Question: Why did the producers of Law & Order: SVU consider it necessary
to schedule the second part of the Nov. 21 episode to be aired when the show resumes on Jan. 9? We were very upset when we saw the “Who Killed JR” type of cheap trick announced at the end. (In a ripped-from-the-headlines story similar to the Jeffrey Epstein saga, Det. Rollins is kidnapped). Other shows have successfully used such a gap as a suspense tool to encourage audiences to watch a subsequent season, but in my opinion, this particular series should have relied on the intelligence of their sophisticated viewership to continue watching this consistently excellent program without resorting to insulting the audience by choosing this story to run over their six-week hiatus. Your thoughts? —Mitch
Matt Roush: I get where you’re coming from, but this is the new reality of network TV, even for a long-established show like SVU. The “fall finale” has now become something of a midseason cliffhanger for many shows, and while it’s somewhat out of character for SVU to build a multi-episode arc with a cliffhanger, it’s not unprecedented. The idea is to give NBC something with which to bang the drum loudly when the lineup returns after the holiday break. SVU should be above such nonsense, but in this case, it’s being a team player, even at the expense of its fans’ patience.
To submit questions to TV Critic Matt Roush, go to: tvinsider.com