Question: I'm generally a TV realist. Sure, there are times when I wish that networks would stick with high quality low-rated shows just because they want to be known for quality programming, and I understand that a network would love for any and all of their shows to hit it big, and they don't tend to try to kill shows, as they are so often charged with. But the case with Better Off Ted just bugs me to no end, because I feel that this show in particular has never gotten the chance it deserves.

Throughout its short history, this smart and funny show has been paired with a ratings loser on its long, final breath (Scrubs) during the summer, and now some new weird semi-reunion show thing (I think it's called AfterScrubs during the holiday dead zone, and it's been recently announced that ABC would be burning off the rest of its Ted order within the next month or so. I know I'm not the first to write in and suggest that Better Off Ted be given a trial run amidst the other great comedies in ABC's Wednesday night block, but it would really do this greatly enjoyable show a disservice to not give it some chance at being seen by an actual audience. All they're doing with the empty slot now is reruns of Modern Family, isn't it? The show's had like 10 episodes, period. That's kinda silly when you have another viable sitcom on your sked. As far as Scrubs' answer to The Golden Palace goes, why not pair it with its spiritual cousin? There's currently another weak spin-off airing after Grey's Anatomy, the one in which they killed off Addison Montgomery and she winds up trapped in something akin to purgatory. Failing that, they could revive Joey from NBC.—Brad

Matt Roush: Nice try attempting to make light of what’s a pretty sad situation. In my week-in-review column, I called Better Off Ted “the best show you’re not watching,” and for as long as it stays on the air (just a few more weeks, I think, with double runs on Tuesdays), I’ll stick by that statement. It’s a show that had the bad luck to arrive on ABC before the network hit comedy pay dirt on Wednesday, but even now that ABC has had some success in that arena, the tone of Ted with its snarky surreal workplace satire wouldn’t be a great fit with ABC’s family-oriented comedies—including the raunchier but at heart relationship-oriented Cougar Town. As has been noted before, it’s too bad this didn't end up on NBC, or maybe Fox (which has its own issues with live-action comedy), networks whose comedy brands are a little edgier.

What really saddens me about all of this is that Ted has really hit its stride this season, and Portia de Rossi in particular is nailing drop-dead-funny moments that in a more equitable world would be earning her awards nominations. Somehow the critical buzz for Ted hasn’t put the show on the industry radar the way it worked for her previous cult comedy, Arrested Development. It’s just a shame this one is slinking off the air, yoked to the dreadful (and increasingly painful) Scrubs redo. Right show, wrong network, wrong time.

Question: I was wondering what your take was on the news that NBC is planning to move The Jay Leno Show back to 11:35/ET and shortening it to a half-hour. If I were Conan O'Brien, I'd be pissed. When Jay Leno (who I never enjoyed much anyway) announced he was leaving Tonight, it was finally Conan O'Brien's chance to shine. Then surprise, Jay Leno is back on at 10 PM!!! Now they are still keeping Jay Leno on the air but pushing Conan back even farther. Personally I am happy to see that this "experiment" is failing, but I just wish that NBC would be a little nicer to Conan, as well as the rest of the late-night team. NBC started this whole debacle because they said that TV viewing habits were changing and 10 PM shows were failing. I think what it really boiled down to is NBC not developing any worthwhile pilots in a while, and still trying to make Heroes work.—Josh

Matt Roush: My take on all of this (which, again, can be found in my week-in-review column) hasn’t changed since NBC made it official over the weekend that The Jay Leno Show will vacate prime time once the Olympics begins to air, forcing a shuffling of the deck in late night. (Conan, we feel your pain.) This is an unholy mess, but it's pretty much been that way since the announcement several years ago that began this unwise and premature changing of the guard, moving Jay Leno out of Tonight before he or the TV world was ready and dealing Conan an impossible hand, especially once the prime-time Leno show was announced. Nothing about any of this was handled well, and everyone involved emerges from it tarnished if not humbled.

You’re absolutely right that this situation was exacerbated by NBC’s failings in prime-time. A stronger NBC might not have had to make such a desperation move to put Leno in prime-time in the first place. But they did, and now what are they going to do after the Olympics? Scramble, that’s what. Regarding your swipe at Heroes: That's its own nightmare. The buzz out of TCA was that they’re leaning toward giving it yet another year to hang itself, yet another sign of how bad things are there.

