Send all questions to askmatt@tvguidemagazine.com and follow me at twitter.com/roushTVGuideMag

Question: I really enjoyed the premiere of FlashForward. The problem I see is that if it is successful, ABC is going to try to milk it for all it’s worth rather than giving the show a fixed time so the writers can map out a cohesive storyline. Maybe I'm wrong and the suits will have the good sense to do with it what they did with Lost a few years ago and set an end date. But even if they do, FlashForward has “limited run series” stamped all over it, and I have a hard time seeing how this will drag out for five or six years. With the failure of Harper's Island, I'm sure it's going to be a while before a network is willing to try it again, which makes no sense given that some of the most popular shows on network TV right now are limited-run series. They're just reality, not scripted.—Dennis

Matt Roush: I’d normally say it’s awfully early to be worrying about an end date for a show that’s still in its first month, but the question has nagged FlashForward for some time as to whether it can sustain over the long run, and if so, how. When a variation of this question came up at the TCA press tour this summer, this is how exec producer David S. Goyer addressd it: “By the end of the first season, most of the questions raised in the pilot, including the one you see at the very end, will be answered. The overarcing cause of why the blackout happened ... that’s kind of like our ‘background radiation mystery’ of the whole series. I think to really do the show justice, we would need at least three seasons.” Which isn’t necessarily setting an end date, although it does let us know there’s more to the story beyond April 29, 2010 (the date where the first flash-forward took the characters). What will probably be unclear for some time is whether the premise might ultimately have been better suited to a limited-run miniseries, but for now, that’s not the intention. I wouldn’t worry too much about comparisons to this summer’s failed Harper’s Island experiment, which was more a problem of execution than innovation.

Question: I'm really disappointed with the new season of Dollhouse. The show is dragging and the central stories for the last two episodes were dull. Echo as a breast-feeding mom? No, thanks. I don't think I can wait out another six episodes for this show to get good again, if it does. And I know I should be suspending my disbelief, but if any rich guy off the street can hire a doll, why do government officials have such a hard time finding the place? What do you think of it so far??? And on FlashForward, I agree with your review. I'm enjoying the show so far and will give it a shot. But I wish that they would stop showing the same flash-forwards over and over again (within the same episode!) every time a character refers to them. Give the audience some credit. We remember what they saw already!—Aaron F

Matt Roush: Probably best to cut FlashForward some slack. It’s merely trying to play by the network rules for now, figuring people will come to the show late (especially given the night it airs) and may need a refresher course from week to week, especially given how dense the show is with exposition and introducing so many characters. But yes, I did feel the second episode was a little stuck in neutral, the explosive excursion to the doll factory aside. As for Dollhouse, I wish I could duck this question, given my longtime fondness for all things Joss Whedon. But given the dreadful (though hardly unexpected) ratings for Dollhouse so far this fall, I find myself not only wishing it were doing better. I wish I liked it better. Your problems with the premise merely scratch the surface. Read on for more.

Question: I'm curious about your thoughts on the latest episodes of Dollhouse. I'm a huge Joss Whedon fan, and personally give Buffy the Vampire Slayer my “Best Show of All Time” honors, but I've always found Dollhouse to be a frustrating, underwhelming, wildly inconsistent experience. It constantly ping-pongs from greatness (the unaired “Epitaph One”) to stunning mediocrity (the recent adventures of lactating, baby-crazy Echo). I also feel the show has many fascinating, squirm-inducing ideas at its core, but unlike every other Whedon series, it never takes enough time to explore them. It's all too content to play out like a stand-alone action hour most weeks, with Echo getting into wacky misadventures we'll never hear about again. I hate to say it, but I hope Fox sticks a fork in this ill-conceived series and allows Whedon, and his extremely talented cast, to move on to better projects. What do you think???—Don W

