The finale of 'Blue Bloods' left fans with a bittersweet feeling, as the show's creator, Kevin Wade, intentionally avoided providing a definitive ending for the Reagan family. Wade's approach was a deliberate attempt to capture the essence of successful series finales, as he explained in an interview with Deadline. He aimed to create an ending that felt like the story could continue, even after the show's conclusion, much like the finales of 'The Sopranos', 'The Mary Tyler Moore Show', and 'MAS*H'.
Wade's philosophy on series finales is a refreshing take on the traditional approach. He believes that the best finales should not be overly predictable or conclusive, but rather should leave room for the audience's imagination. This approach is particularly fitting for 'Blue Bloods', a show known for its commitment to realism and the complexities of human relationships. By not providing a neat and final resolution, Wade wanted to reflect the unpredictability and emotional depth of real life.
The show's finale was designed to be emotionally satisfying without being truly final. Wade emphasized that the Reagans, as a family, continue to grapple with loss, loneliness, and the ongoing struggle between good and bad. This narrative arc is a testament to the show's long-standing commitment to realism and the exploration of complex human emotions. By not offering a straightforward resolution, Wade aimed to capture the essence of the Reagans' journey and leave a lasting impression on the audience.
In my opinion, Wade's approach to the finale is a bold and refreshing take on series endings. It demonstrates a deep understanding of the show's themes and a respect for the audience's ability to interpret and engage with the story. By avoiding a definitive ending, Wade has created a lasting impact that will continue to resonate with fans long after the show's conclusion. This strategy is a testament to his skill as a showrunner and his commitment to delivering a compelling and thought-provoking finale.
