13 minutes ago, DeeVee said:

It's funny, the sitcom Soap, which was a parody of soap operas, had an ending like that, too. The heroine Jessica was facing a firing squad and you heard shots fired, the end. And that was a comedy. They weren't given much notice they were being canceled so they just said screw it and ended it on the season cliff hanger they were planning. (Everyone adored Jessica, though, so no one was celebrating, LOL).

As someone who has watched telenovelas for eons, I don't mind giving stories an ending. My problem is having characters who lived through years of toxicity being the symbol of hope and happily ever after.

I felt the same about Sex and the City, I felt the same about Friends. I totally LOATHED those endings. It was enough that Carrie broke up with the Russian and went back to her true loves, her friends. It was enough that Monica and Chandler finally got their kids and the group as a whole was moving on to the next stage of adulthood.

I feel the same about the Four Musketeers reunion and the implication they would all get together with their erstwhile partners. 25 years (more in soap years) and you couldn't get it together before this? Come on. This might upset a few people here, but I feel the same about Vanessa and Billy getting married, too.

You didn't need weddings. You didn't need to pair up everyone. Good grief, they even paired up Blake and Frank. WHY? WHO CARES?

Alan's death could have brought everyone together to talk about the past and remember the highlights of the show's history. While leaving most things open-ended. It would have been enough. Better than that sappy drive past the lighthouse. Because you knew Josh and Reva would get divorced again. Just like I'm certain somewhere in sitcomland Ross and Rachel are divorced.

I get it-they did this with Gossip Girl where they tried to spend over a season showing why both Chuck/Blair and Dan/Serena were toxic only to turn it around suddenly to go into the final season to make sure you know well into future they’re married.

I wasn’t so much saying there’s something wrong with an ending so much as having to have resolution on all potential romantic pairings-it just goes counter to what has come before.

10 hours ago, DeeVee said:

Yes, Reva was always looking for what she could get from a guy. What he could do for her. Vanessa used to chide Alan about it all the time. She had Reva's number.

I don't think it was always about money for her (though it DID help). Stability is a good way of putting it, though in the end she never seemed to find it.

That's the kind of pandering shows frequently do at the end. Doesn't matter how toxic the relationship, they're convinced (and they're not entirely wrong) that the audience craves a happily ever after.

Maybe validation is a better descriptor. Josh (for better or not) was the only one who ever seemed to have the ability to convince her she wasn't that poor little housekeeper's daughter who would always be on the outside looking in.

I know shows that are ending (if they know they are) want to tie things up in neat little bows. (I was ecstatic when Harvey and Donna ended up together on Suits, and goodness knows I wouldn't have given crap one about who ended up together on GL aside from Billy and Van.) But the last few years of Reva and Bud were so off-putting to me, it just really felt false.

28 minutes ago, DeeVee said:

This might upset a few people here, but I feel the same about Vanessa and Billy getting married, too.

*crushed* But I totally understand about say Frank/Blake, Dinah/Mallet, or Shayne/Marina. Wheeler probably would've preferred to marry off Olivia/Natalia. Or maybe saved Bill/Lizzie for the end.