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

Question: I hate that Mad Men is finished for the season, but what a great capper to the season! (And a lot of unresolved bits to look forward to. Is it Summer 2010 already?) So, any idea if Betty, Sal, Paul and Ken would be in the next season? Strangely enough, the one I'd miss most out of them would be Sal—and not Betty. I love January Jones and the role of Betty, but the divorce seems so final at this point, and I'm not sure I'd care too much about, say, Betty and Henry together next season (though I'd be curious to know how the kids would be), so I really hope the new Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce could spare a job (or at least freelance work) for Sal. Also: What are your thoughts on Miss Farrell, easily the only thing I really actively disliked this season? I can see how her presence with Don has perhaps influenced how he dealt with Betty, but I still fail to see the significance of the role (considering the time devoted to building that character). Easily my least favorite of Don's flames.

On another subject: It just occurred to me that as I was sorting through my DVR that I don't have one single prime-time show programmed on Tuesdays. Like, AT ALL. While it's busting its seams on Thursdays and Sundays (though with Mad Men out of the way, there’s a lot less to look forward to each week). Heck, I even have shows programmed on Friday, the death slot. What is it about Tuesdays?—Belinda

Matt Roush: First, Mad Men. It’s hard to remember as impressive a finale as this season’s, which turned everyone’s world (at work and at home) upside down so we don’t know what to expect next year. (For my reaction to the finale, go here.) Matthew Weiner is famously tight-lipped about the show, but in an excellent interview with the Daily Beast website, he even admitted he didn’t know some of the answers to these questions yet, having just wrapped this season. Doesn’t stop us from speculating, and I love how by creating the new agency (Sterling Cooper Draper Pryce), the show has figured out how to keep essential characters like Pete, Peggy, Roger, Don, Bert, Lane, even Harry—and most important, Joan!—all together.

What does this mean for the ones left behind? If the show is even remotely trying to be realistic, some characters will be lost in this shuffle and should only be expected to be seen on a recurring business, at ad functions or the like. But who knows? The fate of Sal is obviously the biggest question, given the way he was fired. The problem there is that the new firm’s biggest client, Lucky Strike, is the account that got him sacked. (As I’ve suggested, maybe they could just keep Sal in the, ahem, closet?) As for Betty, depicting her journey will be a challenge for the writers. She is often such an unpleasant character and is unlikely to find real happiness with new surrogate dad/lover Henry Francis, especially with those unhappy children harshing her buzz. But with Don still the ultimate focus of the show, I’m sure they’ll find many ways to keep their paths intersecting. (We don’t even know at what point in the ’60s the show will resume.)

Finally, Miss Farrell. No one’s favorite character, to be sure. The way I see her now, from the perspective of a completed season, is that she somehow represents to Don yet another escape from his compartmentalized life, one that was pure, innocent and uncluttered by emotional baggage (think back to his dreamy reverie during the May Day festival). I wasn’t always thrilled or convinced by how it all played out, but what I take away from it most is how his dealings with her brother provided a sharp contrast to his rejection and abandonment of the doomed Adam Whitman.

Second topic: Tuesdays. It may be a slow night for you, but it does boast the current #1 show on TV—CBS’s NCIS—which I know is a bit mainstream for some tastes, but clearly has a gigantic following. (And I’m getting more attached to The Good Wife as the weeks go by.) To explain why more hot properties aren’t cluttering up the night, look to the winter, when TV’s other #1 show, American Idol, bursts on the scene. The networks have long struggled to figure out what works against this juggernaut, and CBS hit paydirt with the NCIS formula, and NBC does well even in Idol season with the more heart-tugging reality of The Biggest Loser. Unlike Thursdays, when everyone wants a piece of that lucrative movie-advertising pie, Tuesdays tend to be middle-of-the-week, middle-of-the-road, with an awful lot of reality programming to counterprogram CBS’s populist blockbusters. From your point of view, look at it as a night to catch up on stuff from busier nights.

