Ask Matt: ‘Glee’ and Other Reboots, Tony’s ‘NCIS’ Comeback & 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.

Déjà vu or Déjà Boo?

Question: What’s your take on this never-ending trend of reboots, or revivals, or reunions, or whatever we’re calling them now? I’m all for nostalgia, and some (Glee, The X-Files) sound more promising than others (Baywatch), but why so many? And won’t it make it harder for people with original ideas to get their projects made — maybe in hopes of being revived someday? — Scott T

Matt Roush: The “why” is fairly easy. In this cluttered media landscape, leaning on established IP (intellectual property) is a sure way to get attention, for better or worse. A recognizable title can help a show break out of the pack, and there’s a comfort level when it comes to welcoming back favorite characters or even premises. It’s understandable why programmers in the broadcast and now streaming worlds keep going there, even when evidence shows it’s not always easy for lightning to strike twice. Doesn’t stop them from trying. As they once sang on Glee, don’t stop believing.

A Gleek for Artie

Question: I loved Glee when it started. The first season especially was really special television. I tend to be super-loyal to my habit shows, but Glee is the rare show where I did eventually jump off the train when it got too ridiculous and unfocused in later seasons. I came back for the last few episodes of the final season just to see how it would end and remember being underwhelmed. I really can’t see what the creative purpose is of reviving it now, can you? They’ll have to find a balance between allowing new cast members to shine as the next generation and figuring out how to weave in the original cast’s reappearances — which was one of their big problems in later seasons. I certainly haven’t asked for a sequel. But if they’re going to do it, I hope it’s good and I’ll probably at least sample it.

It’s a no-brainer that Lea Michele is coming back. She was such a central figure of the original that I suspect there are a lot of people who would say it’s not Glee without Rachel. But when I saw the news, the first person I wondered about was Kevin McHale. I read somewhere that he once said that he didn’t realize at the time that he shouldn’t have played Artie because it should have been played by an actor who actually uses a wheelchair, and that he wouldn’t do it today if the show came back around. But I think Artie should come back, and Kevin McHale should play him.

Speaking as a wheelchair user, I felt very seen by Artie’s inclusion last time. Glee was the first time I saw a character using a wheelchair portrayed regularly on a big hit show, and it was valuable to have that in the cultural conversation even though Kevin McHale doesn’t use a wheelchair in real life. I want that to be part of any continuation, and Kevin McHale should be the one to do it because Artie is his character. I appreciate the sentiment that the role should have gone to a wheelchair user before, but Artie’s presence was still extraordinarily significant. If Kevin McHale decides not to return at all, that won’t benefit anybody. (Maybe he could have developed a friend group of other wheelchair users, and they could be played by disabled actors, a way to use his platform to facilitate the introduction of new actors with disabilities to carry things forward.) Bottom line: I want to see what Artie is doing now. — Jake

Matt Roush: It’s too early to know exactly who all will be returning to the franchise, and while it’s true that Kevin McHale once expressed reservations about playing the role again for the reasons you mentioned, now that the reboot is a reality, he may have reconsidered. Currently enjoying time on stage in revivals (there’s that word again) of The 25^th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee Off-Broadway and now The Rocky Horror Show on Broadway, McHale appears to be more favorably inclined in sound bites I’ve seen recently, especially because of the cast’s allegience to Ryan Murphy. We’ll know more as the show goes into production, I’m sure, but your points are well taken about what the character of Artie meant to so many viewers.

I also have some trepidations about Glee‘s return, because it was almost impossible not to have a love-hate relationship with a show this uneven. Its musical highs were glorious; its soapy and melodramatic depths much less so. But their ability to pull off big musical moments most weeks kept this musical fan on board, so I’m eager to see what they have in mind for a new generation.

Scrub-bing in Again Just Isn’t the Same

Question: Can you tell me what’s happening over at Scrubs? I loved every episode from the 2000s heyday, but this reboot is like watching a cartoon. Everyone’s overacting. And what’s the point of introducing so many new characters if the show wants to remain in the nostalgic world? I was shocked when I saw Rachel Bilson in a blink-and-you-miss-it episode. — Liam

Matt Roush: As discussed above, a reboot often walks an unsteady tightrope between satisfying our nostalgia for the past and adding new elements to keep it fresh. The problem for me with this version of Scrubs is that while its heart is in the right place and still worn very much on its sleeve, J.D. and Turk in particular still seem stuck in man-child mode, making it hard to accept them as mentors to a mostly bland ensemble of newbies. The show often went over-the-top in its slapstick moments and fantasy blackouts, and recapturing that original magic is a challenge. As for Rachel Bilson, she’s a recurring presence this season, so we’ll be seeing more of her.

