Ask Matt: Getting Fired on Abbott, Raves for 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 [emailprotected]. Look for Ask Matt columns on every other Tuesday.

Are TV Comedies’ “Must-See” Days Over?

Question: Watching Netflix‘s moving documentary The One About Matthew Perry, I was flooded with nostalgia for the glory days of “Must See TV,” when NBC aired a successful two-hour block of comedy on Thursday. And they weren’t alone, with CBS and ABC also devoting the first two hours of several weeknights to comedies. With the exception of Fox‘s animated block (with only one live-action comedy on display), this now seems to be a thing of the past. Do you see the possibility of another renaissance for network-TV comedy? — Mary Beth F.

Matt Roush: The stock answer to a question like this is to say that these trends tend to be cyclical, and network TV comedy has been declared dead in the past. But given the diminished state of scripted TV in general on the major broadcast networks, I’m not so sure when or if to expect a comeback. When ABC can only find room on the schedule for two sitcoms on Wednesday and CBS currently only has two half-hour comedies on the air (not counting the hour-long comedic mystery Elsbeth), and NBC airs single hours of comedy on Monday and Friday, it seems clear developing a robust slate of half-hours is no longer a priority. (We don’t know yet what CBS’s midseason schedule will look like, with Ghosts returning, but there’s precious little real estate remaining for sitcoms.) It often feels like they’ve just given up, and I was also dismayed to see that ABC couldn’t find a third scripted hour to join Will Trent and High Potential on Tuesdays, instead filling the 10/9c hour with a presumably less costly non-fiction entry, Surviving a Scandal. Is anyone laughing?

Dom, We Hardly Knew Ya!

Question: I know Luke Tennie as Dominic was a recurring guest on Abbott Elementary rather than anything close to a series regular. But I was still surprised by the recent storyline where Gregory and Melissa had to fire Dominic. It was really well done. I wondered if this was a story that came about because the writers wanted to tell that story or because Tennie has something else lined up and needed to be written off. Do you know what else he has in the works? If it was purely a creative decision, they did a good job of picking a character who I’m sorry to see go, but not one whose absence will fundamentally change the show. The Halloween episode was great, but I was glad to see the show firmly situated in the school again. — Jake

Matt Roush: I felt the same, that Abbott is at its best when it grounds its stories in the workplace. I also agree this was a meaty situation, having to let go a likable colleague who wasn’t living up to expectations (turns out he wanted out, which was another nice twist). With no evidence to the contrary, I would assume that this was a creative decision, but Luke Tennie has other gigs including still being a series regular on Apple TV‘s Shrinking, which takes first position, and presumably could make recurring appearances on The Pitt again next season. It’s nice to see someone so much in demand.

Three Cheers for Cupertino

Comment: I’m all caught up with Cupertino, and I have to admit that your many accolades for it were well deserved. It actually feels too good for CBS, or broadcast in general. Now back when CBS was the “Tiffany Network,” Cupertino would have fit right in with other CBS classics. Another very well-written and acted show is Fox’s Best Medicine. These two high-quality programs are proof that network shows can be Emmy-worthy. Let’s see some nominations for these two exceptional shows! — Fred

Matt Roush: I hope Cupertino is catching on, and that the special Sunday scheduling this weekend of a particularly clever and impactful episode helped get it on more people’s radar. And while I share the sentiment to some degree, I cringe when I see something described as “too good for broadcast,” because it’s indeed rare for something so original, so timely and frankly so entertaining to make it in an environment so choked with franchises, spinoffs and reboots. I’d love for this to be the exception, and also for Cupertino to enter the conversation when awards season kicks in soon, though it will likely be an uphill climb. Even more so for Best Medicine, which I agree is charming and mostly well executed but lives in that tricky space between drama and comedy. I’m glad they both exist.

The Games Celebrities Play

Comment: I was pretty disappointed when Weakest Link became Celebrity Weakest Link as it moved from NBC to Fox last season. I like a good celebrity edition like Celebrity Jeopardy or Celebrity Wheel of Fortune, but they still have their original format airing. Also, the celebrities playing those shows are actually “playing,” so the audience can join in. The Weakest Link celebrity version is focused more on the star’s personality and most of them can’t even answer a basic question, so the actual “game show” component doesn’t exist. Some episodes are so bad that only 20% of questions are actually answered correctly. Why can’t we have regular people playing so the audience can play too? And have someone to root for? Or if they really need celebrities, less Real Housewives and influencers who don’t even know where Texas is (and yes, that was a missed question). I also take real annoyance at the woman doing the voiceover commentary who’s mumbling so low and fast it’s hard to even understand what she is saying. Thanks for letting me have my say! — Lorenzo

Matt Roush: You’re welcome. This is a righteous enough rant, and only Fox’s World’s Dumbest seems to take more delight in humiliating famous people for getting it wrong. I tend to tune into Weakest Link when the contestant pool feels most likely to dish as well as receive, like when they book actual comedians, and I couldn’t pass up the Glee reunion. But this show has always felt skewed, celebrity or otherwise, toward shaming the players for not banking as much as they should. That’s why Weakest is in the title. I essentially agree that these celebrity editions of game shows are better when the people participating actually appear to be trying.