[This Just In: As most of you will already know by now, ABC just scheduled the final season of Lost to air Tuesdays at 9/8c starting in February. That plus a new season of Idol plus the undimmed popularity of NCIS makes Tuesdays in 2010 an unexpectedly exciting night of the week, no? Something for just about everyone, exactly how network TV is supposed to work.]

Question: [Paraphrased from twitter] Re Mad Men: If Ken Cosgrove got the promotion over Pete Campbell, why did Don and Roger ask Pete to join them and not Ken? Or why not give Pete the promotion in the first place? Was that solely Lane’s decision?—Mike

Matt Roush: Those are good unresolved questions, but the way I see it is that Don, if not Roger, realizes how much Pete actually cares (possibly too much) about the business and the clients, whereas Ken, to whom so much comes easy (like natural charm, something Pete lacks), is much more laid-back about things and may be seen as less easy to trust or control. The new firm needs a loyal soldier, and even though Pete was taking interviews elsewhere, that’s because he had just been passed up for promotion. To woo him aboard, they flattered him and promised him the possibility of a partnership—though not his name in the as-yet-nonexistent lobby—and Pete took the bait. And I do think Cosgrove getting the promotion was all Lane (acting on behalf of those cold British bosses), a tactical business decision that now leaves Kenny temporarily in the dust. I’m as curious as anyone about how characters like this will fit into next season.

Question: I know the general conceit of House is that he's an ass but a great doctor. (Not to mention a psychic, always knowing the motives behind everyone on his team, their decisions and things that happen in their private lives). This week, I think he proved to be such a selfish and pompous jerk to prompt me to say, “I don't enjoy this show.” He messed with everyone in his life and specifically the marriage of two characters. It's hard for me to understand why any of these people would want to work for him, let alone be his friend. I know he's in pain (physical as well as emotional), but you know what, most of us are, in some way or another, that doesn't make it OK to treat people badly and mess with their lives. It certainly doesn't make sense that the writers expect us to feel bad for House now that Cuddy finally found a guy that makes her happy, because he is finally ready to pursue her in his usual destructive way. Maybe I am overanalyzing this, but every time House opened his mouth I kept yelling at the TV. Yes, it's a just a TV show, but I think it's one I increasingly don't enjoy, because it's not fun to watch the lead character be an ass to other people just because he's a great doctor and is in pain. And when Cameron kissed House, besides annoying me, I found it completely implausible after she all but said he is the reason her marriage is strained.—Marc

Matt Roush: Yours isn’t the only mail I got this week from former fans now saying they’re ready to break up with the show over this. Can’t say I was crazy about it, either—in part because Cameron’s departure dovetailed with House wooing back members of his second-string team (Taub, Thirteen) who I hadn’t missed in the slightest. As House kept chipping away at Chase and Cameron in this episode, I kept trying to rationalize it as if he was diagnosing their marriage like it was a disease, but maybe that’s me overanalyzing. In many ways, we watch House because we find his incorrigible behavior amusing and sometimes dramatically alarming, but I agree it can be wearying. And when the impact is to lose a character like Cameron (who has been so ill used the last few seasons) for reasons that strain credibility while the show welcomes back characters who aren’t nearly so compelling, it’s a head-scratcher. House has a very odd tendency of fixing things that aren’t broke, and here we go again, before we even got much of a chance to enjoy the original team back in action.

Question: I'm trying to understand myself lately. If you were to ask me what the best new show of the season was, I'd not doubt answer Modern Family. In my opinion, the show has been virtually pitch-perfect since its pilot, the characters each have their own voice and the writing and acting found its footing remarkably well since day one, and each episode seems to even improve beyond the previous. I've heard the complaints that its premise is not bowling anyone over with its originality, and some loud detractors claim it's filching the mockumentary style from The Office and Parks and Recreation (because I'm sure many are just lining up to copy the latter), although I see it as just a legitimate, mainstream comic style by this point—but, as you're fond of saying, execution matters as much or more than anything else, and I think Modern Family delivers like crazy.