Question: If NBC indeed frees up the 10/9c time slot on weeknights, what are the chances it will pick up any of the recently axed shows, namely, Eastwick? Its modern women premise is line with NBC's Lipstick Jungle, the fantasy aspect similar to (but much lighter than) Heroes, and it's whimsical like Chuck. It would be extremely refreshing to see less stuffy programming (such as Law & Order) on the network, and even though Eastwick wasn't so hot in the ratings compared to ABC's other shows, it couldn't do much worse than NBC's current lineup. Your thoughts?—Tamara

Matt Roush Color me surprised that I have now been presented a question in which I can answer, “As bad as things are at NBC, they’re not that bad.” The last thing they’re likely to do is pluck another network’s failure, and while I’m aware Eastwick had its following, it was a mighty small one and had virtually no media support or buzz behind it. That’s a pretty fatal combination. We’re still waiting to hear just how NBC will fill these extra hours of prime time, but it will likely be a combination of pre-existing shows NBC has rights to (like Friday Night Lights or previously shown episodes of Law & Order: Criminal Intent from USA), plus reality shows, extra editions of Dateline and possibly a new fast-tracked drama pilot or something. It’s a mad scramble, no doubt, but where a show like Eastwick is concerned or any of the rest of the handful of fall series that didn’t make it, they’re over. (Trauma being the exception. It’s toast, but there are unaired episodes remaining, and NBC is not going to waste those. They need all the product in the bank they can get their hands on.) The upside, as was also buzzed about during NBC’s TCA day, is that the network may look more favorably on a show like Chuck, regardless of how it may struggle this season, favoring its chances of renewal. Hey, if they can talk about keeping Heroes alive …

Question: My husband and I really like The Middle, but we have a question about it. The boy who plays Brick, the youngest, is he in any way related to the youngest boy that played on Malcolm in the Middle? He resembles him physically a little and he acts like him also. If not, are there writers that worked on both shows? We comment on it regularly. This show reminds me of Roseanne, which we also liked. Loved the episode with Sue and the jeans and the older son with the car. We could relate completely as we experience this every day with our 20-year-old. Hope they keep this show on for a while.—Cheryl

Matt Roush: No relation between the kids who play Brick and Dewey. What you’re really reacting to is the similarity of tone between the shows (and not just because both have Middle in their title), including the way they present and have fun with the curiously quirky baby of the family. As far as I can tell, none of the creator/writers overlap with Malcolm, but several of them appear to have spent some time either writing or producing Roseanne. While I make no claims for The Middle being as groundbreaking as that show, I do find it reminiscent of Roseanne in the way it deals with a struggling middle-class family living in a cluttered and chaotic environment that would never make it on House Beautiful. The mail I’m getting tells me that audiences are finding a lot in The Middle to relate to, and they’re glad TV is finally getting back to basics for some of its laughs.

Question: I read in TV Guide Magazine’s Winter Preview a lot of good info about new and returning shows and their time slots. In the fall, I didn't watch any shows at 10 pm/ET during the week except for White Collar and Psych on USA Network on Fridays. Now, they are moving those shows to Tuesdays and Wednesdays respectively, and I am suddenly facing significant schedule conflicts. On Wednesdays at 10, there is a relocated Ugly Betty on ABC, the original Life on Mars on a local PBS station, and a promising new season of The Real World on MTV. On Tuesdays at 10, we also have Southland on TNT, which I wanted to try again, and the new comedy on Spike, Blue Mountain State. I used to catch USA programs on demand when I would miss one, but White Collar isn't available on demand. I'm just wondering how many other viewers of these USA shows are going to be facing such choices. It's nice to have so many shows on that I want to watch, but my viewing time and recording capabilities are limited so that I can't keep up with all of them. What the heck is USA going to be showing on Fridays at 10 anyway?—Frank

Matt Roush: For the time being, USA Network won’t be airing first-run originals on Fridays, though that may change when the summer season kicks into gear. I understand your dilemma, although where conflicts are concerned with cable shows, one option is that most of these shows are repeated at least a couple of times during the week. Personally, I like that USA is branching out to other nights, giving the audience very mainstream and often quite enjoyable options for the 10/9c hour—to a degree, filling the gap created by The Jay Leno Show, although that argument only holds up for the next few weeks. USA had had great success on Fridays since making a splash with Monk all those years ago, but like many top cable programmers, it’s trying to establish an identity throughout the week, and using these tentpoles to expand its reach on nights with potentially larger audiences seems to me a pretty smart and inevitable move.