Matt Roush: Part of me wishes Dollhouse had been (to borrow a phrase from this column’s first question) a “limited-run” series that would have culminated in the outstanding “Epitaph One” episode (available on the DVD boxed set). Fox’s renewal was a surprise, and maybe it’s still possible for this show to make it to the end of its second 13 episodes (depending on DVR/streaming/download numbers), though lots of fans are nervously waiting for the shoe to drop. I know the loyal Whedon-ites will blame Fox for whatever doomsday scenario may occur, but I find the show to be at least as much at fault as the regrettable scheduling. While I find the premise provocative, I can’t say the first episodes of this season have blown me away. It’s not jelling for me, and besides ginormous plot holes I find hard to shrug off—I liked the twist that Ballard was the client in the season opener, but how was the target manipulated to fall in love and marry Echo, that sort of thing—it’s all coming off so far as dismayingly flat, with wildly uneven performances. I know I should care about the implications of Topher being able to manipulate the Actives on a "glandular" basis, but it's hard when you feel so little for the actual Actives. (When the best work so far has been turned in by Amy Acker, who sadly isn’t even a series regular, it’s not a great sign.) Anyone who’s read me for any length of time knows it pains me to be this critical of anything coming from the Whedon camp, and I’m still hoping some of the upcoming episodes (if they are allowed to air) will come closer to hitting the mark as several did toward the end of the first season (though none so audaciously as “Epitaph One”). I’m certainly not encouraging Fox to “put a fork” in it, given the investment so far. But I am disappointed, discouraged and not terribly hopeful.

Question: I've got to admit, I'm disappointed in your take on the David Letterman scandal (in the latest Week in Review column), and worry it's only going to serve to feed the crazies that still want his head on a platter for his distasteful but ultimately harmless joke about Sarah Palin's daughter during the summer. I fully understand and appreciate that "yuck" is the first reaction of you and many others, but as a TV critic, I'm disappointed that the utterly compelling nature (combined with the awkward and bizarre reactions of the live audience) of Dave's confession didn't get much, if any, sort of response from you. I'm not a fiercely loyal Dave fan, but see him as the reigning Godfather of late-night TV, and am certainly going to wait to hear more about this case before deciding that he's some sort of manipulative, sick, twisted, "hinky" man as so many seem to have. Not that I'm including you among that crowd, I just have come to expect a bit more than "yuck" and "he'll need to keep making fun of himself" and "yuck again" from someone usually so reliable and insightful on all things television on what to me was the most compelling 10 minutes of TV I've seen since the final frames of Vic Mackey and The Shield.—Adam S

Matt Roush: I’ll admit my reaction to the remarkable Letterman monologue could have been more considered and thoughtful. (I’ll be honest; I was so snowed under with Thursday night programming I forgot to check in with Dave—who isn’t part of my regular Thursday menu, given the glut—until his speech was over and I had to catch it on YouTube. Human error.) But even now, after watching it several times and talking it out on various radio outlets (and among friends and colleagues), I still find it hard to cheer the peculiar brilliance with which he took control of the story, given the messy particulars. It was riveting TV, I grant you, but was it really a proud moment? I rarely enjoy taking part in tabloid feeding frenzies, and for the most part, I figure those who will most loudly condemn Letterman are those who hated him already, and that’s easy enough to ignore in this polarized age of blowhard punditocracy. I doubt my own ambivalent response will fuel those bonfires. The way I look at it is that Letterman has always used his own human failings and foibles as part of his comedy—not unlike his beloved mentor Johnny Carson, whose personal life was famously messy—and this will likely not be an exception. He’ll carry on, and most of his fans will probably stay loyal, but to deny the “ick” factor in this story is to be naive.

Question: Why the media hurry to sound the death knell on Heroes? The premiere was strong: The writing felt confident, the carnival and its new characters were immediately compelling, and the storylines for the returning favorites also very strong, but it has been largely ignored, referenced only to gloatingly declare that the show's days are surely numbered. Why? I understand that its second season was mixed, and the first half of season three disappointing. But the same could be (and was) said about Lost. And like Lost, Heroes experienced a massive creative resurgence in the latter half of season three, which looks set to continue in season four. Lost, however, was allowed to bounce back; all was forgiven and the show (justifiably) regained its hype, and has spent the past couple of years going from strength to strength. So it's a real shame that there seems such an unwillingness to do the same for Heroes. I really think it's worth giving the show another chance. For my money, this year has all the potential to be the show's best ever. From what looks set to be an epic battle between Sylar and Nathan (I'm particularly looking forward to watching the performance of the always superb Adrian Pasdar), to what will surely be an exceptionally moving storyline for Hiro, Matt struggling with his darker impulses, the previously underused Ali Larter getting a chance to shine, a return to her season one best for Claire, and Robert Knepper's fabulous new character...there's so much to be excited about in the coming episodes. Any thoughts on the show, its future, and the media reaction to it?—Cel

Matt Roush: I sure hope they’re writing this “Redemption” arc as if it’s a final chapter, because even in as bad a state as NBC’s prime-time schedule is right now, I can’t imagine them renewing it if doesn’t pick up some steam soon. The skeptical-to-dismissive media response is something Heroes earned over the seasons by continuing to promise more than it delivered. Even now, with the intriguing new carnival characters (especially Knepper and the tattooed Lydia), I am dismayed by how the show has once again scattered its too-many characters to all corners of the Earth, testing our patience as we wait for the various uneven subplots to somehow reconnect. Only a die-hard Heroes fan, it seems to me, would compare its situation to Lost, which even at its worst operated on a far higher level than this live-action comic book.