But this is where I'm confused: When it comes to Wednesday nights, Modern Family isn't necessarily my first playback. Sometimes it's Glee. In fact, I find myself making excuses left and right for this little musical comedy, and discussing it more with others than what I deem superior shows. Glee can be great fun and extremely entertaining, but it's wildly uneven. Continuity is a joke, and depth of character frequently goes only far enough to set up the next show-stopping musical number or implausible twist. The show retcons more often than anything else on TV (with the possible exception of Heroes). So why do I love it so much? It's ridiculous how much I'm willing to look past—not that I'm really complaining, because I'm enjoying it so much. I wouldn't label myself a Ryan Murphy fan in the least. I couldn't stomach Nip/Tuck even back when everyone else could. I'm just thinking about the person who wrote in recently with the complaint that Castle, which has great banter and a sense of humor and even greater Nathan Fillion presence, is held back from being great TV because of its lackluster mysteries and crimes. I wonder if Glee, which I would label a great show, is really being held back from being something even more by Ryan Murphy's extremism and lack of respect for character development or (sometimes) coherent plot. Some of that goes to the charm of the show, and I'm not going to stop watching in any respect, but I wish I didn't have to make so many excuses or overlook so many weak links in a show that is endlessly inventive and original and so much fun when everything works.—Brad

Matt Roush: What you’re describing in your conflicting attitudes toward Glee is a classic love/hate dichotomy, and what you’re responding to is heart over head. I know there are things in Glee that are too ridiculous for words, and I’m aware the characters are very broadly drawn “types,” and I detest the pregnancy storylines (well, Terri’s fake pregnancy), and wish I’d never seen the episode with all the Slushee attacks (including Will’s dousing at the end), and yet there’s an exuberance and originality and, just when you least expect it, a heart to Glee that makes it one of my favorite shows to emerge in quite a while. It goes beyond guilty pleasure, though. Glee is an over-the-top ode to the underdog, a celebration of speaking up and singing up to announce that there’s nothing wrong with being different, special, uniquely talented. New shows often take a while to find their voice, and Glee has a lot of voices and tones to contend with. For now, I’m enjoying the ride (and the soundtrack).

Going back to your points on Modern Family: I haven’t fielded that many complaints about the show’s “mockumentary” style, in part because it doesn’t overwhelm the show and because it tends to reveal such different sides to characters who generally are more relatable than what you see on The Office and certainly on Parks (which, for all of its improvements, still feels to me like it’s merely aping The Office’s beats of snarky, suffocating irony). A comedy about family may not be the most original thing, it’s what you do with it that matters, and in Modern Family, the quality of the writing and acting is pure gold.

Setting up the next item, this is a very personal response to last week’s Glee episode, “Wheels”—my review can be found here—so I’m letting it run at considerable length.

Question: I'd like to respond to Glee's "Wheels" episode last week from my perspective, having been a wheelchair user for almost my entire life as a result of being born with a thankfully mild form of cerebral palsy. I am attending Ball State University in Muncie, Indiana, which is known for the absolutely extraordinary level of accommodations being made for numerous students with all sorts of disabilities. My (individual) dorm room looks nothing like anyone else's, because it has all been rearranged to put things on a level where I can reach them, and the university paid for carpeting for me to crawl on since I don't walk. We also have a shuttle bus service exclusively for disabled students, which proves invaluable when it snows a lot.

However, even here, there are some places I just can't go in my chair or others which are exceedingly difficult, but it is a long process to get things done, particularly in these financial times. I am the first wheelchair user in the history of the university to declare a major in the theater department, and with my appreciation of theater, Glee was an easy show to love from the very beginning. The fact that they are portraying a wheelchair user in prime time is just gravy on top of a show I already deeply appreciated for its bold musicality among other things. So I was extremely distressed to read via the Associated Press that certain wheelchair users and advocacy groups are condemning the show for casting Kevin McHale as Artie instead of giving the part to a wheelchair user. This is, in part, a response to that.