Question: Last summer, I wrote to you praising Pushing Daisies for its satisfying series finale. Now I want to give a shout-out to Glee for its fall season finale. Obviously Fox was taking a chance by green-lighting such a "different" show. Everyone involved, no matter how much they believed in it, had to know that there was a good chance it would end prematurely. Then the little show that probably shouldn't, but did, caught on and became the breakout hit that inspires more creativity (we hope). However, if the last episode ordered had been the series finale (that we might have only seen on DVD), it would have been a satisfying way to go out. Truths came out, the much-hated false pregnancy story was gone, Will and Emma connected, the kids experienced success and Sue got her comeuppance. Still, nothing was completely resolved; the show set up the rest of the season for more story. Personally, I can't wait to see Sue make her comeback, but none of the other stories are finished either. Thank you to Glee for hoping (and striving) for the best, but planning for reality (one of the few completely realistic moments connected with the show). :)—Sheila

Matt Roush: If ever there was an argument to be made against unnecessary cliff-hangers that would leave the audience frustrated should a show be cut down prematurely, it’s this episode of Glee. It set up the back half of the season beautifully, but it seemed to me as well that there was a lot of resolution in this episode so it would play as a satisfying finale if Glee had imploded, as some cynics (who rarely champion anything that takes a risk) had predicted early on. Given that the first 13 episodes were filmed before the show began its fall run, this was a smart strategy, because nobody knew how Glee would play on a weekly basis without an Idol lead-in and facing tough competition. I will tell you this episode is the first thing I re-watched when I got the “Road to Sectionals” DVD set, and I was impressed all over again—not just for its extraordinary entertainment value, but for how satisfying it was in tying up so many threads of the first half of the season while laying the groundwork for what’s to come. Nothing aggravates me more than for a show with an uncertain future purposefully leaving the audience hanging with a big cliff-hanger, perhaps thinking it will somehow add pressure on the network to extend its run. That often backfires, and no one’s better off for it.

Question: I know you’re not a huge fan of Brothers & Sisters, but I happen to love the cast, which has a lot of chemistry, so I’ve stuck with it even though the writing occasionally leaves a bit to be desired. I was curious though at the rather abrupt end to the cancer story that was going on for Kitty. Was this planned in advance, or was it a network decision to end it now? After a slow build during the fall, Sunday’s episode felt completely rushed and robbed of any emotional significance. I mean, Sally Field didn’t even get the chance to cry over the possibility that her daughter was going to die! What’s up with that?!—Jennifer

Matt Roush: Like you, I’m still watching for the pleasures of seeing this cast in action, but it’s getting harder, given the substandard soap plotting. Still, I’ve heard nothing to suggest that ABC forced the producers to bring Kitty’s cancer storyline to such an abrupt conclusion. I rather doubt it. Given how clumsily the Rebecca-Justin wedding (and pregnancy) and the Kevin-Scotty parenting subplots have been handled all season, not to mention how quickly they wrote Gilles Marini out of Sarah’s life, I just figured it was par for the course to have Kitty collapse so ludicrously on the beach and then be put into a melodramatic insta-crisis where only Ryan (arg) would be a match for her bone-marrow transplant, followed by a jump ahead to her being in remission, so they could move on to the next crisis. I’m never surprised anymore when this show goes out of its way to annoy, frustrate and/or bore me. It is possible, though, that either the show’s producers or studio/network handlers decided they didn’t want to have Kitty’s health issues overshadow the entire season, and coming back from the holiday break is typically a good opportunity to kick-start the back half of the season and move it in a new direction. In this case, let’s hope it’s a better one.

Question: OK, I admit I was caught off guard and came in the middle of the season for Eureka and Warehouse 13 on Syfy. But I then became hooked and a devoted fan and watched them to the end. Are there ever going to be new follow-up episodes? Or is this going to be like Firefly where the shows are canceled even when there is a significant following?—George

Matt Roush: Apples and oranges. Or in this case, the difference between network TV and cable. Fox famously dropped the ball on Firefly—imagine where that show could have gone if it had been rewarded the kind of second chance Dollhouse got—but by Syfy’s standards, both Eureka and Warehouse 13 are hits, and Warehouse is so popular it could easily become the network’s new signature show. Both will be back this year, most likely in the summer (especially in the case of Warehouse, which really took off last summer). They’re currently between seasons, and as we hasten to point out, their seasons tend to be shorter than you get on network TV.

