Telly Finales: Which Got It Right and Which Got It Less-Right

Finales are tricky things.

Hell. Writing in general is tricky.

But I think finales are particularly important. They should tease a person. They should force the viewer to anticipate the return.

They should, in fact, torture a person with the agony of wondering what happens next.

Unfortunately, shows tend to have a very narrow definition of what it takes to get the audience to that hunger.

It's not surprising -- narrow is "safe" and "safe" usually means more money.

It's a difficult tension that telly has to navigate. But really good telly navigates it well.

Like in crafting a story in general, there are two broad elements that can drive a finale: plot and character. I prefer character stories myself because I find them to be more substantive, but as with all things, whatever floats your boat. I'll be looking at the finales from both of these elements.

I only have a few television shows I watch regularly (or somewhat regularly -- SGU pissed me off to no end with it's non-hulu streaming and then the crappy quality on its site, I just waited for netflix to stream it and finished watching it today, so I know I'm way behind on the real finales).

So here we go:

Glee

Glee is a guilty pleasure of mine even though I think the show has its issues. However, looking at it from a strictly craft perspective, I have to say that Glee's finale failed as a finale. It didn't rip my heart a new one (like another did), and that was nice not having to pick up the pieces (again), but even happy-ish finales can still produce that hunger for more. And Glee still failed in that regard.

The lack of character development really crippled the ability for Glee to craft a story that would make an audience hunger for what happens next (obviously, it makes the audience want more, but that's a different sort of want -- it's more of a this-is-tasty-let's-have-some-more, not an agony, I guess).

So, even though people are saying "i love you" and characters are suddenly together that never had any real chemistry before just becomes part of the normal scenery that Glee is in the habit of lobbing at the viewer. Basically, there is no resonance (well, for me, obviously) between myself and the people on the screen. I am not emotionally attached to people (well, except for Kurt), so at the finale ends, I'm not really hurting that I won't be seeing these characters for a few months.

Therefore there is no agony regarding the welfare of these people either on a plot or emotional level. Character development stalled out long before season 1 even finished its run -- I see no reason why season 3 should change its tune now (so that even rules out hope for something new). I fully expect to see the same melodrama in different clothes spun out in season 3 that was rehashed in season 2 and trotted out in season 1.

But it'll be done in song, so it'll be worth it.

Even the plot wasn't all that surprising. They couldn't win nationals because then there wouldn't be plot stakes for season 3. And, because there are only so many plots available to a high school glee club, there isn't really a lot of ground that hasn't been covered.

Unless they do something daring and surprising in which case -- more power to them!

Castle

I lurve Castle in the same way I lurve me some pie. Which is, I'm fond of pie. But I'm not like Dean-Winchester-in-Love-with-Pie.

I can survive without pie.

Castle is one of the more fun procedural shows (which I generally despise) for me to watch. But unfortunately, there isn't a lot of character development that goes on. So, the finale fell back on plot -- oh, no! Beckett's been shot!

But really, the viewer can't really feel anxious about her welfare because the chances that she'll live are high -- if she were to die, the atmosphere of the show would be drastically changed. The tenor would be different.

It would be a huge risk to kill off Beckett -- and if next season takes it, good for them.

But Castle plays it safe. So, even though I'm looking forward to its return, I'm not agonizing over it. The only real stake is if Beckett Will Live Or Die -- and as I've already explained, it's not much of a stake.

Bones

For procedural shows I supposedly hate, I seem to watch a few of them, don't I?

I haven't really cared much for this season of Bones -- I'm not sure why. Something's missing. But the finale bugged me -- Angela had her baby, Booth and Bones dressed up as these ridiculous characters undercover, and then Bones ends up telling Booth that she's pregnant.

It's probably just my thing against pregnancy story lines. But just for the record, I find it out of character that Bones wasn't on birth control.

I'm not really sure what the stakes are supposed to be here -- how Bones' and Booth's relationship will develop? I feel like this question has posed before though.

Anyway, the episode itself was meh. The question it poses is meh and a bit stale.

Fringe

Oh Fringe. You know I love you. Fringe had a good season finale I thought -- it opened up new avenues of tension that hadn't been able to be explored before because of how the universes were so separated. But now they're not. That opens up a whole new world of conflict. So that's good--that's always good.

