Stargate Universe - TV Guide Online: Ask Matt Aug 23 '10

At TV Guide Online:

(Please follow the link for the complete column.)

Ask Matt: The Glades, The Gates, Mad Men, Hawaii Five-0 and More!

Aug 23, 2010
by Matt Roush



... Question: I've finally finished the first season of Stargate: Universe, and I'm curious about your thoughts on it (and whether you thought it was worth watching, as I don't remember reading anything about your opinion of it). Stargate: SG-1 was much lighter and had a sense of humor that was usually near the surface, and we'll just pretend Atlantis was a bad dream. However, SG:U seems like an attempt to shoehorn the Stargate mythology into the dark style and brutal sensibilities of Battlestar Galactica. Don't get me wrong, I was entertained by the first season and will keep watching, but it's a departure from what the franchise was, and the melding of the SG mythos with the BSG style results in the proverbial machine that knows all the words but can't quite get the music right (if that makes any sense). However, I can't fault it for providing an unexpected reboot of the franchise, and if I only watched shows as good as BSG, then I wouldn't be watching much. Also, I said I'd watch when it comes back, but I guess that's making a pretty big assumption: Has it been renewed? — Mike

Matt Roush: Yes, it will be back, with the second season starting Sept. 28 — in a new Tuesday time slot, now that Fridays on Syfy have been turned over to wrestling this fall. (Don't get me started.) It's one of my so-far-fruitless goals to catch up with the second half of the Universe season before the new episodes begin. Your reaction of the show feels pretty spot-on to me. There's no question its tone is darker and harsher than the Stargate norm, and I got the sense many franchise fans were turned off by its relentlessly downbeat nature. I'm certainly intrigued by it, but the fact that so many episodes remain unwatched on my DVR tells me that either my priorities are out of whack or it's not a world I'm particularly eager to keep exploring. For now, though, keeping an open mind, and even if I end up jumping into the second season without completely finishing the first, I'll try to give it a shot.

Stargate Universe - TV Guide Online: Ask Matt (Roush) July 5 '10

At TV Guide Online's Ask Matt (Roush) for July 5, 2010:

(Please follow the link for the complete column.)

Ask Matt: Summertime TV, Post-Damages Woe, and More!

Jul 5, 2010
by Matt Roush

... Question: I have a kvetch about the Syfy network's current nightly programming. I keep tuning to Syfy hoping to see fairly new episodes of current hits like Eureka or classic episodes of Battlestar, but instead huge blocks of Syfy's schedule are dominated by gross-out horror films or, worse, cheap CGI horror. Syfy relegates syndicated cult faves like The X-Files and Star Trek to sporadic daytime blocks, while their nightly programming relies on bad horror films. I don't equate science fiction with backpackers getting mauled by Dinosharks and Octospiders, and I'd much rather see classic X-Files than another bad monster movie filmed in the Ukraine. 

New Syfy shows like Caprica and Warehouse 13 could benefit from repeat primetime airings, but Syfy's programmers are more apt to reach for severed arms and flying piranhas than repeats of Stargate Universe. Do you have any insight on why Syfy has been so parsimonious with its own critically acclaimed shows in favor of schlocky horror flicks? Why is Syfy robbing their new shows of much needed primetime exposure?—Stephanie

Matt Roush: I admit I don't pay a great deal of attention to channels like Syfy except on the nights when it airs original series I may be inclined to watch (like Warehouse 13, which premieres a new season this Tuesday, and Fridays, where Eureka will be returning alongside the unfortunate Haven). You make a good point that it would behoove Syfy (or at least enhance its reputation) by giving its signature shows more of a spotlight throughout the week (and months of hiatus), but clearly the programmers have found the mix of sensational reality and Z-grade horror flicks to suit their business needs. Otherwise, why go there? Could also be a licensing issue with some shows that limit the number of times they can be repeated, but where the classics like X-Files are concerned, it's also possible that they've exhausted much of their shelf life for now. At least where the bottom line is concerned.

Stargate Universe - TV Guide Online: Ask Matt Nov 8 '09

At TV Guide Online's Ask Matt column by Matt Roush for November 8 '09:

(Please follow the link for the complete column.)

