Ask Matt: The Emmys’ Big Move, Quirky Crime-Solvers, New Fall TV (‘Cupertino’) & 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.

Emmys on Streaming

Question: What’s your take on the Emmy Awards moving away from its longtime home on broadcast TV after making a deal with Prime Video for the next six years on a streaming platform? I was maybe more shocked when the Oscars announced they were moving from ABC to YouTube in a few years, but this felt more like another concession that the traditional broadcasters have pretty much just given up. I’m kind of sad but not surprised. — Jeff B.

Matt Roush: In retrospect, it does feel somewhat inevitable, given how marginalized the broadcast networks have become to the TV Academy and its voters. And, from what I read in my mailbag, how disenchanted regular viewers of network TV are towards a ceremony honoring shows many have barely heard about, let alone ever watched. There was, I’m sure, a financial incentive to break from the rotating network “wheel” format as well, but I’m more interested in what it says about the medium in general that “TV’s biggest night” will no longer be airing on what we used to think of as TV. Outside of Abbott Elementary (comedy) and This Is Us (drama) in recent years, only Saturday Night Live, late-night TV, and the occasional entertainment special get any love—and a lot of that has to do with the fact that the networks’ parent companies tend to put their more distinctive and challenging shows on their streaming platforms. (As I’ve noted before, if The West Wing were to come along today, it’s hard to imagine it not being a streaming exclusive.)

In a more anemic-by-the-year prime-time schedule, most network shows tend to hue to formula, for better or worse, and when they aim higher, they rarely survive in today’s unforgiving, fractured and content-glutted marketplace. (Think NBC‘s gone-too-soon Brilliant Minds, which in another time would likely have been an Emmy contender, at the very least for Zachary Quinto‘s lead performance.) For these and other reasons, the Emmys’ popularity has also dimmed in an awards-saturated environment, and its migration to an eager streaming platform might bode well for the institution’s future. This is a sign of the times in capital letters.

TV Crime Solvers: Quirky or Irksome?

Comment: So I see that the current TV trend of “Quirky Characters Collaborating in Crime-Solving Capers” continues (try and say that three times fast). Case in point: Elsbeth‘s personality is so off the wall that it makes me cringe. It’s one thing to have a few personal peculiarities, but she’s just an unsettling bundle of psychological tics. I only tune in at the beginning of episodes to see the guest-star villain or villainess and how they creatively off their victim.

High Potential‘s Morgan is more enjoyable for me because her quirky character is more emotionally grounded, though somewhat hyper (probably precipitated by her constantly racing thoughts), and I find her cases more cleverly written. Plus it’s Kaitlin Olson. I also enjoyed the pilot of Kathy Bates‘ quirky Matlock reimagining but couldn’t continue watching the show because it conflicted with Law & Order: SVU—and since I only watch TV over the air, I couldn’t tape it.

I know that quirky (but serious) GBI agent Will Trent is very popular, and I keep giving him tries, but I usually give up watching because I find his accent hard to understand. I’ve also tried a few times to tune into R.J. Decker‘s quirky private detective, but the character just doesn’t resonate with me. Maybe it’s because the location conflicts with my fond memories of Miami Vice. And judging from the first two episodes of Line of Fire, we now have a quirky Blue Bloods clone. I gave the pilot a shot but switched it off after 20 minutes. I found none of the characters to be remotely realistic or interesting, and I sensed the plotlines were just going to tread familiar territory.

I’ll hold off judgment on Cupertino, because I find the idea of a law firm going up against Silicon Valley, specializing in tech cases, to be both intriguing and timely. Still, the trailers have me twitching uncomfortably. The crown jewels of quirky law firms are still Ally McBeal, The Practice and Boston Legal. Comments? — Maurice

Matt Roush: My first thought is that if your menu is limited to over-the-air TV, can you afford to be this picky? (I am sorry that you’re not being exposed to BritBox‘s terrific Ludwig, which returns this week. And for clever quirkiness, the recently concluded Marble Hall Murders on PBS Masterpiece with Lesley Manville and its two predecessors are worth seeking out.) I would agree that of this batch, High Potential tends to ground its quirkiness in the most relatable character, though I appreciate the darkness of Will Trent‘s world. (The books are much darker.) It seems off target to compare the funky lightness of R.J. Decker to the dark gloss of Miami Vice just because they’re set in the same state, though not remotely in the same world.

