Remember to send your questions to askmatt@tvguidemagazine.com

Question: Too much of anything is a bad idea. Check that, a REALLY BAD idea, and when Jay Leno fails (which he will in this new format), NBC will have given up on a great dramedy (Life) with nothing but some third-rate hack jobs to fill the void. Who did Jay spy on this time to garner such power? I hope that another network buys this smartly written and incredibly well-acted franchise. There is no way that Leno's payday for this prime-time raping is any less expensive than a handful of good to great shows. This guy's ego is only shadowed by his lack of originality and talent. Thanks for allowing me to rant.—Lance

Matt Roush: My pleasure. It’s not like you’re the only one horrified by the implications of stripping a revamped Tonight Show across the 10 pm/ET hour, creating a ripple effect that makes it even harder for struggling scripted series to make it on the schedule. But demonizing Jay Leno misses the real target here (and I’m speaking as someone who’s not much of a fan, either). He didn’t create this situation. It was the NBC execs who put themselves in an unnecessary bind, setting an arbitrary and premature end date for Leno’s tenure on Tonight, causing the current mess because they were convinced (no doubt rightly) that once Leno left the show, he’d be snapped up by a competitor. Leno merely wants to keep working. He’s not the architect of this solution, regardless of whether it will be seen in the end as disastrous or a relatively successful band-aid on a hemorrhaging line-up. (As for the future of Life, given that it was an in-house production, don’t look for a white knight, or even a transfer to USA Network, which no doubt is hardly eager to be seen as a dumping ground for NBC’s castoffs, Law & Order: Criminal Intent aside.)

The Leno situation comes up a lot in my mailbag. Here’s another take on the situation, from Marcus: “Who made the rule that Jay Leno has to take over Monday through Friday in the fall? Can't his show, I don't know, start on Friday and then run through Tuesday? That way, Law & Order can still retain its Wednesday-at-10 time slot, and ER's new baby Southland can remain in the network's flagship Thursday-at-10 landmark. Having Jay air in the dead zone of Saturday also makes a lot of sense for the network, because they have nothing else to air that night.”

Matt Roush: Sentiment: Good. Logic: Not so good. This investment in Leno only works if they really swing the bat. And that means not backtracking by only airing him on nights where he can do the least damage—or, from NBC’s point of view, have the most impact. The network is now going to have to operate somewhat like Fox, putting shows that would traditionally air at 10/9c an hour or more earlier, out of necessity. Would it make sense for NBC to cobble together a best-of-Leno hour from the previous week to air on Saturdays? Probably couldn’t hurt, because once the season is up and running, and the novelty wears off and we start using the 10/9c hour the way many of us already do—meaning, playing back shows from earlier in the night that we were recording while watching something else—a Saturday recap may be the only way most of us are going to be able to sample the show.

Question: I LOVE reading your comments each week. You really hit the spot! My comment is this: When are NBC and ABC going to "get" it? CBS at least picks shows—i.e., NCIS, the CSI’s, The Mentalist, etc.—and sticks to a time and night for the most part! With NBC and Life, for example, how could it succeed when no one could figure where it would be! The same with ABC. Notice how well Desperate Housewives is doing, always on the same night and time! Too many other of their shows move so much I gave up and so have my friends. Also, since 100 million of the 300 million Americans are over 50 and the youth are watching iPhones and the web for shows, wouldn't it be smart for the networks to get their heads out of the sand and cater to that group? I think that CBS gets it a little. Your opinion?—Ellen W

Matt Roush: What you’re really addressing here is network stability, and that has been CBS’s greatest asset for quite a while, but is especially true now. The downside of stability is complacency, and CBS often gets knocked for producing variations of the same show over and over. But for the network’s core audience, it also means reliability. And CBS, because it’s successful, does relatively little tweaking, and for some time, it has been seen as the network that caters to a more mature audience, sometimes to its detriment in the advertising world. (Don’t get me started.) ABC takes much bolder chances in its programming, and when it works (as with Housewives, Brothers & Sisters, Grey’s and Lost), the network tends not to try to fix what isn’t broke. But the risk involved is great, and when things don’t immediately click, networks like ABC and the struggling NBC tend to scramble, and that creates confusion and frustration. It’s going to be harder than ever in the current economic climate, exacerbated by the way we watch shows nowadays (on DVR or online, or both), for shows to break out in the way they used to. I agree the networks need to leave some shows alone to find their audience, but at the same time, it’s a business, and the reality of the business is that some shows are going to be treated badly, and it’s our job (and the viewer’s) to follow and support them as best we can. Giving up doesn’t do much good for anybody.