Ask Matt

By Matt Roush November 08, 2009

... Question: So I am on board with wherever V is going to take us, but I have a few thoughts. First off, one of the best things about the first episode was the interaction between Alan Tudyk and Elizabeth Mitchell. I was so disappointed to find out he was one of them. I know it was a great shock moment, but I feel cheated that we won't get to explore their partnership. I hope we get more of the amazing Mr. Tudyk because what a waste if he was only cast for such a minor role. My other problem with the premiere episode is probably one that most people didn't even notice. In the opening scenes, the gentleman in the wheelchair was halfway up the steps to the church. I am at a loss to explain it. There was no ramp, no elevator. How on earth did he get halfway up, and why halfway? If someone was assisting him into church, why wouldn't they take him all the way up? Frankly, it looked stupid. Yes, I am open to accept spaceships and alien lizards in people suits, but this particular scene bothered me. Also, have you seen Stargate Universe? This is a show I really wanted to love. I enjoyed SG-1 and loved Stargate Atlantis, but this latest installment leaves me feeling flat. I understand that they want to create a different show, more serious then the previous two, but so far for me nothing is working. The characters are boring. I can't seem to care about any of them, and with actors as talented as Robert Carlyle, David Blue and Ming Na, that shouldn't happen. The choice to keep the set so dark just makes me think they have something to hide, as in a bad set design. It doesn't strike me as moody or gritty, but rather that they are trying and failing to achieve that. The lines for Eli are trying way too hard to be comic relief. None of the peril feels real, I have no sense of danger for any of the main characters. I adore science fiction and was really looking forward to having a new Friday night show, but I’m afraid that this isn't it. —Linda


Matt Roush: First, V. The shock value of having a recognizable actor (from past genre work) like Alan Tudyk be revealed to be a “visitor” was an important twist for the show to be able to pull off. His name is still listed in the guest cast in ABC’s releases for the next few episodes, so maybe you will be seeing more of him. (I’d like to be surprised if that turns out to be the case.) Your nitpick about the man in the wheelchair on the church steps is something that got past me each time I screened the pilot, but yes, continuity lapses can really take you out of the “reality” of the story if you let it. I’ve got nothing to add to that. Secondly, Stargate Universe. I can’t really argue with you that the show’s relentless grimness (in the episodes I’ve seen; I’m one or two behind) could work against its in the long run, especially for those weaned on the previous Stargate series’ lighter touch. The big problem, as you note, is that unlike the camaraderie and chemistry of the previous casts, very few characters have popped yet, although I like the intensity of Robert Carlyle and the “math-boy” nerdiness of David Blue. And I do think the show has managed to sustain a fairly consistent tone of danger and fear, given that much of what happens on this Ancient ship is out of their control. But since we know there’s not a show if they don’t somehow survive, it’s probably true that if it doesn’t become a little more of a joyride in the near future, complaints will likely get even louder.

Sanctuary - TV Guide Online: Ask Matt - Sept 8 '08

From TV Guide Online's Ask Matt column:

(Please follow the link for the complete column.)



Ask Matt

Matt Roush

Monday, September 8, 2008

**snippage**

Question: After just becoming a rabid Battlestar Galactica fan a few months ago, I have decided to give Sanctuary on Sci Fi a shot. I haven't heard too much about it, but it sounds interesting. Do you have any opinions on it? Although it is different, I can't help but notice a bit of a similarity between Sanctuary and Dollhouse. — Amanda

Matt Roush: Best to go into shows like these with as open a mind as possible. (Sanctuary premieres Oct. 3, Dollhouse in early '09.) I'm curious about this one as well, but haven't got a screener yet, so don't have an opinion beyond suggesting that it sounds more to me like a Torchwood-style series than what Dollhouse is attempting. What we should all hope for is that both of these shows are original enough to stand on their own.

Stargate Atlantis - Stargate Atlantis - TV Guide Online: Ask Matt Roush

At TV Guide Online's Ask Matt Roush column:

(Please follow the link for the complete column.)



