Six Feet Under's finale vs all other endings
This is more of a question rather than a statement, but why do most TV shows seem to drop the ball when it comes to crafting their ending? The Good Wife is the latest example of a show that dropped the ball. But why is that? The show ran for 7 seasons, and in that time they could have mapped out a story arc in the final season for the closing moments of the show. They didn't, and now the show will forever reside in the television pantheon for mediocre endings.
So my question is, what are the intangible qualities that have separated the really good finales from the really crappy finales? The only other television finale that I feel that's in Six Feet Under's league is Breaking Bad. Few shows are ever given the chance to bow out on their own terms, but the ones that do are given this rare opportunity to go out in style.
I know alot of people who loved Six Feet Under's ending tend to focus on the closing moments, but for me, what really puts that show's finale over was the craft and care that went into the final season. Even if SFU had not ended with their montage, I would have still considered its ending to be superb. I'm no expert in television writing, but I can sum up the winning strategies used by Alan Ball and his writers:
-- The writers kept the main story linear, focusing mainly on Nate and David's journey. They weren't saddled with 15 new angles to resolve by the end of the series.
-- Much of the dangling plot threads from the previous season were reasonably addressed and moved out of the way by the time they were approaching Nate's death. Claire and Billy's relationship wasn't dragged out longer than it had to and wound down earlier than I had expected it to. What's more was how Nate's death served as the catalyst to George's partial redemption -- as least as it related to his turbulent dealing with Ruth that season.
-- Speaking of dangling plot threads, there were practically none to speak of in this series, and the questions that did go unanswered were done in service to the storyline rather than to stoke the ego of the showrunner, or out of laziness, arrogance, or incompetence on their part. I really admire Alan Ball and his team for that. I really think that The Sopranos ushered in this trend that ambiguity = edginess. I personally find it lazy if the moments isn't earned, and given how uneven The Sopranos got in later season, I just didn't feel that moment the way David Chase did, or other showrunners for that matter, when their endings didn't match up to the hype.