Which is a shame to me because from everything else I heard about it I would have otherwise really really loved it. But that's just where my headspace was at the time it was airing.

Totally get that. It's like I have this "Wait, Ben and Glory are related?" glamour about the end... it's in place most of the time.

It really was a fantastic show.

I think there's a distinction between happy and less sad, and I think the show was quite clear about him avoiding a deep unhappiness. (eta: to Liese, and not to disagree with you, Jen)

This is a fascinating conversation. I haven't seen more than a few episodes of either version of the show, but the debate reminds me of when Terry Gilliam said he thought BRAZIL had a happy ending because Sam did get away in the end, even if it was only in his own head.

Also, the REAPER premiere? Sock is just making me want to quit this show. Given how far they've come along with Morgan from CHUCK, I'd just like a little modulation here. Ray Wise is still awesome, however.

I think you can read LoM that way, Frank, but I don't think the show tries to convince you of that, which is the big distinction fo rme.

I guess that's the rub, though, because in real life people often enough feel that there's no way out of a deep unhappiness except for suicide. And that's a lie that steals a lot of lives.

In real life suicide doesn't mean another life somewhere else where you might one day achieve another kind of happiness. It's just a tragedy that may have been avoidable.

So for him to have chosen to remain in the 70s with it narratively being an actual sacrifice of his life instead of a metaphorical one somehow (Jen's mythical happy ending) means that I could not have been narratively satisfied with the story. It would have been problematic. For me. Just for me. I can see where people can react differently and be sad and yet narratively satisfied. But it wouldn't have worked that way for me.

I think the show was quite clear about him avoiding a deep unhappiness

I agree with that, ita. I think that's probably why it's so uncomfortable (for me) to think about. It was framed as the preferable choice in the context of the show. I mean, that's how it came across to me. And that was hard to swallow.

ETA: To make clear what I am agreeing with. Also to add that Liese says what I mean - in thinking about real world context, his choice is devastating.

But Liese, how can you say it's a lie that steals a lot of lives and a tragedy that may have been avoidable (emphasis mine)? It can't be both. Which is only tangentially the point, but I don't always believe there's another better way for the person involved. Sometimes there's just not. Are the decisions made always the right ones? Probably not. But they never always are. The nature of this beast, though, means no do-overs. Which is not the same thing as never being right. Although it is terribly terribly tragic.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. I thought quite a bit about my phrasing (well, as much as one does posting on the internet) before I posted and that's why I modified it with "often enough," which admittedly was in the previous sentence.

Oddly enough for my situation I support the right of people to choose to die. I do think there are times and situations where people can rightfully choose that end for themselves. I believe this in the way it extends to choosing living wills and such as well as in suicide specifically.

That said, I still feel that it's often a really avoidable fate. And as you say, irreversible. I think the hurt that extends to people surrounding the person making the choice is an awful thing as well.

In the context we're discussing it, the choice appeared to give relief to one set of people, but leaves the other set behind.

The other thing is that I always have a problem with shows that conflate fantasy with mental illness, and while this is not exactly the case we're talking about here, it still hits my big red button.