Question: I'm writing because of the cancellation of Stargate: Atlantis. I know this show isn't on your radar, and that the "cancellation blues" is an all-too familiar refrain, but I hope you'll hear me out. I get that television is a business, I really do. In the case of Stargate: Atlantis, it's actually a franchise. But what was once a strength has now led to the show's demise. The franchise released two successful straight-to-DVD movies for SG:A's predecessor (SG-1) and is therefore encouraged about the ROI (return on investment) for SG:A movies. There's also a shiny new third show in the works, designed to "bring...younger viewers" to the franchise. It was greenlit the day after SG:A was cancelled. Honestly, why bother
waiting a day? Just put both announcements in the same press release, because the connection is crystal clear. There's only room for one Stargate show in the universe, and Sci Fi (yes, I'm having Farscape flashbacks), MGM and SG:A's own creators sat down and made a business decision for the good of the franchise. The thing is, the show did what it was supposed to do. Maybe a People's Choice award doesn't mean anything, and of course, quality is subjective (I happen to think that this season has been fantastic), but the ratings are up in key demographics. I never used to worry about one show (other than direct competition) posing a threat to another. The more good TV, the better, right? But in niche markets, network-studio production business models don't seem to allow for similar programming to co-exist. Stargate isn't CSI. So who needs Grey's Anatomy when your favorite show can be shot down by its own franchise? Again, I get that TV is a business, a product. I'm not lamenting SciFi's "betrayal." But even in business, there's an understanding. We did what we were supposed to do. We bought the product by the millions, and in the end, it didn't matter. I never used to ask, "Why should we watch? Why should we care? It just ends in frustration!" But I admit that I am almost there. My question is this: With television production and distribution moving in new directions, is there any hope that the landscape will become less precarious? That actual viewership will have more impact? That fans will have reason to be a little less cynical, a little more open and a lot less disappointed? — Lisa

Matt Roush: The simple answer to your complicated question is that no show (possibly not even Law & Order) is going to last forever. The business isn't likely to become any easier to predict or endure as shows fall on and off the schedule at what might seem like corporate whims. But in the very peculiar case of the Stargate franchise, I see this latest transition as a pro-active attempt to refresh the brand while keeping its former elements alive and kicking in TV-movie format. Doesn't seem to me that the fan base is being betrayed at all. You do make some intriguing points about how the success of the Stargate brand has caused the possibly premature demise of Atlantis as a weekly series, but in this case, as long as the creators are on board and can make the jump from series to movies in a coherent and entertaining fashion, it makes sense to me. My take on this is a bit dispassionate because I'm not a regular viewer; I like Atlantis, its characters and its humor, but it's not a habit and I'm reluctant to even tackle this issue because of the furor of this genre's fan base. But I can't help comparing it to the Star Trek brand, in which most of the shows from Next Generation onward averaged a seven-season run until the franchise finally ran out of gas. Stargate is not Star Trek, and a five-season run of Atlantis seems more than fair (if a bit of a surprise considering SG-1 lasted an amazing and out-of-the-norm 10 seasons). To introduce a new Stargate series, one with a more outer-space feel, while continuing Atlantis in movie form seems like smart business. Which obviously won't placate the fans. But what would besides an indefinite run, which is only possible in fantasyland.

Farscape - TV Guide Online: Ask Matt July 25 '08

From TV Guide Online's Ask Matt column for July 25 '08:

(Please follow the link for the complete column.)



Ask Matt

Matt Roush

Friday, July 25, 2008

Question: I just wanted to let you know that, like you, I am also waiting for a Farscape movie. I think Farscape would translate brilliantly to the big screen. I haven't lost hope, but, like you, I am not holding my breath. Heck, I am still waiting for news about the Farscape webisodes! By the way, you wouldn't have heard anything about them, would you? It has been nearly a year since they were announced, and while I understand the writers' strike slowed things down a lot, we should be seeing/hearing something soon, right? — Nicola

Matt Roush: Not soon enough, I'm sure. I asked a Sci Fi Channel executive earlier this week, during a NBC-Universal party, if there was news to report on this front, and I was assured that the online Farscape project remains in active development. The problem, I'm told, is in getting all the creative players assembled to figure out the format, the content and to see who's available. No timetable on this one yet, I'm afraid, but don't lose hope. It's probably our last best chance to re-enter that fabulous world.

Battlestar Galactica - TV Guide Online: Ask Matt May 26 '08

From TV Guide Online's Ask Matt for May 26, 2008:

http://www.tvguide.com/Ask-Matt/080526

(Please follow the link for the complete column.)

Ask Matt

Monday, May 26, 2008

Is Battlestar Too Trigger Happy?