Question: This is more of a statement than a question. I read your column and saw that someone described Big Bang Theory as generic. I'm dumbfounded. I was watching last week’s episode where Sheldon, Koothrapali and Howard were left as a threesome while Leonard was with Penny. I have never laughed so much. When the three of them were looking for the cricket in the closet, then heard it from elsewhere, and then TRIED TO GET OUT OF THE CLOSET AT THE SAME TIME, it was hysterical. My mother between laughs stated the gag was sooooooo old, but watching last night the gag felt new, despite the fact Larry, Moe and Curly probably did a similar one. The dialogue was top-notch, so many excellent one-liners. “I wonder what all the un-pathetic people are doing tonight.” “I can totally believe a chicken made you its b*tch.” “We don't pray to the shiksa goddess, we prey on them.” It's a rare Monday night that my facebook status message does not reflect a line from Big Bang Theory, and I don't know if this could be true if the show was a generic comedy. (PS: On a side note, I stopped watching Grey's Anatomy when Izzie started seeing, and then had sex with, Denny. I watched the season premiere and remembered why I fell in love with the show.)--Veronica

Matt Roush: Agreed on Grey's so far this season. But regarding Big Bang, a running theme through some of this week’s column is just how subjective tastes in TV comedy are. What’s generic to one viewer is another person’s instant classic. This attitude is unfortunately quite common towards many shows that are filmed in the “old-fashioned” multi-camera style in front of a live audience. There’s almost a stigma of shame attached to a show that goes for the big belly laugh instead of the droll, ironic smirk. When The Big Bang Theory was given the Television Critics Association award for outstanding comedy this summer, the gratified producers weren’t the only ones surprised, I can assure you. A number of our members simply can’t see what all the fuss is about. But then, I’m immune to the charms of some of the shows they extol for being so “smart” (as opposed to “funny”), like Parks and Recreation and Bored to Death. It’s almost impossible when it comes to TV comedy, especially given how much variety there is in the genre, to find a critical consensus.

Question: As a big fan of Supernatural, I am worried that the ratings this year will mark the end of its run, even as the show keeps getting better. I know it is in the toughest time slot on television, but to see The Vampire Diaries get so much better ratings, do you think the suits at the CW will consider pulling the plug on Supernatural after this season?—William B

Matt Roush: Fans have worried about the fate of this show each year from the very beginning, but this time, I am under the impression that Supernatural’s fate lies in the producers’ hands, not the network’s. The WB and now the CW have been awfully supportive of this show (though never supportive enough from its fans’ POV), allowing it to get to this essential fifth season, where the apocalyptic end game can finally play out. My understanding is that there will be some actual closure to the story, now that Lucifer has unleashed Hell on Earth, and that if the show continues beyond this season, a new story arc would have to be initiated. You’re right that the ratings breakthrough of The Vampire Diaries (a no-brainer, really, in every sense of the word) casts a shadow on Supernatural’s struggles in TV’s most competitive hour of the week. But the CW has far worse problems on its schedule than this, and all I hope is that when Supernatural comes to an end, it will be more a creative than business decision and that all involved will prepare us for it. To be honest, one of the reasons I exerted so much effort to get current with the show this year was because I expected this might be the end of the road. The one thing I don’t want to happen is for it to outstay its welcome the way The X-Files ultmately did. Supernatural is far from that fate at this point.

Question: All of the countless critical raves and high audience ratings for two of ABC's new shows (FlashForward and Modern Family) takes me back to six years ago to the Fall of 2004, when everybody was praising Lost and Desperate Housewives. Can it be: Has ABC really done it again?—Marcus D

Matt Roush: Yes, quite possibly, but reflecting the changing times and the diminished state of even the biggest broadcast networks, these are breakthroughs, at least for now, on a much smaller scale. When Lost and Desperate Housewives burst on the scene, they were explosive hits, instant phenoms. FlashForward and Modern Family opened well out of the gate, surprising many analysts, and I foresee a bright and long future for both shows. But neither yet could accurately be called blockbusters. Still, cause for celebration for sure.