Could Glee have cast a real-life wheelchair user to portray Artie? Yes. Might it have added authenticity to the role? Maybe, who knows? Authenticity isn't really the point with Glee, given its whimsical nature; the emotions are authentic, but the show is clearly not going for realism. Regardless of whether or not Artie could have been portrayed effectively by a chair user, you will never hear me say they did wrong by hiring Kevin McHale. He is fantastic in the part, and boy, can he sing. His performance in “Wheels” absolutely made me believe him, especially in his final moments with Tina near the end of the episode. Though I also understand her perspective, I would be lying if I said I wasn't right there with him in his disappointment when he found out that she has been faking her stutter.

Generally speaking, I have found that people who do not live with a disability or know someone with one do not think about what we go through on a daily basis because they don't have to, so it never enters their minds at all. Though the show filtered the situation through its usual extreme tones, the issues it addresses are very real, and any show that brings that discussion to the front of viewers' minds is an absolute winner in my book. As far as I'm concerned, wheelchair users should be celebrating the fact that we now have a show on the air spotlighting our lives in such a significant way instead of complaining about its choice of actor to do so. So way to go, Glee, for being proactive and including wheelchair users so positively in its storytelling. I adored the show before, but I appreciate it even more now that this episode aired.—Jake

Matt Roush: Thanks for sharing this. I can only imagine how meaningful this episode was for you, with the added bonus that it was also the most entertaining episode of the season to date (although I very much enjoyed this week’s, too). I would think the folks who make Glee will be very gratified to hear your story.

Question: I was blown away by the Nov. 13 “For the Defense” episode of Law & Order. I can’t believe I am saying this, but I am actually shipping Cutter and Connie. It was somewhat addressed on the last episode, but this is Law & Order. Is anything going to come from this? Because the chemistry between these two characters is off the charts.—Connie

Matt Roush: I loved that episode precisely because it brought the working/personal relationship of Cutter and Rubirosa into sharp focus. There’s no denying their chemistry, but the resurfacing of this messy episode from Connie’s past made it pretty clear to me that she’s not going to make the same mistake with Cutter—in direct contrast with Jack McCoy’s history (often implied) of having slept with some of his past ADAs (including Claire Kincaid all those years ago). What makes Cutter such an invaluable character is that he is determined not to emulate McCoy in many ways, including this one. The teaser at the end of the episode was intentionally ambiguous, as McCoy needled them about their newly increased workload: “You two will have to work together day and night. That won’t be a problem, will it?” Of course it will be a problem. That was clear from the look they gave each other. But will they act on it? I don’t know, but I doubt it and hope not. This is Law & Order, not Grey’s Courtroom. Which doesn’t mean they don’t want to, or that fans won’t be rooting for them to.

Question: Half question, half “you were right, I was wrong.” I wrote to you a couple of months ago defending Heroes and you published the letter, strongly disagreeing with me. Here we are nearly halfway through the season, and after what I still think was a strong opener, things haven't exactly gone from strength to strength on the show, have they? It has its moments, sure, but it's terribly inconsistent, and some of the characters and storylines they are choosing to spend time on are truly awful. Their ongoing inability to move past Zachary Quinto's newfound movie stardom and focus on characters who aren't psychotic killers is not unproblematic, either. This, on a show called Heroes.

I was trying hard to have patience and hoped for things to get back on an even keel, but I'm afraid the proverbial last straw came for me with the news that [SPOILER ALERT] they are letting Adrian Pasdar go. Because naturally, when it comes to getting rid of actors, you'd want to fire the only person to have won any acting awards for your show. What a genius move, surpassed in its brilliance only by allegedly letting him find out by reading it in a script. I can only hope the guy gets another regular gig quickly. He's been truly excellent on Heroes. If you feel like slamming Heroes again, have this one on me: What ARE they thinking this season? Is there anything coming up that makes it at all salvageable? Why are they firing one of the few cast members who really can act? (Hey, I loved the show, but I wasn't completely blind to its weak points!) And is it true that NBC is doing so badly that they're still likely to renew it, even with the ratings as bad as they are?—Celine

Matt Roush: Without getting into the specifics about how Adrian Pasdar/Nathan was let go from the show—a subject on which I’m not an expert—I can only respond by saying there’s almost no one on that show anymore, with the possible exception of HRG, who hasn’t been played out past the point where I no longer care who lives, dies or (often, maddeningly) gets reborn. I’m watching more out of duty at this point, not always sure why I’m bothering, except that I figured that I’d come this far, might as well see it to the end. But you may be right, that NBC is in such poor shape that even a lesser Heroes still has more value than most shows on its schedule and might squeeze out another undeserved season. In which case I may be answering questions like this in the future from second-hand distance.