But then they made a mistake (I think from a craft perspective) of erasing Peter's character (I haven't kept up with the spoilers, but I'm assuming he's coming back?). But even if the character does return, taking him away essentially "reset" a lot of character development, especially in the case of Olivia.

So she used to be hard and emotionally closed off, but Peter helped break her out of that. Without Peter in her life, logically, her character should be reset to Pre-Peter.

If it's not reset, then there's issues with the plot and the rules its established. And that's never fun.

SGU

SGU had so much potential. And even though I wanted to shake their shoulders over the "Epilogue" episode (where their Other!Selves established a colonization) because they still had the girls in pioneering skirts instead of pants (they were wearing pants on the ship! why would they revert to wearing skirts when that's less practical -- so fucking gendered) and for not showing Ray's date (even though showed whom everyone else ended up with -- I don't care that Ray never got together with anyone but I do want to know who the mysterious "she" was) and for that terrible montage of women giving birth -- alkjadsfkldfsa.

deep breath.

SGU had its flaws.

But it had a beautiful finale. I'm going to classify it as happy, simply because it didn't make me want to pick up the pieces of my heart (again).

The plot is relatively simple -- if it had been renewed it would have opened up opportunities for new tensions, just as with Fringe. So, plot-wise, strong.

Its real strength, though, were its character moments. Eli comes into his own. And it's so beautiful the newfound confidence he has. And, as I was watching it (I hadn't realized I was on the last episode since I had lost count), I couldn't wait to see how his development would affect the other characters around him.

How would he handle himself when he exited the honey-moon period of newfound confidence? Would he regress? Would he change into something new, something great, something dangerous? Could he eventually replace Young as the captain of the ship? How would he and Rush get along? Sure, Rush seems okay with it for now, but there's nothing he can do about it, not when they have to make it for three years.

Oh, and yeah, plot question here -- does Eli survive? Does he manage to fix the pod? If he didn't, would he have had the courage to kill himself?

These are all questions I want answered.

And I will never get them answered because the finale ended on that final moment of endless possibility.

It torture knowing that I'll never see those possibilities explored.

And yes, this is probably the most surprising of the finales. When I was watching the season, I saw its potential, I saw it finding its feet, but I wasn't expecting the quality that the finale delivered.

It was a pleasant surprise.

Supernatural

The other finales focused on Sam and Dean which, despite my love for Supernatural, was a bit "safe." I mean, the show is about Sam and Dean. No matter what, they're going to pull through all right -- physically and characteristically speaking (not that I find the soulless!Sam plot a waste of time, all these moments of exploration are good too, but they provide different kinds of satisfaction than what a finale should provide, I think).

So focusing their what-happens-now moment on the third character that has grown by leaps and bounds and is positively one of the most beautiful and purest characters in the history of the show was a brilliant move, craft-wise.

Story-wise, it just broke my heart to fucking pieces.

I like the shift from "what-will-happen-to-Sam-and-Dean" to "what-will-happen-to-the-state-of-Cas's-character?" because there are real stakes there.

And it just seems to escalate, even though I'm trying not to take whatever I hear too seriously. Knowing that Cas was supposed to die at the end of season 6, knowing that Collins has been demoted from regular to guest just increases the anticipation.

Especially since the stakes are actually two-fold:

will Castiel die either as the Big Bad or in some other fashion early in the season?

and, the more important one to me,

will Castiel be redeemed in character whether or not he dies physically?

And that's torture.

So even though the finale just pounded me bloody (and it's still bleeding my heart, I think about Supernatural all the time), I think it was a really good move from a craft perspective.

The agony of not knowing whether Castiel will survive in tact (character wise, especially) is almost overwhelming for me.

And then of course, this question also affects the show's core too: how will it affect Dean's relationship with Cas -- and even Sam's, to an extent. Because he just stabbed the person he said he'd die for -- doing that does things to a person.

Then of course, there's also the plot element of the wall in Sam's brain being removed, and how he's gonna deal with that trauma.

Yeah. Having Cas become God is serving double and triple duty all connected to plot and character elements that are just pregnant with possibility.

I just hope they succeed in following it up and choose not to retreat into "safe and easy" territory. Which I don't think they will, it just wouldn't make sense from a craft perspective, but hey. Shit happens all the time.