Question: A question came to mind while I was watching the Emmys and seeing the nominations for best comedy. First, this was probably the best Emmy broadcast in recent memory and Neil Patrick Harris was outstanding. Remember last year when his and Kristin Chenoweth's few minutes of what would have surely been enjoyable banter was cut because of all the painful time-wasting that the multiple hosts subjected us to? How ironic that he can go from being limited from 30 seconds one year to outstanding host the next. But, to my question: When nominating and awarding Best Comedy at the Emmys, is the idea that they give the statue to the funniest show, or the best show to fit into the broad category of "comedy" (as opposed to drama)? I really think it's an important distinction. In my opinion, the two most consistenly laugh-out-loud funny shows of the year—Big Bang Theory and The New Adventures of Old Christine—weren't even nominated, and I have no problem with 30 Rock winning based on the nominees. But Entourage, for example, is a category mainstay, and even at its peak, although I've enjoyed the show and gotten involved in the plots and characters, there have never been that many actual laughs to be found. I feel similarly about Weeds. Both shows are very well done and well acted and the latter is darkly comic, but it doesn't begin to provide the belly laughs of Big Bang Theory. I'm not even trying to say that I think the Emmys are necessarily getting it wrong. There are other aspects of a show to consider, even a comedy, than how funny it is. A show can be extremely enjoyable and appointment TV without being laugh-out-loud funny. The show like Arrested Development that I think hits it out of the park on virtually all cylinders is rare. But if "Outstanding Comedy Series" is supposed to be funniest, then I really do think the Emmys missed the mark. Do you know if there's an unwritten rule about what makes a comedy series outstanding? What do you think the Emmys should be awarding in this category?—Brad

Matt Roush: This very interesting question harks back to the earlier one about how divergent the opinions can be on a show like Big Bang Theory. I like the variety of shows that are able to compete in the comedy field, which next year presumably could include such offbeat newcomers like Glee (an hourlong musical) and Modern Family (classic family sitcom with a different look and tone). But there’s no question that in recent years, influenced by HBO and groundbreaking series like Arrested Development, the trend has been to move away in the nominations from classic big-laugh traditional sitcoms to the more artful single-camera shows, including some that are very dark at the core (like Weeds and, I’m betting for next year, Nurse Jackie). The definition of comedy is awfully elastic, and I would hope the overall quality of a show can be appreciated beyond merely gauging its laugh-per-episode quotient. At the same time, a show that is an honest-to-goodness crowd-pleaser shouldn’t be penalized for that. (Thus the dismay when Big Bang failed to be nominated for best series.) But neither should a show be overcompensated for being “smart” if it’s rarely funny. It’s a tricky balancing act. One thing’s for sure, though. If Entourage makes the cut for best comedy again, after this year’s dismal season, that’s just a case of the industry lazily voting for what it’s most familiar with (i.e., HBO) with little regard for actual quality.

Question: My opinion: The Mentalist is a “one-man show” & would not be such a huge success without charismatic star Simon Baker. I find the storylines “yawn”-worthy and co-star Robin Tunneybadly cast. I know your response would be "If it ain't broke, don't fix it.” But there has to be something about the series you don't like. Care to share?—Eva

Matt Roush: Is anyone really arguing that The Mentalist is anything but a vehicle to showcase Simon Baker’s plentiful charms? It’s neither the best nor worst of CBS’s procedurals, and I find it clever enough most weeks to recommend this “one-man show” without reservation, in part because the man at the center is so appealing. My main criticism is that the supporting cast is mostly forgettable, and if it weren’t for Patrick Jane’s assistance, I find it hard to imagine the CBI team ever solving a case. What qualifies these sidekicks besides their good looks is beyond me. I don’t mind Robin Tunney in this role (beats what she was doing on Prison Break before she was killed), but she isn’t exactly credible as a bureau chief, I’ll give you that. Still, anyone watching The Mentalist for realism is seriously barking up the wrong tree.

