It worked for me. The final episode, I mean. Maybe a modern Shakespeare could could have written the perfect closure for Hill Street, but neither he nor anyone with near his talent was available. Yet I wouldn't call that final episode "meh" or journeyman: the beat went on. Sort of; and that's just like life. The chief had it coming. Buntz deserved another chance. There were a lot of loose ends. Why should we expect the worst for the "ends" we're most familiar with? A Hill Street station house wouldn't be Hill Street if they let Buntz get taken out. I can see every single person, including non Buntz lovers, coming to his defense; saying, in effect, if he goes, we go. It would have been, from a realistic perspective nearly unbelievable, yet first rate TV series have been "saved", or characters in them, by unlikelier approaches. Logical response to all this: things like this don't happen in real life. Only on TV. Okay, on Hill Steet they could have pulled it off, thanks to its strong fanbase. Nah, the ending they did wasn't so bad. A lot of the much older guys survived. I mean literally, as characters, not on the Hill Street that didn't get another season. It's not like Tierney and Prosky got gunned down by teen hoods outside a diner somewhere. It didn't feel bad to me. Over, yes. That was sad, but it didn't suck. What sucked was that the Hill Street Blues we came to love was ending. Damn!
reply
share