Fringe: The Tragedy of Agent Farnsworth

Last night's Fringe reminded me of how little the show views Astrid not only as a character, but as a person.

Astrid has always been one of my favorite characters, and I hate how she is often delegated to the role of Walter's caretaker. This is always niggling at me -- for example, in a past episode when Walter is beginning to realize that the fabric of the universe is beginning to unravel on Our Side, he asks why people aren't fetching the stuff that he requires. Peter and Olivia are both there, but it's Astrid who must go and fetch it.

It's Astrid who has to cater to Walter's (very adorkable, mind you) whims. It's Astrid who has to clean up the messes.

It's Astrid who's delegated to doing every Uncool Thing in the Fringe Division.

And that's just sad.

In this latest episode ("Stowaway"), Bellivia nicely illustrates how insignificant the scientific patriarchs view Astrid, despite her oft-stated intellect (particularly her linguistic abilities).

Bellivia hits on Astrid so often that she's forced to button the top of her blouse to alleviate the discomfort of his advances. And though it's clearly shown as (humorously) inappropriate, I feel that it opened larger issues that the show must at some point address because the exchanges between Bellivia and Walter demonstrate not only why but how the show needs to revise the way it is currently portraying Astrid.

I don't mind that William Bell is a misogynist asshole. Flaws assist in making characters three dimensional after all. On a character level, I didn't even mind when Walter and Bellie were considering putting Bell's consciousness in the cow and William says, "But I'd have to milk you." And Bell returns with the idea of assigning Astrid to do it.

First, it shows an anxiety on the males' side about same-sex touching in a sexualized context (because I doubt most people would view milking a cow as sexual if the breasts/nipples weren't involved in the context of body-hopping). This actually reminds me how few heterosexual men consider their own breasts as erotic, and how homosexual male couples are more likely to foreplay with each other's breasts than straight couples are -- possibly because heterosexual males find it to be effeminate (this from my human sexuality course).

This sexual-orientation anxiety is combined with the long history of milkmaids, which is of course (obviously) usually seen as a female occupation.

So in that brief exchange, there's anxiety regarding both gender and sexuality.

But this is okay - it's human to be anxious about such things.

What is not okay is that the show has not provided the same privilege to Astrid. If they were to assign her to milk Gene-as-Bellie, I can't imagine her saying no -- because she has never been given the opportunity to assert her agency and say no to being Walter's caretaker -- even when it has caused her physical harm as it did in Season 2.

That's all she /is/ in the show: Walter's babysitter. The show never shows any other side to her -- leaving such character developments to the imagination of disgruntled viewers.

Simply put, her agency is in question because she's never been allowed to express it.

So, when you have an exchange like the one between William Bell and Walter, it frustrates me not because they're being assholes, but because the show is not actively rebutting them by showing the audience that Astrid is more than how they are denigrating her.

If anything, the show is reinforcing the way these men view Astrid by only showing her in that minimizing, de-personifying context.

And that I find inexcusable.

I had hopes that the Alternate Universe would provide a more complex, nuanced view of Astrid, but so far, I am still disappointed. Instead of a handmaid, Astrid serves the role of a biological computer (though I do treasure moments when the show allows glimpses of her that reveal her to be more -- such as when she suggested the Fringe Division put out a request for people to call regarding information about a certain something or other -- but even that was more in her facial expression and tone than by the dialogue itself -- and that is a testament to Jasika Nicole's sorely underused acting abilities).

I know that part of the reason Alternate Astrid is so detached and distant is because in that universe she has aspurgers -- but even people who have autism are still complex individuals. I desperately desire that the show will portray either Astrids' complexities in a meaningful, significant fashion.

I think an opportunity was lost when Fauxlivia was posing as Olivia on Our Side. She's meets Our Astrid, who is so different from the Other Astrid -- and yet, the show doesn't even explore how Fauxlivia would react to that. Instead, we get a typical male-female romance between the leads complete with a plot deviced pregnancy instead an exploration of female-female friendship in a context that would have been amazing and significant.

