MovieChat Forums > Six Feet Under (2001) Discussion > Six Feet Under's finale vs all other end...

Six Feet Under's finale vs all other endings

posted 9 years ago by fisher_and_diaz
24 replies | jump to latest

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.

[–] digifruitella 9 years ago

My God...did this finale wreck me in those last few minutes. I could not fall asleep after it. Just the various thoughts bombarding my mind kept me awake. This has got to be the most poignant way to end the series. I would even say the series itself is one of the most poignant there is about everyday, ordinary life and the environment and people that shape it. This spoke to me on so many levels. It cut so deep. I would go as far as call it a real 'wake up call'. Alan Ball, the creators, the cast did the world a pretty great favor with the series. Unforgettable.

[–] Jennie_Portrait 9 years ago

Totally agree. The finale of SFU set the bar so high for all other finales. I can watch it again and again. It was a perfect way to honor the love we had for all the characters.

___________________________________
Never say never...

[–] brooks320-800-703355 9 years ago

I just watched the series all the way through for the second time and was just as emotionally slammed by the finale. More than grieving for the characters, I think I'm still grieving for how much I miss all of them 11 years later. I know it sounds a little ridiculous, but I could never get into "Dexter" or "Parenthood" because I'm still not over the grief of the end of SFU. No other show has developed characters so magnificently to make them feel like people you actually know and love, through all their changes and complexities.

[–] cherubalways 8 years ago

very, very well said. i just finished binging the series over the last three days. i can't believe i missed this authentically superb show the first time around. i was caught off guard by the endings deeply emotional impact. it's stayed with me all day, and i think that's a true testament to the high caliber writing/acting, especially for a show that's 15 years old. the most appropriate actors comprised the family and i think that's why they seem so real to me.

“If it ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage.”

[–] bkguy182 8 years ago

i havent read the responses yet, so forgive me if im repeating, but its 2 things, IMO.

the most important is the show runner. you need to have the same person from start to finish. and that person has to have a vision. and they need to have a good idea of what the story will be from beginning to middle to end.

that is why six feet under, breaking bad, and mad men were so successful.

the next is a proper network. the above shows all had a proper network that let the showrunner do their thing.

this is where lost suffered. had lost been on HBO, had the luxury of a 13 episode season, and wasnt beholden to just being a cash cow and stretching the story to stupid story lines, it would have been better than it already is.

the americans is soon going to be added to the list of the greats. they have a vision, and, more importantly, they know when they need to stop.

[–] mgreen9715 8 years ago

Really? LOST was just fine.

A luxury of a 13 episode season? Wrong. A show like LOST needed more than the cable average number of episodes because of how huge the atmosphere of the show was and how many character stories they incorporated into the series. I think the cash cow thing is a little bit overstated on IMDB seemingly all the time now and the majority of the story lines went on as long as they needed to.