Question: Any REAL Defying Gravity news anywhere? I've read a lot of rumors on the net. That it was cancelled, not enough viewers???!!! Many people I know watched it and loved it!! I thought it was very good!! And is ABC not going to air the rest of the episodes? I read that there were 13 episodes, and the whole season including the season finale was shown in Canada and is now rerunning on Canada’s Space Channel. How can we get this on SyFy???? I am very disappointed that ABC canceled it, or did they?—Liz

Matt Roush: I never understood what ABC was doing with this series, dropping it into the schedule with no fanfare in the middle of the summer, treating it like the inexpensive acquisition from Canada that it was. But to update: the show was definitely canceled, and I doubt ABC will air the unseen episodes at this point. The entire 13-episode series will be released on DVD in January, so that’s probably your best chance to see all that was made, unless Syfy someday strikes a deal to run the episodes. (They’ve done it before with short-lived sci-fi series, so anything’s possible.)

Question: Watching the first part of the CSI trilogy, I’m wondering why CSIs don't share info with fellow CSIs. Take blunt force trauma to the head. How many times must they show a plastic head filled with red ink being smashed by various objects—hammers, bats, golf clubs, etc, and always by a CSI in a clean white lab coat? You would think by now the department must have complete records of heads, blunt-force trauma and blood-splatter patterns. And what’s with Langston bringing in slides of various cutting utensils to Miami? He examines the wound and pulls out his personal slide collection and declares the cuts were made by a cleaver. Wow, and Horatio didn't have a clue. And Langston's been on the job for less than a year. How many years for H and Company? What is it about a guest star playing a visiting CSI that makes the regulars seem dumb as dirt?—Dewey

Matt Roush: Sometimes a stunt is just a stunt and there’s no way to pretty or smarten it up. That was the case with the CSI trilogy, which did well in the ratings but which seemed to me like a complete creative shambles. You could nitpick this story to death. It made precious little sense as it hopscotched between cities and crimes (from organ harvesting to prostitution), and no matter how hard the franchise tries, it hasn’t been able to do much with Laurence Fishburne’s ill-conceived role.

Question: I've stuck with Brothers & Sisters through thick and thin for a while now. And there have been quite a few bumps in the road. There was the whole Rebecca's not-a-Walker mess (which took a while for me to get over), the Ryan storyline that just won't go away, and an entire third season that I thought was mostly terrible. But I was finally starting to really enjoy the show again. Things were going so great. I should have known they'd find a way to ruin it. Of course, I'm talking about the latest incredibly lame reveal that Rebecca is pregnant. Even if we can get past the painfully cliched way in which it was done—I don't see how any respectable writer would think that set-up and reveal was anything less than total predictable garbage—the storyline seems completely run-of-the-mill to me. It just feels like a lame twist done for nothing but short-term dramatic payoff with nothing rewarding in the long-term. I'm just really struggling to see the producer's rationale behind this latest extremely poor story development. I'll stick around to see exactly where's it's headed, but my gut tells me it's nowhere special.—Joe

Matt Roush: The Rebecca-Justin part of the show is always my cue to complete a chore or hit fast-forward. There’s nowhere to go with these characters, so they’ve given them a baby-bump speed bump. I agree the way the twist was revealed was trite, but even worse is that Rebecca has spent two entire episodes (at this point) fretting about it without telling Justin. That kind of plotting works my last nerve. What is it with babies and this show that make me feel like Elizabeth Banks from the most recent episode of Modern Family (not wanting to harm them, mind you, just annoyed that they keep upstaging the rest of the action). Scotty and Kevin remain one of Brothers & Sisters’ best assets, but every storyline so far that has involved them heading toward parenthood has been so aggravating. They bicker, they pout, they part company on some ridiculous conflict, then they kiss and make up. Until they grow up, should they really bring a baby into their lives? One thing I do identify with the Walkers about: Before I watch an episode, I have to pour myself a generous glass of wine to get me through all the whining.