Question: Could you explain what someone would mean by “Sunday night schedule dislocations due to football overruns.” I guess it must be the fact that I live in Utah in the Mountain time zone, but I have never seen any schedule dislocation due to football. Our shows always start when they are supposed to.?—Tyler

Matt Roush: That comment applies primarily to those living in the Eastern and Central time zones. Judging by my mailbag this time of year, it’s still a huge concern, especially to CBS viewers, during football season, when games run long—the last two weeks haven’t been that bad, though—and the entire schedule is pushed back, sometimes by as much as 45 minutes or more, which means a show airing at 10 pm/ET (a year ago, The Unit; this year, Cold Case) sometimes doesn’t start airing until almost 11 pm. Because 60 Minutes most weeks can’t be trimmed, that pushes back all of the night’s other hourlong shows, and unless you watch live or set the DVR to record the show following the show you want to watch, you can easily be screwed. (Fox has remedied this problem by airing a post-game show and animated repeats until 8/7c, ensuring The Simpsons and all that follows will air on time.)

Question: What is up with the scheduling of V? Four episodes and then a three-month break? Why? Don't they stuff a full season of both 24 and Lost (and, in the past, Alias) into a half season time span to avoid even a week gap in a serial show? Why are they trying to spread a half-season show out so much? My wife has already declared that she wants to TIVO the first four and save them until February (assuming it even comes back). While I hate to not support the show when it’s first on, I’m with her on this.—John K

Matt Roush: There’s no doubt that V, which this summer I was touting as one of the season’s brightest prospects, having enjoyed the pilot quite a bit, is now fighting some very negative public perceptions. First, production was shut down after the first few episodes, which is not uncommon (ABC famously did this with a little show called Grey’s Anatomy). But when ABC announced its scheduling strategy, a four-episode “pod” in November with a cliffhanger that will carry us over until spring, the hand-wringing began in earnest. Some of the reasoning I get. December is a notoriously low-viewership month for the networks, and a serialized series like V could take an especially damaging hit. In the new year, the launch of American Idol and the whammy of NBC’s Winter Olympics in February are also compelling reasons to sit those months out. The real question is why ABC is going to the trouble of launching V in November at all, when it might make more sense to air the entire 13-episode series in the early spring through the end of the season. V has the feel to me of “event” TV, but ABC appears to be blunting its impact with this approach. I worry what may happen if the November numbers are disappointing.

Question: I’ve now had time to watch two episodes of Accidentally on Purpose and outside of realizing I’ve wasted an hour of my life I’ll never get back, my question is: “Does anybody at the network actually watch this stuff before it airs?” Maybe I’m being too critical, but this has got to be the worst so-called comedy that I’ve ever seen. The same goes for Chuck and The Middle, although they aren’t as egregiously terrible. These shows are the definition of dreck. I never had a chance to see The Beautiful Life so I can’t comment on that, but I'm sure it was no worse than these 3 chestnuts. Granted, nobody ever went broke underestimating the taste of the American TV viewer, but how does something this bad get on the air? What were they thinking? Even scarier is that when they are eventually taken off, they’ll be replaced with even worse reality shows and the decline of network television will continue.—Patrick

Matt Roush: I can’t imagine anyone being overly critical of Accidentally on Purpose, which is shrill, unpleasant and hideously unfunny. In a season that’s notable for introducing so much good new comedy, this one’s a stinker, and its odor is especially noxious since it’s polluting a night of otherwise solid CBS comedy (hammocked between How I Met Your Mother and Two and a Half Men.). How do these things happen? This one’s a case of a network that really wants to be in business with Jenna Elfman. (The last time around, it was a similarly awful show called Courting Alex. Blink and you missed it, except you didn’t miss anything.) Going back to the comedy-is-subjective thing, do you know how many feathers you ruffled lumping Chuck into this company? (I also disagree about The Middle, which I found mostly funny in its frantic slapstick way, certainly a step about Kelsey Grammer’s woeful Hank.) Chuck is a polished action-comedy with very charismatic stars. It can be a bit silly, and there are times I think it would work better as a half-hour (trimming the Buy More subplots would be a help), but the only “what were they thinking” aspect of Chuck is its lousy scheduling and NBC’s decision to keep it on the shelf for half a year. I personally can’t wait for its return. [Addendum: I now agree with those commenters who think the above slam on Chuck was actually aimed at Hank, and this was a typo. That's the only reasonable explanation. Still, I'll let my defense of Chuck stand, since it felt so good to write about it again for a few minutes.]