Old Home Week on NCIS

Question: Am I the only viewer who is disturbed by the “prodigal son” hype surrounding the return of Michael Weatherly to NCIS? The actor chose to exit the series and embarked on two new projects, both of which are now canceled. For him to just glide back in, and worse, as Director after the death of beloved character Leon Vance, just sits wrong! The established and very successful dynamic of the team after he left now feels awkward and unsettling. Do others feel this way? — Pamela, Connecticut

Matt Roush: I’m sure you’re not alone, because in my years of compiling this column I know from experience that any alteration to the NCIS dynamic generates extreme reactions. Even so, this is the first such negative response I’ve seen (not that I’ve been looking) regarding Tony’s return to the NCIS fold. Most of the reaction I’ve seen, and within the limited circle of NCIS fans I know, has mostly been one of surprise at how quickly Tony was offered the position, but now that he’s back, most seem to enjoy the renewed camaraderie as he gets to know the new team. The same goes for Mark Harmon having a more active and visible role this season on NCIS: Origins (my personal current favorite of the franchise), and bringing Emily Wickersham back as Bishop, not to mention his few scenes with Tony last week. With all of these comebacks and callbacks, it’s almost like watching a reboot without the series ever having gone away.

Over So Soon?

Question: It’s been a dull and uninteresting broadcast TV season so far, for the most part. But I am enjoying the quirky Cupertino (Eternally Yours is meh) and R.J. Decker. I was surprised that this week’s episode 7 is the “season finale” for Decker. I liked the show. I thought the characters were well played, the mysteries were intriguing, and the storylines were well written. But I guess I’m in the minority because, from what I read online, the show was a flop. Any thoughts on why the show didn’t resonate with viewers? — Stan

Matt Roush: Whether R.J. Decker returns or not, Season 2 was always designed to be this short, and this isn’t a case of canceling it midflight with episodes left unseen. But such a short episode order naturally raises red flags regarding the network’s belief in the series, although this decision was more likely made for economic and possibly programming reasons. (The week after Election Night, ABC will follow Dancing with the Stars with a Michael Strahan fashion special, which is presumably a lot cheaper than an episode of a scripted series, of which ABC is not overburdened this fall.)

It’s harder to gauge what’s a flop or a hit anymore on broadcast TV, and a show’s fate often hinges on whether it also has a robust digital following in the streaming world. Decker had the mixed blessing of airing after Dancing, which is a legitimate hit, making a viewership gap more noticeable than when it first premiered in the spring following more compatible procedurals. I like its offbeat and lowkey tone, but am not all that surprised that it’s being beat in that tough 10/9c hour by one of the NCIS behemoths. At best, a show like R.J. Decker is destined to be a sleeper. Unfortunately, it seems not enough people woke up to the fact that it came back.

Law & Order‘s Gender Imbalance

Question: One of the things I love about Law & Order is its revolving door when it comes to performers and characters. In the very beginning, the series was male-dominated with two male detectives and a male squad leader, and two male attorneys and a male DA. It wasn’t long before producers realized they needed to include women in the cast, and that’s when we saw the female squad leader and the combination of male and female attorneys that has continued to the current season. I loved some of the combos, and some I had a difficult time getting used. For example, I loved the combination of Lennie Briscoe and Ed Green on the Law side, and Jack McCoy and Abbie Carmichael on the Order side. I am sure you and other fans of the show have your favorites. I also enjoyed seeing Dianne Wiest join the cast for two seasons as DA Nora Lewin. I thought that was a welcome change from the male-dominated role of DA. But what I found even more interesting was the introduction of L&O‘s first female detective, Nina Cassidy, played by Milena Govich. I thought a female detective was a long time coming. After all, there are many women detectives in law enforcement in the real world.

Unfortunately, the audience didn’t care much for her, and after one season, she was gone. I would have enjoyed seeing her stay, especially to hear more about her character’s backstory. That was in Season 17, and just recently, in the current 26^th season, L&O has replaced another favorite of mine, Det. Vincent Riley, with a new male detective. I am wondering why producers seem to be steering away from putting a female detective as a partner. It cannot be because they have a female squad leader, because when Cassady was partnered with Green, S. Epatha Merkerson was playing Anita Van Buren. L&O is such a respected series that I am sure there are many actresses who would enjoy joining the cast. Could it be that producers feel adding another female character would be one too many, and possibly turn male viewers away? I’m interested in your thoughts. — Rob

Matt Roush: That’s an interesting topic, and I can only speculate about why the tag team of Law & Order detectives has been so resistant for so long to a female partner. It’s not like women are invisible to the mothership, as noted, with solid representation among lieutenants in the precinct and in the D.A.’s office (although only rarely has a woman been the lead D.A.). But if nothing else, Law & Order is a show that adheres to formula. And given how prominent Mariska Hargitay has been on the SVU spinoff, not to mention Kathryn Erbe as Vincent O’Donofrio’s partner for most of the Criminal Intent run, there just seems to be a tacit understanding that the detectives at the top of the show are always going to be guys. If they ever change it up again, I hope and trust fans will accept it. For the record, my Law & Order dream team will always be Briscoe (Jerry Orbach), Logan (Chris Noth), Van Buren (S. Epatha Merkerson), McCoy (Sam Waterston), Kincaid (Jill Hennessy) and Schiff (Steven Hill).

And Finally …

Question: I see that The Rookie and its spinoff will air together on Wednesdays starting in January. Will Grey’s Anatomy and its Texas spinoff do the same? — Gim

Matt Roush: Too early to tell. I wouldn’t be surprised, given how successfully Grey’s and Station 19 shared the night for years (and Private Practice before it). The fact that ABC’s Thursday lineup is currently occupied by two 9-1-1 series could create a complication, though it’s also possible one of them could take a breather to give the new medical drama a shot. Details are scarce on this series, so at this point anything’s possible.

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.)