Question: I read your (and others') rave about the “Changing Channels” episode of Supernatural and expected a lot from it. I enjoyed it overall, laughing out loud several times. I did, however, have a problem with it. I am not one of those people who constantly harps on how poorly Supernatural treats women and minority characters, but the treatment of women in the last episode really struck me. I understand that the first part was all parodies, but the roles for the women were horrible. Grey's Anatomy (despite all of its faults) is female-centric, with a lead female and several other complex female characters. When parodying it, Supernatural turned the lead into a male and made the primary female support character a constantly crying mess. OK, I could get over that. (It was amusing, after all.) In the commercial, though, they objectified the sole speaking female, showing her cleavage and even panning down to where the genital herpes could be found. Okay, again, I could deal with that. Then they had a Vanna White style character, primarily for show, on the Japanese game show. Not too horrible, but the worst for me was the sitcom female. She really had to not only be completely insipid, but she also had to be objectified and wearing a bikini? Each parody when taken alone is not so bad and does ring rather true to source material. It is when they are taken together that it starts to become a problem.

For me, this was exacerbated by the fact that there were no other mitigating female characters. Obviously the brothers are male, but so were Castiel and Gabriel, the only other major/complex characters. Actually, that is rather indicative of the disquieting issue I have with Supernatural. The majority of the interesting and complex characters are male. For example, there were female witches in one of the earlier episodes, but they were simplistic, derided and killed. In a recent episode there was a male witch. Not only was he much more compelling and complex, but Dean even compared him favorably to the “standard” witch, and despite the fact he had killed people, nothing happened to him. Women on this show tend to be one-dimensionally evil and/or victims—or sometimes, like Ruby, even end up being both. This is even true of the major characters. The major exception I can come up with to the rule is Ellen, whom I love. Unfortunately, however, she is rarely seen. I would put her character on par with Bobby, but she has only been in eight episodes to Bobby's 25.

I do love the show, but I find it strange that in this wonderful TV environment with strong/complex female characters (especially on cable, but also on network shows) that a show can be so male-centric and slight female characters, even in an otherwise very strong episode. I would love your take on the treatment of women on Supernatural, especially as I know you share my dislike of the portrayal of women as constant victims on other shows.—Meredith

Matt Roush: I’m not sure why a parody episode of Supernatural would be such a trigger for an issue that has clearly bothered you for a while, judging by this essay. To me, the way the women came off in the parodies, especially in the jiggly sitcom spoof, was a broad comment on how women are portrayed on TV in general. I don’t follow the fan boards on shows like Supernatural, preferring not to have my own experience clouded by anyone else’s agenda, so didn’t realize this was such an issue. It honestly doesn’t bother me that the show is about two guys who are brothers, dealing with the legacy of their father and often leaning on a father figure like Bobby. It’s very dude-centric to be sure, although Ellen (who makes a comeback this week, I hear) is always a welcome presence. And to bring diversity into the discussion, I thought it was very refreshing and amusing when the guys who saved the boys’ bacon in the fan-convention episode turned out to be a gay couple. Big picture: In the horror genre, with the most obvious exception being Buffy, women often are seen as victims, characters in need of rescue. The way this show is designed, neither brother is able to maintain a long-term relationship with a female character, and it’s true that characters like Ruby (loved the first one!) and Bella have been dishonorable or evil at heart. But again, that’s the genre. Our heroes are lone wolves, and that’s pretty much as it ought to be.