Question: I wondered if you have been watching Men of a Certain Age and your thoughts. When I saw the first episode, I wasn't sure, but I kept with it over the past couple weeks and I am glad I did. What a lovely little show with such terrific performances by all involved. I knew Ray Romano could do more than comedy and he certainly shows us that in this setting. Scott Bakula is one of those affable actors who can be in any given role and comes out being enjoyable to watch. Of course what can one say about Andre Braugher that hasn't been said before. He is a powerhouse to watch in anything and this role really shines for him, not in the overt intense way Homicide did but in a subtle intensity that he excels at. The supporting cast is great also. I hope TNT allows the show to move along at its own pace and if so it will be a show worthy of being must-see TV.—JG

Matt Roush: This is a tough one for me. The more I watch Men, the more I feel I ought to like it more than I do. The acting is outstanding, and Romano in particular is revealing how much he grew over the course of his now-legendary sitcom. He’s more than holding his own with his accomplished co-stars, and this week’s episode (in which Romano as Joe goes on his first post-marriage date, with the terrific Sarah Clarke) is his and the show’s most enjoyable to date. And yet, watching the show most weeks, I find myself cringing at the characters’ whining as the show heavy-handedly piles on the midlife crisis angst: Romano’s gambling problem and busted marriage, Braugher’s constant humiliation as he works for his horrible father in the car dealership, and so forth. The first three episodes, which I screened before writing a pretty punishing review, I found painful, and I was honestly surprised how many other critics had embraced the show. Then TNT sent two more episodes, which showed marked improvement: this week’s episode, and the one from a few weeks ago where Romano hung out with his bookie while Bakula and Braugher attended a school charity function and met the guy Joe’s wife is currently dating. These episodes felt like they were finding a better and less aggressively downbeat balance, and I was glad to see they’d toned down Braugher’s wife’s nagging tendencies (although do they have to be neck-deep in home improvements to add to his woes?), and Lisa Gay Hamilton is pretty wonderful in her own right. I now find myself trying to appreciate the show’s low-key virtues, though I'd be lying if I said I was looking forward to spending an hour each week in these guys’ company. But I’m beginning to see why other people do. Let’s just say that ambivalence is among the hardest things for a critic to express effectively.

Question: Last season on CSI: NY, Angell got killed in the line of duty and Flack was a wreck after her death. This season, it was shown that he was into drinking and flirting with other girls. At one point he got drunk in the subway. Luckily Terrence (Nelly) was there to save him, and Mac talked some sense into him. But ever since that episode, Flack has been 100% normal! I mean, he can be recovered already, but not to the point of it seeming like Angell had never been in his life. Eddie Cahill is an amazing actor and there is (or was) so much potential in that storyline! They could've made Flack an alcoholic for at least half of the season and also, they could've brought in Flack's little sis who last season was known to be a struggling alcoholic as well. I do hope TPTB’s are not letting this storyline go once and for all. Any thoughts on this?—Clarisse

Matt Roush: From what I’m told, the show isn’t revisiting this subject any time soon, which isn’t to say they won’t send Flack down that road again eventually. As someone who only watches this show occasionally, it seems to me if they wrote a scene where Mac talked sense into Flack, that kind of dressing-down tends to stick. But I can understand why you’d want a favorite character and actor to get to play meatier material than run-of-the-mill procedurals tend to allow.

Question: Very quick question with probably a long answer: What effect do you think Fox's moving of the American Idol results show to 9/8c on Wednesdays will have on ABC's two new comedies, Modern Family and Cougar Town?—Richard

Matt Roush: Idol is still a juggernaut, and no show would relish having to go up against it. That said, Modern Family in particular has the kind of media buzz and immediate loyal following that will probably keep its numbers pretty solid, or at least respectable. (Besides, I honestly can’t imagine watching results shows of any reality competition in anything but DVR playback mode, given the egregious amount of padding.) However it plays out, ABC isn’t going to punish either of these shows for slipping against the Idol onslaught. These are keepers, and I doubt we'll have to worry about their future for years to come.

Question: I've found that many people I know have either started or resumed watching The Office this season, and several say it's at least partially because of the honest laughs the show finds while depicting the economic difficulties of Dunder Mifflin, even as the resulting uncertain futures of the people of the Scranton branch mirror what a lot of people in the real world are experiencing. Sure, Michael is usually over the top and causes issues with everyone else because he wants to make people happy (including himself), and the only way he knows how to do that is to be the hero, but the consequences never occur to him (whether it's promising to put third graders through college when they graduate or telling a meeting of angry stockholders that the board will have a recovery plan when they come back from a break), but that's the character, and in that respect, he's consistent (and enough of my defense of Michael Scott). Anyway, the neat trick pulled off by the writers is that the show has been channeling the unease caused by the economic climate yet is consistently still one of the funniest shows on TV. What are your thoughts on the direction The Office has taken this year?—Mike