And I hope you’ll give Cupertino a chance—although it sounds like you’ll have to choose between that and Law & Order. Many of the courtroom antics reminded me of the glory days of David E. Kelley-brand legal drama, from L.A. Law through The Practice, Ally, and Boston Legal, though filtered through the brilliant sensibilities of Robert and Michelle King, whose The Good Wife was one of the last great gasps of network legal drama, with five Emmys to show for it.

Is Cupertino Too Good for Network TV?

Question: I know it’s not your role when reviewing a new series to dwell too much on its likelihood of surviving in the long run, but given the recent track record of network TV—most specifically the fate of Evil (also from the Kings), which left CBS after one season for Paramount+ to finish its run—do you fear that Cupertino may be too ambitious given what tends to succeed on the networks these days? From yours and other reviews, it seems like the show is heavily serialized and will require more concentration than the typical procedural, and its concerns (the complexity and implications of AI) go beyond the usual whodunit. I like what I’ve seen so far, but we’ve all been burned before when getting attached to smart TV. — Glenna

Matt Roush: I tend to be cautiously optimistic when presented with a show I enjoy this much, and they’re already so far ahead on production—it’s been a while since a broadcast series had a full 10 episodes to screen before a fall premiere—I believe CBS will give this a long runway to catch on. I hope so, anyway. While the cases are beyond relevant and the plotting intricate and almost always surprising, Cupertino is, putting it mildly, a blast. It deserves to be on a platform available to as large a population as possible.

This Isn’t the Real Cupertino

Question: In your review, you call Cupertino “the best and most entertaining new show this fall on any platform.” You devoured all 10 episodes. So here is what 10 episodes taught you about the real Cupertino: nothing. The Census puts the city’s Asian population at 70.9%. The show answers with one Asian series regular, Vic, the helpful coder. It was filmed in New Jersey. A rave this enthusiastic carries weight, and it also carries a blind spot. A show that flatters its audience’s intelligence cannot afford to insult it. The premise is that tech giants are arrogant and always assume they know best. The production took the same attitude toward Cupertino. A drama about arrogance, made with arrogance. Which raises the question: Does the show think its audience is too incurious to notice, or did its makers never notice themselves? Either answer is damning for a show this sure of its own intelligence. — Mandy, Seattle, WA

Matt Roush: If I wanted to watch a show about the real Cupertino, I’d probably search out a documentary. I’ll concede to my and the producers’ blind spot when it comes to the local demographics, the criticism of which I became aware of after filing my review. Wouldn’t have changed anything, really. Title aside (and maybe they should have found a better one), I don’t see Cupertino as being about Cupertino itself, as much as being about the culture of the industry that’s based there that is responsible for the moral, legal, and existential quagmires of AI. The show mostly takes place in boardrooms and courtrooms and the rarefied world of the billionaire titans who control the companies developing AI.

I’m not trying to minimize the importance of representation on TV, which is a genuine and tangible issue, and maybe as the show continues, they’ll do a better job of it. To its credit, the show is racially blended, though not particularly in favor of Asian characters, the exception being Nik Dodani as their go-to tech expert, who becomes a big part of the show from the second episode onward. It’s not enough, but it’s almost never enough. And for that matter, I expect there are more queer characters in the world of AI and tech than we see in this first season of Cupertino. None of which detracts from the fact that this is one terrific show, and as is almost always the case, it’s a work in progress.

Vamping on Eternally Yours

Question: I miss Ghosts, but I tuned into Eternally Yours because it’s the same showrunners. The thing that hooked me on Ghosts right away was the characters. They were enjoyable company, and I wanted to spend more time with them. With Eternally Yours, I’m more curious about how the plot is going to advance, though I’m not sure if these characters are as instantly likable as Sam, Jay, and the ghosts. [Spoiler] I’ve got to give the show credit for surprising me with Max (Jaren Lewison) being turned into a vampire at the end of the episode. I thought they would play with the dynamic of Max being human longer than one episode, but they just went and turned him right at the end. I was not expecting them to do that this soon.