Question: I'm perplexed at the choices the Battlestar Galactica writers have made this season. The main players spend their time whining, mumbling and making inane decisions while the supporting players have been treated like used Kleenex: Brave Callie gets tossed out the airlock, loyal Dualla rates only a "see ya" when Lee leaves her, and heroic Tyrol and Tigh have become sniveling cowards hiding in storage closets. But as hard as it is to see beloved characters mistreated, it's worse to see the repetitious use of a loaded gun as a resolution to every plot point. Need to stop an FTL jump? Don't shoot the computer, shoot Gaeta. Having bad dreams? Frak the handiest Cylon. Have a score to settle? How about a double murder in the hangar bay to settle old debts? It's like the whole fleet has gone Charles Bronson on steroids. The "look out, there's a gun!" shtick has been done to death on shows on like ER and Law & Order. It is baffling to see the Peabody-winning BSG writers resort to such a tired plot device. What gives with the gun play, and how do you rate the writers' choices so far this season? — Stephanie

Matt Roush: If you think Battlestar Galactica is celebrating violence because its characters are wielding weapons on a (might I add) military warship, you're watching a different show than I am. With all of this talk about destroying the Cylon resurrection hub and thus rendering the feuding Cylons as mortal as the humans, even as we watch Roslyn battle her cancer while Baltar preaches a new gospel, I find the show's take on mortality and spirituality a lot more potent than the melodrama of who's shooting whom. Which tends to play out in pretty desperate circumstances. (The murder of Callie a shocking moment by anyone's standards, I would think.) And to boil down the existential crises of the secret Cylons by describing them as "sniveling cowards whining and mumbling and hiding in storage closets" misses the point of this shattering revelation (which I still don't fully understand) on these heretofore heroic characters. So basically, I guess this boils down to me approving of the writers' choices more than you, though I'll acknowledge the show is less conventionally entertaining these days. But to charge it with becoming Bronson-esque simplistic? No way.

Moonlight - TV Guide Online: Ask Matt May 2 '08

From TV Guide Online's Ask Matt column:

http://www.tvguide.com/Ask-Matt/080502

(Please follow the link for the complete column.)

Ask Matt

Friday, May 2, 2008

Analyzing Moonlight's Return

Question: Did you see Moonlight? It was stunning! Joel Silver has clearly outdone himself! It just blew me away. It was intense, romantic, action-packed, moved very quickly and yet had great continuity. The cast was superb. There are not enough adjectives to describe this show. The relationship between Josef and Mick was amazing. I'm so glad that Jason Dohring got a major role here. He's a very good actor. Hope to see more? The Prince of Darkness becomes Prince Charming and reverses back to save "his Beth" from the rogue vampire. Could it be any better? We ladies were salivating! Matt, no occult show on TV could possibly measure up. I'm not thinking People's Choice Award, I'm thinking Emmy! If the following three episodes are anything like this one, I'm ready for a two-hour premiere in the fall. — Sharon

Matt Roush: But did you like it? Now that's what I call a mash note, and I sure hope you enjoyed the two-page photo spread of Alex O'Loughlin in the current Sexiest Stars issue. Pages 56-57. (Who am I kidding? It's probably hanging on thousands of walls already.) I would agree absolutely on one point: The scene where Josef turned Mick back into a vampire was a highlight of the entire season, and definitely Jason Dohring's best work in the series to date. (Reminded me of the erotic charge I got out of the early Anne Rice vampire novels.) Emmy-worthy? I won't go that far. But worthy of cult status and a second season? More and more.

Question: I was a reluctant fan of Moonlight in the beginning. It was way too much like Angel, and the episode where Mick had to feed on his girlfriend to survive was very clichéd and an obvious copycat of Angel and Buffy. However, I gave the show a chance, and I have to admit, it grew on me until I found myself looking forward to its return. Then, I watched the first episode back last Friday night. Not only was the story incredibly obvious and way too easy to see where the plot was going, but the product placements were so obtrusive that they completely overwhelmed the story. There was iPhone, iPhone and then more iPhone, followed by Guitar Hero, World of Warcraft and finally Krispy Kreme donuts. There was hardly room for the badly written story. I was disappointed. — John

Matt Roush: I get this point of view as well. I'm enjoying Moonlight more as it goes, but still find much of the writing (generally, anything that doesn't involve the whole vampire/mortality thing) beyond clunky. So much of Moonlight feels like a generic CBS show: the obvious crime plots, the bland supporting cast (excepting Dohring, who has improved lately), the harsh lighting. (Has there ever been a sunnier vampire drama than the ironically titled Moonlight?) Alex O'Loughlin is pretty much carrying this show on his capable shoulders, but I hope that if things settle down behind-the-scenes in the second season (assuming there will be one), that the rest of the show can rise to the level of its star's charisma. It won't be easy. But to single this show out for its product placements is a bit naïve. That's the economic reality of the world much of network TV is living in. If you're watching the show in real time, already sitting through the commercials, you may have cause to complain. But if you're watching on DVR/TiVo, skipping the commercials, that's a big reason you're going to have to get used to this trend. But it's true they could be a little less obvious about it, especially when it comes to those loving close-ups of the phones.