Matt Roush: I admire The Office for dealing with this real-world situation, but I’m not a fan of much else about it this season. The storyline of Michael reneging on his pledge to put a class through college was especially excruciating and preposterous—which for me is the opposite of funny—and I can’t even bear to remember how atrociously he acted during the “Santa” episode, pouting when Phyllis got to wear the costume, and so on. And Dwight’s war against Jim? These situations are more irritating than amusing for me, and I watch more out of duty right now. Still, my curiosity is piqued by the news that Kathy Bates will be doing an arc as Dunder-Mifflin’s new corporate owner, so hoping for the best in the second half of the season.

Question: I disagree with your observation on the Buy More story lines in your Chuck review. At times, I feel they are more entertaining than the main plot line, and the cast of characters is a lot of fun. I would like it if they were slowly, and one-at-a-time, brought into the know. For me that would be like on Buffy as the Willow, Xander and Cordelia characters learned about the supernatural and how much fun it was to watch them deal with it. So, I say, let’s have more of the Buy More! (Even if it is a bit silly how every spy in SoCal finds their way there.)—Randall

Matt Roush: Silliness is OK. That’s Chuck’s gift, spoofing on the spy genre with adorably nerdy heroes. I think Morgan is still an essential part of the formula, but when the show gets bogged down with Buy More shenanigans—an especially odious one is coming up that’s a takeoff on Fight Club—it often feels to me like it crosses the line into pandering. Be honest while watching tonight’s (Monday) Awesome-centric episode, and tell me you miss the Buy More characters. This is my favorite of the five episodes NBC made available for screening in part because Jeff, Lester and the rest of those tiresome dolts are nowhere to be seen.

Question: I was wondering your take on the news that Kim Raver is now a full-time regular on Grey's Anatomy after just a few episodes? I have to say that I was surprised and confused to hear the news. I personally think the cast is cluttered enough with the Mercy West peeps, now we have another full-time character that is going to take away screen time from the already suffering regular cast. It just seems like Shonda and Co are rushing to fill the void of a missing Heigl by throwing in another blond actress into the cast thinking we won't notice the difference. I have seen Kim Raver in other projects like 24 and Lipstick Jungle, and I can't say either way that I think she's a good or bad actress. Yet from what I've seen of her on Grey's, there just doesn't seem to be chemistry when she's alongside Kevin McKidd and Sandra Oh. The character of Teddy is obviously meant to be somewhat controversial to viewers, but it seems like the writers have abandoned the meaningful and important storyline regarding PTSD for the typical love triangle which just doesn't seem to be working on screen. We had that extremely soap-ish moment between Teddy and Owen in the exam room where she bares her soul to Owen. Even after that moment, I found little to care about. I want them to show me why I should care about Teddy and her relationship with Owen, but so far I don't really see much of a connection between them.

I think because she was introduced so quickly, there was no time for us to get to know Teddy even though in GA time she had been there for a while. Even Jessica Capshaw was on for more episodes before being promoted to regular cast and she seems to be a better actress than Raver, and was at least able to gain some sort of a fan base. I think partly it has to do with Shonda Rhimes wanting to find a home for people on her other failed project and but the storyline just seems so rushed and contrived at the sake of the mature storyline that they had last season which is really a shame. Thoughts?—Maya

Matt Roush Honestly? Huge over-reaction on any fan’s part not to give this character a chance. You admitted at the start of this rant that she’s only been on a few times so far. Who’s to say she won’t get some kickass material down the road? (I never saw Jessica Capshaw growing a spine the way she has done this season, justifying her addition to the ensemble.) One danger I see rather frequently in Grey’s fandom is viewers becoming so attached to a character or a couple that they spew venom on any storyline or character that rocks the boat—in this case, Cristina/Owen fans hating the very idea of Teddy. I get it, but I rarely agree with it.

Bottom line: Kim Raver is a pretty established TV star, so I wasn’t all that surprised when they added her rather quickly to the regular cast list. The reality of Grey’s Anatomy this season is that Shonda Rhimes is planning for the future in what is obviously a very transitional year. There’s no way to know who’ll eventually follow T.R. Knight out the door, or Katherine Heigl through the revolving door of frequent absences. There’s likely to come a point where the cast of Grey’s will look almost as different from the original cast as ER’s did toward the end. It’s in the show’s best interest to continue introducing new faces and new conflicts. Some will work, some won’t. With this one, it’s way too early to tell.

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