well-deserved Oscar nomination for the relatively small-scale Blue Moon. In The Lowdown, he plays a true underdog, and that applies to its Emmy profile as well.

Do We Spy a Renewal?

Question: My wife and I watched Seasons 1 and 2 of The Agency on Paramount+ with Showtime and really enjoyed it. Has any decision been reached as to whether there will be a Season 3? — John G.

Matt Roush: Nothing yet, but there’s reason to be hopeful, because there were five seasons of The Bureau, the French series on which The Agency is based, so there’s a road map for carrying the story forward. Besides, it would be bad form to leave Martian (Michael Fassbender) hanging that way, so if for whatever reason Paramount+ doesn’t go forward with a third season, maybe they could at the very least wrap things up with a movie finale. I’m not sure if it was the right or wrong move for the streamer to release the second season all at once during the height of World Cup mania, rather than weekly as the first season was scheduled. This feels like a toss-up, but should the worst happen, The Bureau is also streaming on Paramount+ so you can still see how things turned out there.

Bring My (Blank) Back!

Question: When will Match Game 2026 with Martin Short be airing? — Mikey C.

Matt Roush: Not this summer, and ABC didn’t include Match Game as a backup contender in its fall season announcement, so the future of the game show appears to be in limbo for now. This doesn’t mean the show is gone for good. It doesn’t take much to get shows like this and The 0,000 Pyramid (also currently MIA) up and running, but for now, consider it on indefinite hiatus.

Streaming’s Churn Factor

Question: In past columns involving questions about streaming, you’ve mentioned the practice of people signing on to a streaming service to watch desired programs and then canceling. I have signed up for some streaming services because I wanted to watch some series that weren’t available any other way; The Handmaid’s Tale caused me to get Hulu, and Outlander made me sign up for Starz. Except for Starz, I have remained a satisfied, paying customer of streaming networks. I find their original programming entertaining (Apple TV is my favorite), and I like that I can watch network programs the next day on the corresponding streamer.

My question: Are there numbers to show that viewers are signing up for streaming due to networks teasing a new show (Paradise), or relegating an established show to its streaming service? We are fortunate that our cable provider in Florida, Spectrum, gives us Disney+ (with Hulu & ESPN), Paramount+, Peacock, AMC+ and HBO Max as part of its service. We are even more fortunate that the cable service is included in our monthly, very reasonable, HOA fee. Add my paying for Netflix and Apple TV, and I am never without entertainment on TV at a very affordable cost. Thanks for always being informative in this column. I value your opinions and answers to fans’ questions. — Adrienne, Winter Garden, FL

Matt Roush: You are lucky not to have to spend a fortune to enjoy the best of both worlds with an affordable cable and streaming package. My mailbag leans toward the dilemma of consumers having to make either-or choices. And while I appreciate your feedback, I confess to being somewhat at sea when it comes to crunching streaming viewer numbers.

Allow me to generalize by stating the obvious: Churn is a constant for most streamers, possibly even more than it was traditionally for premium cable channels (HBO always seeing a spike for new seasons of hits like The Sopranos and Game of Thrones, for instance) Anecdotally, it does seem like there’s a surge when a streamer lands a new hit like Paradise, whose second season may also have benefited by the exposure of Season 1 on ABC last year. And when streamers give a lifeline to a canceled network series, there may be a bounce as well, though the real advantage there may be to the parent studio. The way that I look at my role now is to try to steer people toward shows that matter on all of these platforms — I’m sure I miss a few — and it’s up to the consumer to figure out what makes sense for them.

And Finally …

Comment: After spending a month watching World Cup soccer, I’m catching up fast on streaming series. What a treat Apple TV’s Maximum Pleasure Guaranteed is! The premise and plot are original and well-written, and of course Tatiana Maslany is great. But for me the show is made by the fun and excellent performances of the minor characters, such as the two work friends (especially the male one, and in an office where almost nothing ever seems to get done, workwise), the female detective, and even Sky, the second camboy (even though he wasn’t around long, he was great). It’s full of great character actors. Mind you, I wish they had gone “one and done” instead of planning a second season.

I also liked Star City a lot. Too bad Apple TV seemed to do nothing to promote it. Referring to a matter we discussed in a past column, Star City was not on Apple’s Top 10 list through most of its run. Thanks for doing your part with your regular mentions! And Anna Maxwell Martin, it doesn’t get much better than she is. — Paul T.

Matt Roush: I’m surprised that Apple TV hasn’t yet renewed Maximum Pleasure Guaranteed, which may have got a big lost amid the fuss being made over Apple TV’s much noisier new hit, Widow’s Bay. It’s a fair point that this would have made an excellent limited series, and should it not return (in keeping with the question that opened this week’s column) I’ll be glad to have gone on the ride and not worry about the last twist that put Paula (Maslany) in more peril. As for Star City: It was more of a slow burn and considerably more downbeat than its sister series For All Mankind, so I wasn’t surprised that it didn’t garner a lot of attention. I’m hoping Mankind fans will discover it, because it builds to some excellent and suspenseful moments. And I agree about Anna Maxwell Martin. Her icy portrayal of the KGB’s Colonel Raskova was one of the year’s great villainous turns.

That’s all for now, and I’ll be away for a while in August, so we’ll pick up the conversation when I return. 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.)