Did Scrubs Take the Easy Way Out?

Question: When Scrubs came back, we found out that J.D. and Elliot got divorced between the end of the original series and the beginning of the revival. I understand the decision to use that as a story point because there is more conflict that way, but it was a major thing for the writers to have made it happen off screen. So I liked that the Nov. 4 episode gave us a discussion between them about why that happened. Or, at least, I thought I did. [Spoiler Alert] Then came the big reveal that the entire dinner date with Elliot and discussion with her about this was a lengthy fantasy in J.D.’s head, which skews what we as the audience get to see.

We can assume that J.D. was being honest and thoughtful in his side of the conversation because it is in his mind. But that means we aren’t really seeing Elliot’s point of view at all, and he is literally putting words in her mouth. It’s not really a discussion between J.D. and Elliot at all. Essentially, it’s J.D. talking to himself, which to me undermines the scene because Elliot literally has no say in it. It gives us J.D.’s perspective only, while initially appearing to give us both of theirs. That felt to me like cheap, ineffective writing. It’s one thing for J.D. to have fantasy bits that are comedic. I love those. But depriving the real Elliot of a chance to be part of this conversation did not feel like a good way to address the topic. What do you think? — JL

Matt Roush: I get your point, and while it might feel like a bit of a cop-out to have such an important conversation be yet another fantasy, albeit less whimsical than usual (hence the impact of the twist), this show is ultimately J.D.’s story, so I can’t say I’m all that surprised. I’d like to think this is just one step in their relationship story, and we’re meant to take away that a lingering affection still exists between both of them. I recommend you check out our post-episode interview with Sarah Chalke (Elliot), who felt that the episode actually opened up new possibilities for their reconciliation. We’ll see.

No Bouquets for Newlyweds

Question: I have been looking forward to Newlyweds since it was announced. Téa Leoni, Tim Daly and Jamie Lee Curtis. How can it not be a hit? Yet I struggled to get through the first episode. Leoni and Daly look so awkward in their roles. For being married in real life, it feels as if they never met before the taping. The writing was uninspired. The whole thing was a mess. I will give it another couple of tries in hopes things change, but I’m not holding my breath. Am I being too critical? — Chris D.

Matt Roush: Is there such a thing as being too critical, if it’s an honest reaction? Doubtful. I’ll be curious if you’ve warmed up since the pilot episode, which to be fair presented their characters as strangers to each other. But if you feel they truly lack chemistry in these roles, that would be a problem going forward. This is a pretty broad comedy, so anyone expecting the sophistication of their past shows may well be disappointed.

Question: Admittedly, I haven’t watched many sitcoms in some time (with the exception of rewatching M*A*S*H or Friends.) I just watched Newlyweds on Peacock, because I really liked Téa Leone and Tim Daly in Madam Secretary. Although I enjoyed the first episode very much, I was appalled to see that laugh tracks were still added. Do the producers really believe the viewers are that stupid? — Karen P., Las Vegas, NV

Matt Roush: The issue here isn’t the “laugh track,” which the producers would be quick to label a misnomer since the show is filmed before a studio audience. Just like Friends. (But yes, it’s almost certain they enhance the audience laughter to make it sound more hysterical than it actually is.) The problem is when the laughs come faster and louder than the material merits, it becomes an annoyance and an aggravation, reinforcing this belief (which I hear from others, even sometimes when they’re watching old repeats of past favorites) that we’re being told when and how to laugh by the audible yuks.

And Finally …

Question: Why were there only seven episodes of R.J. Decker? I mean, it was the second season. Even cable channels give you 10 or 12 episodes. Second, with so few episodes, and no guaranteed third season, why would they insult and disrespect the fans by ending the season on a cliffhanger? — Alan J. B.

Matt Roush: We addressed the short season in a previous column, which has more to do with the network’s scheduling needs and the industry’s economics than the show’s quality or future prospects. Opting for a three-part Michael Strahan-fronted series about fashion over giving R.J. Decker a little more breathing room is, to put it mildly, a curious choice. But the show would have been done by December anyway, when everyone leans more heavily into holiday programming, and we now know that ABC is putting a docuseries into its Tuesday time slot in the new year. As for the cliffhanger finale, the show’s executive producer explains his reasoning in this article. I get that they want to always take big swings and make some noise, but the potential downside of leaving the audience dissatisfied should the show not be renewed is just as considerable, and I wish this weren’t such a common practice.

Addendum: I’ve fielded many questions in recent weeks speculating about how and when ABC would schedule the projected Grey’s Anatomy spinoff set in Texas. Originally pegged for this midseason, ABC recently confirmed it’s now being held back for the 2027-28 season. This doesn’t come as a surprise. With no casting or other news having circulated, I would have been more shocked if they had tried to rush it on the air before the end of the regular season. The stakes for this franchise are high, and giving them more time to produce and promote the series makes sense. The question remains, of course, whether ABC will air the new series and Grey’s side by side in the manner of Station 19 and (currently) the two 9-1-1 series. Time will tell.

That’s all for now. We can’t do this without your participation, so please keep sending questions and comments about TV to [emailprotected]. (Please include a first name with your question.)