Ask Matt: Farewells to ‘Yellowstone,’ ‘Blue Bloods,’ ‘Shadows’ & More
Welcome to the Q&A with 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 most Tuesdays.
Parting Was Such Sweet Sorrow
Comment: The producers and actors nailed the Blue Bloods finale. A+. A finale for a show like this needs to end with the audience still loving the show and seeing the characters that they love happy and looking forward to tomorrow. Most shows that run for 14 years have attrition in the main cast. Other than losing Linda, the core cast of the pilot was there for the final episode. — Rob R.
Matt Roush: We’ll be addressing several series and/or season finales in this space — it’s that time of year. I would agree that for a mainstream hit like Blue Bloods, which has become such a reliable Friday night anchor for so many fans, the goal of a series finale (premature or not) shouldn’t be to throw a shocking twist that upends the lives of the characters — especially, in this case, a tight family unit — but to give viewers a sense of continuity and a hint at where they’re heading, in most cases happily. While there was tragedy (the funeral for Eddie’s partner), there was more importantly a reminder that this would not be the last Reagan family dinner, just the last one we would be invited to observe for now.
Vamping to the End
Comment: My wife and I have enjoyed FX’s What We Do in the Shadows, believing it to be much better than the film. We’re sorry to see it go but have been disappointed in the final season. However, they knocked it out of the park with the Dec. 2 episode. What a brilliant parody of the movie The Warriors, even to the point of confronting the team of “baseball players.” The Warriors is a favorite of ours, and they paralleled it perfectly, even down to the great song played at the end, which in the movie was played while the gang was trying to get back to Coney Island! The last two episodes (Guillermo and the office party) make us realize even more how much it’ll be missed. — John C, Denver, N.C.
Matt Roush: Not every episode of even the best series can be a home run every time, but the track record of What We Do in the Shadows was better than most — and I’ll be curious to see the reaction to what for me was one of my favorite series finales in some time. I’d expect them to submit the Warriors parody come Emmy time. That really was brilliant.
Slowest Finale Ever?
Question: [Spoiler Alert] Like any self-respecting (if they still exist) Yellowstone fan, I couldn’t wait for Beth to deliver justice to that stupid bastard Jamie. But it felt like I had to wait forever for the payoff. Has a series finale ever dragged this badly? These last episodes following the murder of John Dutton (Kevin Costner) were often torture, with series creator Taylor Sheridan taking the reins (so to speak) on camera when he should have been focused on delivering tighter, more dramatic scripts. The endless finale episode took an hour to lay John Dutton to rest, then they dispatched Jamie in a predictably violent but nonsensical fight scene. And then we had to sit through an entire Lainey Wilson song? I did like the callback to 1883 with Elsa Dutton’s voice-over bringing context to the family selling the land back to the native tribe, which felt like a true end to Yellowstone. But now I’m glad I have a Beth-and-Rip spinoff to anticipate, because I’d hate this to be my final memory of the show. —Corinne
Matt Roush: No argument here on any of these points. These long-delayed episodes often felt to me like what would have happened back in the day on the show’s spiritual predecessor, Dallas (remember that show?), if the “Who shot J.R.?” frenzy had ended with J.R. actually dying, forcing the show to scramble to recover. (In fact, Larry Hagman was involved in a salary dispute at the time, and his return wasn’t guaranteed.) The midcourse departure of Kevin Costner, whatever the cause, robbed Yellowstone of any real narrative momentum in these final chapters, and Taylor Sheridan’s curious decision to hog the spotlight didn’t help. The character of Beth is still one of my favorites on any series, and Kelly Reilly rocks, but watching her mope for hours on end before springing into action in the finale was beyond contrived. I also hope that whatever comes next isn’t so lazily and indulgently told. But face it, when the ratings are this robust, who’s going to tell the king of the hill no?
Who’s Responsible for Killing Superman?