Question: I just want to say, I have never, ever, watched Criminal Minds. But I did watch this last one with Alex O'Loughlin (Mick). He did a fine job (with what they gave him). But the show? The acting? The writing? The characters? Everything was absolutely a joke!! It was beyond predictable! I don't know about most people (Criminal Minds in the top 20?), but I like a little suspense, some surprises, etc. All the cast looked as bored as I was! I cannot believe this is a hit! I will never, ever watch this show again, and I don't care who I love that they bring on as a guest star! I would watch Southland and The Unusuals any day before this load of crap! You gotta admit that they are better than this joke of a show. Did you force yourself to watch this one with Alex? On a lighter note: the Heroes finale. I loved the first season, was okay with the second season to about halfway through, but now??? Kill them ALL already!! Who is writing this stuff? A 10-year-old (like Criminal Minds)? Ali Larter's back again? The finale was beyond stupid and, I might say, unforgivable!! They have lost a loyal viewer. What's your take?—Connie L

Matt Roush: Perhaps you’ve been missing my Daily Review blogs? (Shameless plug alert.) I wrote about Alex’s guest performance on Criminal Minds last week, and in so doing ignited a firestorm of protest from Minds fans (who have remarkably thin skins, considering the kind of show they choose to watch) when I dared to bash the show while praising the guest-casting. They act like beating up on this show is all I ever do, when I’m fairly sure I’ve ignored the show all season long (much my preferred option) until it did something that caught my attention. Anyway, I obviously agree with your revulsion. Ditto for the lame finale of Heroes, which I also wish would just go away. I’m not sure I can make it all the way through another season of that one, either.

Question: WHAT in the world was "Coach" Wade talking about in the April 30 episode of Survivor? He was quoting, I'm assuming from the Bible, to Sierra for telling a lie on him. (Which if you watch the show, Sierra wasn't lying.) Coach is a jerk.—JAW

Matt Roush: As I’m taking notes during Survivor these days, whenever Coach opens his mouth, I usually just jot down “more b.s.” Really, has there ever been a bigger gasbag on the show, with so little to show for it? (He wins an immunity challenge that’s a version of a kids’ game, but when it comes to challenges that require a true warrior’s skill, he’s useless.) The only reason he’s sticking around so long is that everyone knows they could win against him at the end. Imagine the final jury tribal council if he’s still standing and starts talking. The eye-rolling will cause eye strain.

Question: I just finished watching the next-to-last episode of Dollhouse, and I'm officially hooked. I have to admit being underwhelmed by the first few episodes, but recently this show has found its footing and begun to reveal a complex mythology. Alan Tudyk was simply fascinating tonight, and Alpha is taking things in a whole new direction. Anyway, my question is: Why isn't Dollhouse succeeding? Is it the Friday night curse? The essential concept of the show? The poorly performing lead-ins? For that matter, why do creative "outside the box" shows seem to only attract a few devoted viewers? I always hear people complaining about how generic network TV shows are, but when something different comes along, it almost always quickly fails. (I'm referring to the four major networks, not smaller ones where shows like Battlestar Galactica and Mad Men can have low ratings but be considered successful.) It seems easy to blame the networks for lack of promotion, poor time slots, etc., and in the case of Dollhouse, too much interference with this first season. But as I look at the ratings sliding each week, it doesn't seem like the network is completely to blame. Why is it that "quirky" and challenging shows never seem to become hits (and often don't even get a full season)? And how did Heroes and Lost, which both had huge first seasons, manage to do it?—Lenore

Matt Roush: All good, and frequently asked, questions. The bottom line is that many people don’t watch TV to be challenged and tossed into mystifying, weird worlds or asked to decipher complex mythologies. I tend to enjoy these kinds of shows, but I understand why others would rather relax with TV than have to work at it. Dollhouse is even more problematic than most, because its premise of “consensual [or is it?] slavery,” as one character recently described it, is very off-putting, and there are precious few characters to root for. (As the show has progressed, I’ve found I’m more interested in Dollhouse stories than “the adventures of Echo,” which may be another setback.) I do take issue with the charge that Fox interfered with the show in its first season. Beyond scrapping the first episode, which seemed a joint decision of network and studio (and, ultimately, Joss Whedon himself), Fox has let the show do its thing, albeit dumping it on Fridays, where the audience was always going to be cult at best. (Although if it had aired on Mondays as originally planned, the likelihood is it would have been seen as an instant failure.) As for Lost and Heroes, those are very much exceptions to the rule, and I was surprised in both cases—and absolutely thrilled by Lost, which broke so many rules—when these shows broke out in their freshman seasons. The easiest way to explain their early success and pop-cultural impact is in the simplicity of their titles and initial concepts: wonderfully drawn characters lost on an island of mystery, and ordinary people gifted or cursed with extraordinary powers.