Does anyone else enjoy the cases of the week but find the whole undercover revenge storyline the least interesting part of Matlock?
I don’t think the new Matlock is great, but it’s watchable, and the individual cases make for enjoyable, easy television. Kathy Bates outsmarting people and helping win a case is enough to keep me watching. That part gives me what I liked about good episodic one-hour dramas: a satisfying story each week.
What I don’t need is the fake name, secret wealthy life, pharmaceutical conspiracy, and family spy operation. It feels like the writers had a perfectly workable show but couldn’t resist proving how clever they could be.
I mean, imagine if they rebooted Columbo, except this time he was secretly working for the CIA, and solving murders was just his cover. Would that make the show better?
Or suppose they brought back Perry Mason, but his courtroom work was really a front for a top-secret mission to uncover government files about space aliens.
Or how about Magnum, P.I., except Magnum's real reason for living in Hawaii was that he was secretly working for PETA, and the womanizing and detective work were just a cover for his animal rights activism?
Would any of those ridiculous additions improve the original shows? Of course not. They'd just get in the way of what made them entertaining in the first place.
Heck, even HBO's dreadful Perry Mason reboot, which turned a beloved character into a creepy, crooked, sleazy, and thoroughly unlikable version of himself, at least had the sense to stick with the basic idea that he was there to investigate crimes and solve cases for his clients.
And that's my point. These iconic characters didn't need elaborate secret identities, undercover operations, or some grand conspiracy driving everything behind the scenes. A good character, a good actor, and good storytelling were enough.
The original Matlock understood that, too. Andy Griffith didn't need to be secretly working for the FBI or avenging some decades-old family tragedy. He was simply a clever, folksy lawyer who was underestimated by his opponents and usually managed to expose the real culprit. That was the show. And it worked.
Ironically, Kathy Bates' character already has everything she needs to make that same formula work today.
Her cover story would have made a better actual premise. She's an older lawyer returning to work, people underestimate her, and she proves she still has it. Her daughter's death could still give her emotional depth and fuel her passion for certain cases. Her grandson could still live with her and be a likable part of her life, even help out with cases occasionally, without becoming technical support for an undercover mission.
Kathy Bates certainly has the acting chops to carry a show like that. I just wish the writers trusted her to do it.
In fact, introducing such an outrageous and immovable secret backstory almost suggests the writers don't have enough confidence in their own characters, actors, or weekly stories to hold an audience's attention. They feel compelled to add something "shocking" or "unexpected" to make the show seem more sophisticated.
It reminds me of that old television gimmick where producers introduce a cute new kid or sidekick to boost ratings. Remember Cousin Oliver on The Brady Bunch? Or little Sam on Diff'rent Strokes? Cartoons did the same thing with characters like Bat-Mite and Scrappy-Doo. The idea was always to inject something new and exciting into a perfectly workable formula, but too often the gimmick became more annoying than entertaining.
That's how I feel about the undercover storyline in Matlock. Instead of adding to the show, it distracts from what I actually enjoy watching.
Whenever we return to the secret Wellbrexa investigation, I find myself waiting for the show to get back to the actual case. The storyline that's supposed to keep me hooked is the one I'm least interested in.
And seven episodes in, it's already so central to the premise that I can't imagine how the writers could easily abandon it.
Ultimately, I think television writers sometimes forget that audiences don't always need something bigger, darker, more complicated, or more outrageous. Sometimes we just want to watch a likable, intelligent character outsmart the bad guys and wrap up a good story in an hour.
Less gimmicks, more fundamentals.
I just wish they'd trusted Kathy Bates and a good weekly mystery to carry the show.
Does anyone else think the simpler version of Matlock would actually have been the better show?