Question: It’s been years since the CBS show The District went off the air, and it seems by now they would have released the DVD for the series (either in individual seasons or as a complete series). The show had what a lot of CBS (and other networks’) shows are lacking in their procedurals/crime dramas lately: a real hook in their characters and storylines. The show wasn't the same once Lynne Thigpen passed away, but still, the show remains in my opinion one of CBS’ best series ever. Any chance CBS will release it to DVD?—Shane

Matt Roush: Not that I’ve heard, but as I’ve often cautioned, I’m not an expert about the intricacies of the DVD marketplace, so anything’s possible. If a show isn’t released right away, the issue is usually rights fees, usually for music (but in this case, there may be complications because the show was based on an actual person’s career), or it could be that the studio did research on this type of show and its audience and calculated that an official release wasn’t a smart investment. Eventually, with so much material available for digital downloading, there will be (if there aren’t already) ways to access shows that aren’t distributed on disc. But again, that’s hardly my area of expertise. I have trouble enough keeping up with what’s currently on air.

Question: I am very upset about the exit of Vincent D'Onofrio and Kathryn Erbe from Law & Order: Criminal Intent. Although Jeff Goldblum has been a great addition to the show, no one can replace Vincent and Kathryn's contributions. Why has this change been made? Is there anything that can be done to bring them back?—Judy

Matt Roush: From what I gather, Vincent D’Onofrio left on his own accord—the writing has been on the wall ever since he halved his workload a few seasons ago—and that precipitated the revolving door so common to Law & Order shows (with the exception of SVU so far). He’ll be getting his sendoff when the show returns to USA Network next year, but I doubt anything can be done to bring him back as a regular, at least not in the foreseeable future. (Actors do have a way of coming and going on these shows.)

Question: When watching Friday Night Lights, I was somewhat surprised to see a DirectTV advertisement for the Tim Daly show Eyes that was canceled so quickly about four years ago. I was even more surprised with the promo announcement referring to it as “the new, sexy show Eyes” (or something like that). I assume, with Tim Daly being otherwise occupied, that this is just a burn-off being advertised on the basis of an assumed audience memory loss. Any idea if the never-broadcast episodes would give any plot closure, or is picking it up just asking to be left hanging?—John

Matt Roush: The only thing “new” about DirecTV’s run of Eyes, as with earlier pick-ups of The Nine, Wonderland and Smith, is that many of the 13 episodes were never shown, given how quickly ABC pulled it from the schedule. No new (as in current) episodes are in the picture. Can’t say if the show reached closure or went out on another cliffhanger. That’s the risk you’ll have to take.

Question: Is Adam Rodriguez done completely with CSI: Miami? I thought he was going to be in at least seven or eight episodes this season to bring closure to everything, but it appears that he will no longer be in the show. What happened?—Rosemary

Matt Roush: I know he’s due back for an episode next month, but beyond that, haven’t a clue. Given that he’s now appearing on Ugly Betty, which is filmed on the opposite coast, I’d assume he’s pretty much moved on.

Question: Your recent mention of BBC America (in regards to Wire in the Blod) reminded me that they initially planned to air season 2 of the excellent Ashes to Ashes back in May, closely following the airings in Britain. They delayed it for the new season of Primeval, which has run its course. It is now six months later, and BBCA has not shown Ashes to Ashes and their website is remarkably silent on the subject. Do you have any way of knowing of they will continue with this unique series, or have they fallen into the reality abyss?—Rick

Matt Roush: I recently looked into this again, and was told the second season of the Life on Mars sequel is still waiting in the wings, but no ballpark airdate yet. Can’t say why. It does seem as if some of the drama imports (including mystery franchises) are having trouble finding a slot on the schedule, which has gone very heavy into docu-reality. Sci-fi, on the other hand, is clearly a winner. Given the hybrid nature of Ashes to Ashes, I imagine we’ll get to see it eventually. But with the new news that Garth Ancier is stepping down as president of the channel (though he’ll continue to advise), maybe more changes will soon be afoot at BBC America.

That’s all for now. Look for the next Ask Matt column the week after Thanksgiving. In the meantime, keep those questions coming to askmatt@tvguidemagazine.com, and follow me at twitter.com/roushTVGuideMag