Question: Can you tell me the name of the actor that plays Veronica’s father on Mercy, and where have I seen him before?—Rhoda

Matt Roush: That would be Peter Gerety, a long-time character actor whose many TV credits include long runs on such distinguished series as Homicide: Life on the Street and The Wire and too many guest roles to name (including a bit on this week’s Brothers & Sisters as Ryan’s contact in his revenge plot against the Walkers). I wish I could say his role in Mercy was among his prouder credits, but Veronica’s boozy parents (Kate Mulgrew is the blowsy mom) are such embarrassing working-class cliches I’m going to pretend it never happened.

Question: Are you kidding me? Talk about jump the shark or harpoon the whale...whatever. Modern Family has nothing on Cougar Town. Mark MY words, their will be Emmy noms for writing (genius) AND acting (Courteney Cox is hilarious with a stellar supporting cast). It’s the only sitcom on so far this fall which is laff-out-loud funny! And I used to say that only about The Simpsons and South Park.—Tom R

Matt Roush: I beg you, please leave sharks and even whales out of it. I agree that Cougar Town delivers some big laughs, and Courteney Cox is giving her all. Maybe too much in some of the more over-the-top scenes. But it’s also so crude and scattershot in its anything-goes approach that I can’t imagine it getting much Emmy attention, at least not at this point. A show like this doesn’t need that kind of validation to keep chugging along, anyway. On the other hand, look for Modern Family on many critics’ top-10 lists this year, and I’m hoping in the nominations of many TV awards to come (if it holds up).

Question: I was curious about your opinion of Castle. I've always been a huge Nathan Fillion fan, and his character just oozes with delicious wicked charm. And I think he and Stana Katic's Detective Beckett have great chemistry. Sure, sometimes the plotlines are a bit cheesy and unrealistic, but really, aren't they all? This show is very entertaining. That being said, do you think it will stick around? I know the ratings have been good, but not great. Do you think it's good enough for ABC?—Camille

Matt Roush: I think Castle is great fun, ABC’s lower-profile version of The Mentalist. It never takes itself seriously, except when it comes to emphasizing its leads’ chemistry. Like The Mentalist, as previously discussed, there’s not always a lot going on here, but it’s very enjoyable. But also not quite a must-see on a busy night. Whenever I have time for it, I’m rarely disappointed. But is ABC disappointed in it? I doubt it. I'm sure the network wishes it were a bigger breakthrough hit, but it's holding its own and feels like a keeper, at least for now.

Question: What are your thoughts on The Forgotten? I'm sorry if I missed your review. I am really disappointed. Will it get any better? I think the whole concept is ridiculous. What these people do (for free??) after the cops give up just doesn't jive with me. To me, the investigators, before they hand the case to these oddballs “because they've done all they could do,” should have done everything this group is doing on the case before they even hand it over! Am I missing something? Do the cops not have time to even try before they hand it over? Also, I find myself not caring for the voice-over of the dead. I want the dead person to come to them and they see them and help them and then they go to rest in peace, once the case is solved. But, would that even help this far-fetched fiasco? Also: I tried Community two times and I just can't find what you and others are loving about it. I love 30 Rock, so I think I can handle some crazy humor, but this show is awful! I am bored out of my mind! I find no chemistry at all with the girl and the Soup guy. It just is not funny at all to me. What is it that you and others like so much about it? And on a good note, I absolutely loved the FlashForward premiere!! I think this could go on for quite some time with a lot of mystery and mythology. It's no Lost, but for me, it's a good fit once Lost is gone. I hope people will give it a chance and hang in there.—Connie L

Matt Roush: ABC delivered the revamped pilot of The Forgotten late in the fall-preview process. Here’s what I thought of it, which isn’t much. I couldn’t agree more about your problems with the premise. It’s one thing for the amateur sleuths to go the extra mile to discover the Jane/John Doe’s identity, although then playing detective to solve the crime does make you wonder just where they get the authority. A weird hybrid of a show, and the Lovely Bones voice-overs get on my nerves. Falls into that category of “one too many” in an overstuffed genre. Glad you’re enjoying FlashForward, but as for Community, I’ll go back to the “to each their own” refrain when it comes to TV comedies. I like these characters, and when the study group is all together, I enjoy the quirkiness of this misfit ensemble. It’s both snarky and sweet, and for me, that’s an appealing combination in a clever little show that’s still finding its feet, and its audience. It’s probably going to have an uphill climb now that it’s moved into its 8/7c time slot, yoked with Parks and Recreation, which for me is the black hole of unfunny on that night’s schedule.

That’s all for now. Keep those questions coming to askmatt@tvguidemagazine.com, and in the meantime, follow me at twitter.com/roushTVGuideMag