How would have Fauxlivia reacted to our Astrid? How would Astrid react to the possibility of a reaction with Whom-She-Thinks-Is-Olivia-But-Is-Actually-Fauxlivia? How would she have reacted when this Olivia, whom is so much friendlier and open than the Olivia once knew, turned out to Feauxlivia? How would that have affected her friendship with Olivia when Olivia returned? Does Astrid prefer to Olivia or Fauxlivia?

The viewers don't know -- it's almost as if Astrid's relationship with Dunham doesn't matter if it's Fauxlivia or Olivia -- and that is unrealistic! It just is.

A wonderful, unique opportunity that lost out to the typical triangular romance that viewers have already seen a thousand other times and that I of which am most heartily weary.

I heard rumors that there is an upcoming episode that will be Astrid-centric: basically, everyone else is otherwise incapacitated, and she will save the day.

I hope these rumors are true, and I look forward to that episode because seriously. It's been three seasons. And she's the only main character who has not had any character growth.

It's a travesty, is what it is.

Pregnancy on Fringe: Tash Take It

The top two reasons I find Faux-livia's pregnancy to be epic fail:

1. Birth Control

What agent worth her salt doesn't have birth control? Especially if this agent already has a fairly good sex life with a respectable partner? Especially if she had no immediate plans to become a mother?

But even barring that - if she's on assignment to get cozy with the enemy on the other side, why the hell would she want to risk having a child with someone who was, at first anyway, an assignment? And even if she did actually fall in love with Peter, why would she go off birth control?

It just irritates me that in a fantastic (in both meanings of the word) show where science reigns and weird creepy stuff is per the norm, the very idea of "birth control" seems like an absolutely foreign idea that is totally unaddressed. And that is just - unbelievable.

2. Abortion?

I'm pro-choice. I believe that if a woman finds herself pregnant then she should have all options available to her whether that means keeping it or aborting it.

And it peeves me the hell off that nobody even mentioned abortion. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate the elevated levels of Pure Creepy-Crawly-Skeeviness when Walternate was essentially seeing Faux-livia as a pod-mom for his future grandchild (making her officially part of the Bishop family and blah), but that no one mentioned it? That they didn't depict Faux-livia at least making a decision one way or the other instead of passively accepting what happened?

Unfreakingbelievable.

I understand that there is a lot of controversy over abortion that a network trying to make a profit would be reluctant to bring up. But the fact is, abortion does exist - has existed. To not even bring it up is a gross error that ruins the authenticity of the narrative.

I personally believe that abortion is not the first choice - that it would be better not to get pregnant at all. Which is why it irritates me that in the mainstream/networked shows like Fringe, they show people having willy-nilly unprotected sex.

Sometimes a show (not Fringe in this case) might depict a used condom, but the connotation always seems negative to me because they're usually found in parking lots or skeevy hotels where shame seems to be the message instead of safe and responsible sex.

However, I still can't think of a show (of Fringe's genre/calibre) where the pill has been directly mentioned or seen in context with safe sex. I don't think that it should be beat over the viewer's head, but simply showing Faux-livia pocketing a disk of bc and maybe even a package of condoms or something would have been nice.

But no. Instead, we get this traditional perspective of sex that everything must be so hush-hush and secretive. We know they're having it, but instead of showing that they're mature enough to have protected sex, we'll just have Faux-livia get pregnant.

Because that's what happens when you have sex.

Unprotected sex, at least.

Because women shouldn't be having sex for the pure enjoyment of it. Else we'll punish her by having her get pregnant.

And, I know that sounds like a way over-reaction, especially since I mostly think the pregnancy is a misguided attempt to force the story into a certain direction instead of a commentary on confident women like Faux-livia, but I can't help but think it was Faux-livia that got pregnant. Faux-livia who is definitely a non-traditional female, a woman who enjoys and even exudes sexuality. While Olivia is just - not as obviously and blatantly comfortable in her body as Faux-livia is.

Granted, this rather-admittedly-stretched theory of mine cracks a little in light of last week's episode which showed Olivia guiding Peter by the hand upstairs to the bedroom into a fade to black moment.

But again - I have to wonder if this sex they're about to have is protected or not.

I don't understand why it's okay to have obvious characters obviously having sex, but why there seems to be such stigma/shame/reluctance to show them practicing safe sex - as if having condoms or the pill somehow makes it less worthy, more dirty somehow - when the very opposite is true.