It was also an interesting choice that Max didn’t actually have any scenes with Emma (Helen J. Shen) after he left their house the first time, because we really don’t know where their relationship stands right now. I want to see her reaction to him being turned into a vampire and what that will mean for their dynamic going forward. The pilot did its job in that it made me want to watch more of this. What do you think?  Would you keep watching this even if TV was not your job? — Jake

Matt Roush: The pilot episode was such a set-up that I would have no choice but to keep watching if I were the least bit interested, job or no job. I like a good supernatural comedy, though I’m not yet sure if this qualifies to enter the ranks of Bewitched, Ghosts, or (a high bar) What We Do in the Shadows. The series initially seems more interested in the extreme long-term relationship angle than the vampire of it all, and what’s most obvious from the start is that there isn’t as wide and colorful a variety of characters as we enjoy on Ghosts. The network just dropped two more episodes, which I haven’t had time to watch yet, but I will dig in and see how the show develops. Read on for a different view.

Question: My husband and I nixed Eternally Yours after the first episode. What more is there to say about vampires that we haven’t already seen? The characters of Charles, Liz, and Max, along with the actors playing them, were weak. And the mind-wiping gag was tiresome before the episode was over. The twin boys were the only somewhat interesting characters. Do you think Eternally Yours will last for a full season, due to its cushy time slot on a night that’s strong for CBS? Also, CBS might not have any new episodes of Ghosts ready to go, so the network might be stuck with Eternally Yours for the season. Or maybe other viewers will like it more than we did. Thoughts? — Julie

Matt Roush: I’d expect CBS will stick with the show at least through the midseason, when Ghosts is scheduled to return. (Before then, a special Ghosts Halloween episode airs on Oct. 29 and a Christmas special is scheduled for Dec. 10.) It isn’t clear whether the two will be thematically paired on Thursdays going forward after the new year, or if Ghosts will take over its time period. A lot depends on how Eternally Yours performs and whether viewers (and possibly critics) determine whether the rather thin premise has legs. First impressions are important, of course, and your negative reaction seems an honest one. I’ll keep covering the show in the “Worth Watching” space if they keep making episodes available, and if it gets better or noticeably worse, maybe that will help you decide whether to give it another chance. There’s still a lot of world-building to be done on this show.

And Finally …

Question: What are your thoughts on the recent Jeopardy! Masters? Part of me enjoyed it; most of me didn’t. It felt padded out because it’s six contestants of varying personalities for nine episodes and felt repetitive. I mean, again with Yogesh Raut? (Three times on Masters)—and the gratingly obnoxious Victoria Groce? (I was at least happy Amy Schneider wasn’t back, phew). The issue I find with these Masters is they come in without much personality and a little too much ego, making it hard to really root for them. Part of the Jeopardy! appeal is watching regular people hit it big.

There’s got to be a way to make this concept move quicker and with more people. There’s so much Jeopardy! right now: Celebrity, ESPN, Pop Culture, Masters. This didn’t feel any different except that they brought back some of their favorites. Even the questions remained the same as a daily version. I mean I keep thinking why not each year bring back some of the strongest contestants of the last calendar year and make it super-hard, etc., instead of bringing back people in their Jeopardy! community. Thanks for letting me vent. — Sean

Matt Roush: We’ve commented quite a few times in this column on Jeopardy! franchise fatigue, and I’m personally not thrilled when tournaments interrupt gameplay for too much of the syndicated daily show’s regular season. The exception being the essential Tournament of Champions, which is what you seem to be describing in wishing for a showcase for a given year’s strongest contestants. (The winner advances to Masters.) That said, a yearly platform for established Masters seems a fair use of the format, and to be really fair, I think it’s worth keeping in mind that as ubiquitous as some of these players have become to Jeopardy! fans—and we all have our favorites and non-favorites—they’re not, for the most part, polished TV personalities. They’re still by and large regular folks who happen to be trivia experts, so maybe cut them some slack.

Like Sean, though, I was puzzled why so few players were invited for this year’s Masters tournament and would probably enjoy more variety in the casting going forward, although champions have earned the right to keep coming back if they want. We’ll end this discussion with simple advice on how to avoid getting Jeopardy! burnout: Be selective. No one has to watch them all. (Except, of course, for the daily show.)

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.)