Question: Another Moonlight question: The cast in a recent interview said that the last four episodes would "stand alone" due to there being no second-season pickup as yet. That is, there would be no arcs created because they didn't want to leave the audience hanging in the event that the series did not return. They also said that all four episodes were now wrapped. My question is this: If the network announces a pickup before the final episode airs, do you think they would create (or may already have ready) an alternate ending in an attempt to leave a cliffhanger to entice second-season viewing? Or do you think they will leave it as it is and move into a less stand-alone format if a second season happens? — Lyn

Matt Roush: The CBS upfront announcement will take place two days before Moonlight's scheduled May 16 season finale, so this is a moot point. I doubt seriously any show would rejigger its finale at the last minute just to give the audience a contrived cliff-hanger, which is already a pretty overdone gimmick, don't you think? The main reason I bring up this issue is to state again my own conviction that producers of marginal series do themselves and certainly their fans a disservice by ending an "on the bubble" season with a huge cliff-hanger. It's one thing to leave a show open-ended (like, say, the finale of Eli Stone, where Eli woke from the coma with the tumor gone and a world of possibilities ahead of him) and another entirely to leave the fan hanging with a life-or-death situation (like, say, if Eli had chosen to end without letting us know if he was going to wake up.) If Moonlight gets renewed, which I expect to be the case, then let the arcs fly. Although knowing CBS's proclivities, I bet their desire is for the show to keep the stories as self-contained as possible.

TV Guide Online: Ask Matt: NEW SciFi Shows on FOX

From TV Guide Online's ASK MATT:

http://www.tvguide.com/Ask-Matt/080428

(Please follow the link for the complete TV Guide Online column.)

Ask Matt

Will Fox's New Sci-Fi Shows Deliver?

Question: This is in response to someone who wrote about the large number of sci-fi shows with impressive pedigrees coming to Fox in the next year or two. You pointed out that the expectations will be very high because of the attachment of names like J.J. Abrams, Ron Moore and Joss Whedon. I certainly think this is a problem, particularly since I'm not sure that these producers will live up to expectations. You've remarked before on a phenomenon that I've noticed, too: TV is much better at making new stars than it is at repackaging old ones. Actors who have starred in hit shows and have then gone on to do a show of equal or greater success are few and far between. But I've noticed that the track record for superstar producers hasn't been that great either in the last 15 years or so. Once upon a time, it seemed there were producers (Donald Bellisario, Steven J. Cannell, Aaron Spelling) who had a lock on creating successful shows. But now a lot of the superstars seem like one- or two-hit wonders. Whedon had Buffy and Angel, but when he moved beyond that universe with Firefly, it never really caught on with wider audiences. J.J. Abrams had Alias, and played a role in the creation of Lost, but his role on the latter now is essentially nothing, and he's had other small-screen flops like Six Degrees. Ron Moore had success with Deep Space Nine and has created the remarkable Battlestar Galactica, but let's not forget that he is also responsible for Bionic Woman. I wonder if it's too much to expect lighting to strike twice or three times for these guys. The most successful serial producers now are probably Dick Wolf and Jerry Bruckheimer, who are essentially cloning a successful format to other shows. Producers like Abrams, Moore and Whedon seem unsatisfied with that approach. They want to take new creative tacks, and sometimes, perhaps often, that doesn't work. — Jeff

Matt Roush: Intesting topic, and while I won't refute the specifics of your arguments (except to say that Firefly was only a failure because of Fox's short-sightedness, not because of anything on-screen), I will just remind everyone that TV is a brutal business and the failure rate is spectacularly high, especially for those who try not to repeat themselves. (Those who keep making the same show over and over again, with minor variations, are to me contributing to the death of TV.) These guys you're talking about are also, for the most part, producing in genres that traditionally are the riskiest. We're lucky that they keep trying, and in Joss's case, that he's deciding to return to the medium again. But it's also true that every so often (Six Degrees, Bionic Woman), one of their shows even actually deserves to fail. But unlike so much of the industry, I'm not of the mind that you judge a talent only by what they've done lately as long as they pick themselves back up and keep trying something new. The fact that the media now force them to operate under a microscope of relentless scrutiny makes the process harder, I'm sure, but when a miracle like Lost or Battlestar Galactica or Buffy comes along, isn't it worth it?