Question: Now that Superman & Lois has come to an end, I have to ask: Who do you think the bigger idiot is, the CW exec who canceled it, or James Gunn, who’s too busy recreating Superman and DC in his image to save a great show? This wasn’t just a comic book or action show, it was a drama, a family drama with great writing and great acting, with what might be the greatest Lois & Clark pairing ever. Even Lex Luther, a character I hate, was great. With the exception of Smallville, this century’s Lex has been portrayed as a cartoon villain. But not here, where he was the epitome of evil. When Lex’s daughter reluctantly gave him a second chance to be in her life, Lex chose hate and revenge over love, making him a bigger monster than Doomsday. With the end of Superman & Lois, I can’t help but feel that the CW exec and Gunn did what Doomsday and Lex couldn’t: Destroy Superman. What do you think? — Alan B., Orlando, FL
Matt Roush: I think the writing was on the wall the moment the network changed hands from the parent companies of CBS and Warner Bros. to Nexstar, and no longer was The CW going to be a pipeline for expensive superhero action shows — in other words, goodbye to DC and the Arrowverse. Superman & Lois was the last vestige of the previous regime’s slate (with the exception of All American and a few non-scripted holdovers), so whatever your issues with DC and James Gunn (a subject on which I have no opinion or expertise), this show’s ending was entirely a business decision by a new controlling interest that had no interest in the sorts of shows that put The CW on the map.
Wash Their Dirty Mouths Out!
Question: I stopped watching The Diplomat before the first season was over, since I was very put off by Keri Russell‘s constant use of f-bombs. Do you agree that a professional diplomat wouldn’t talk that way? And her hair was very unflattering! Sometimes I watch a recommended show on Netflix or Peacock, and again, can’t get past the first episode because of the foul language. Surely writers can do better than that! I stopped watching Poker Face for the same reason: language and violence.
Also: I like 9-1-1: Lone Star but found it hard to believe that Carlos Reyes was not killed by Chief Bridges shooting him at point-blank range. The bullet bounced off his ribcage, seriously? Sounds medically very unlikely! Any comments? — Jane S., New Mexico
Matt Roush: If you’re watching 9-1-1: Lone Star for realism, you’re bound to be disappointed, I’ll leave it at that. Regarding harsh language on streaming series, I don’t know how or whether to defend it, because it’s so prevalent, but in most cases, if the language fits the character, I can at least accept it. And that’s very much the case with The Diplomat’s Kate Wyler (Keri Russell), about whom it’s established early on is more at home in war zones than in the posh diplomatic corridors of the U.K. That’s where the humor of the show’s lies as well. As for her hair—and I love that Keri Russell’s hair is again an issue, considering what happened when she cut it on Felicity — that actually became a talking point (not in her favor) in Season 2, and again, Kate being a mess is built into the show’s DNA. As for Charlie (Natasha Lyonne) of Poker Face being a potty mouth: Why wouldn’t she be?
Is There a Future for Mainstream TV?
Question: How much longer can mainstream television survive in today’s world of five-episode seasons, the growth of YouTube and Twitch as alternatives for younger people to conventional TV viewing, and the higher and higher YouTube TV, streaming, cable and satellite costs? I ask as a previous voracious viewer whose entire family left sitting glued night after night in front of our televisions to now sitting in front of our tiny phone screens watching podcasters, entertaining videos featuring subjects from baby animals and makeup to detailed ones involving home remodeling and car repair, and just straight-up using social media sites to get our news and information. Is my family an outlier, should TV executives be worried, or will the NFL continue to produce enough viewers to save the likes of CBS, NBC, ABC, and niche cable TV channels? — John
Matt Roush: Existential questions such as these are probably better answered in seminars rather than a pithy Q&A column, but to put it bluntly, TV has been undergoing a seismic change for quite some time, at least since the rise of Netflix and its peers, and while the lights aren’t going out just yet for the traditional broadcast networks, their hold on the audience and on the culture at large has certainly dimmed.
Sports and event programming are lifelines, for sure, and there’s just enough popular programming (Abbott Elementary, the new Matlock, Ghosts, anything from Dick Wolf’s factory) to remind us of “mainstream” TV’s glory days. But these corporations seem determined to reserve their most provocative fare for their streaming platforms, and the TikTok/YouTube generation gives us pause that they’ll ever settle for longform TV again. So it’s fair to say that TV has changed and will continue to change, such as it has since the growth of cable, the VCR, the DVR and then streaming. (Though the popularity of free FAST channels, which act like good old independent channels with reruns of yore, also remind us that vintage TV isn’t going away.)
And Finally …
From Matt Roush: To end 2024 on a positive note, I’ll refer back to last week’s lead question, about a future for the charming Netflix comedy A Man on the Inside, and happily report that the streamer just renewed the Ted Danson series for a second season. Now let’s celebrate!
That’s all for now — and because of the holidays, there won’t be a new column until January. But 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.) Thanks for reading, and I wish everyone a most happy holiday and great TV ahead in 2025!
Watchlist Easy access to only the shows you care about — all in one simple place
Alerts Only important notifications — when a show is returning, when it becomes available to stream, and more.
Special Offers Exclusive products we release related to your favorite shows and streaming services