Mad Men countdown

[Warped9]

Regardless, interpreting the resolution your own way is fine. It's another to turn around and suddenly declare the man's creative vision as "shit" simply because one doesn't agree with it when the intent is revealed. That's nothing more than a damn temper tantrum.

Go to hell. I simply expressed an opinion of him writing it one way and then declaring it's something else.

It's a fantastic series and he wrote the ending as ambiguous. So I'm taking it at face value. If he wanted everyone to accept the ending a certain way then he should have fucking wrote it that way.

 

[Karzak]

Regardless, interpreting the resolution your own way is fine. It's another to turn around and suddenly declare the man's creative vision as "shit" simply because one doesn't agree with it when the intent is revealed. That's nothing more than a damn temper tantrum.

Go to hell. I simply expressed an opinion of him writing it one way and then declaring it's something else.

It's a fantastic series and he wrote the ending as ambiguous. So I'm taking it at face value. If he wanted everyone to accept the ending a certain way then he should have fucking wrote it that way.

Except that it wasn't as ambiguous as you or I or anyone else would have believed it to be. At least, not as Weiner intended it.

And that's the crux of my point. Supporting Weiner when one assessment of his intentions lined up with your reading of the finale is one thing. Its another when you know your assessment was the opposite of his, and you disagree with it. But you basically shit on him s a writer. "To hell with him." you said.

Sometimes we're wrong about things and that's ok. It's no reason to turn on the guy who brought you the "fantastic series" you love so much.

Also, I think it's pretty rude to tell someone, whether it be a celebrity or some random poster on the internet, to go to hell.

 

[Kelso]

Don clearly created the commercial. And I thought the ending was perfect. I rather love the idea that he finally made peace with himself, his past, and his life and embraced the changing world... and it gave him a great idea for an ad.

 

[Warped9]

Regardless, interpreting the resolution your own way is fine. It's another to turn around and suddenly declare the man's creative vision as "shit" simply because one doesn't agree with it when the intent is revealed. That's nothing more than a damn temper tantrum.

Go to hell. I simply expressed an opinion of him writing it one way and then declaring it's something else.

It's a fantastic series and he wrote the ending as ambiguous. So I'm taking it at face value. If he wanted everyone to accept the ending a certain way then he should have fucking wrote it that way.

Except that it wasn't as ambiguous as you or I or anyone else would have believed it to be. At least, not as Weiner intended it.

And that's the crux of my point. Supporting Weiner when one assessment of his intentions lined up with your reading of the finale is one thing. Its another when you know your assessment was the opposite of his, and you disagree with it. But you basically shit on him s a writer. "To hell with him." you said.

Sometimes we're wrong about things and that's ok. It's no reason to turn on the guy who brought you the "fantastic series" you love so much.

Also, I think it's pretty rude to tell someone, whether it be a celebrity or some random poster on the internet, to go to hell.

You accuse me of having a tantrum just because I quietly expressed an opinion you didn't agree with and that wasn't rude?

Hey, I love Star Trek TOS, but that mean doesn't I glorify Roddenberry and everything he did.

And, no, the way MW wrote the ending isn't obvious given how everything had unfolded up to that point as well as other clues along the way.

 

[marillion]

I wonder what the person/people who actually DID write that Coke commercial think about all the hub-bub surrounding this.

 

[Warped9]

I wonder what the person/people who actually DID write that Coke commercial think about all the hub-bub surrounding this.

Apparently the guy who wrote original ad, Backer, has watched the first couple of seasons of MM and gave up because it was too soap opera like for him and not enough about the advertiseing business. That's what he says anyway, and if true then he's missing the point of the show. The advertising business was largely a backdrop for the story MW wanted to tell. It was a means to an end and never meant as an end unto itself.

 

[Corran Horn]

I wonder what the person/people who actually DID write that Coke commercial think about all the hub-bub surrounding this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/19/business/media/coke-spot-mad-men-finale.html

 

[Karzak]

Go to hell. I simply expressed an opinion of him writing it one way and then declaring it's something else.

It's a fantastic series and he wrote the ending as ambiguous. So I'm taking it at face value. If he wanted everyone to accept the ending a certain way then he should have fucking wrote it that way.

Except that it wasn't as ambiguous as you or I or anyone else would have believed it to be. At least, not as Weiner intended it.

And that's the crux of my point. Supporting Weiner when one assessment of his intentions lined up with your reading of the finale is one thing. Its another when you know your assessment was the opposite of his, and you disagree with it. But you basically shit on him s a writer. "To hell with him." you said.

Sometimes we're wrong about things and that's ok. It's no reason to turn on the guy who brought you the "fantastic series" you love so much.

Also, I think it's pretty rude to tell someone, whether it be a celebrity or some random poster on the internet, to go to hell.

You accuse me of having a tantrum just because I quietly expressed an opinion you didn't agree with and that wasn't rude?

No. I pointed out the quick reversal of your opinion once you realized you had read the intention of the finale completely incorrectly. You don't care about things like the intention of artists and their work. You only care about the stuff you like. I don't present that as a criticism of you. I present that as an observation of your commentary here.

And, no, the way MW wrote the ending isn't obvious given how everything had unfolded up to that point as well as other clues along the way.

There are several posts in this thread, and articles elsewhere online that disprove this. Pounding your fists and screaming "my way or the highway" won't change that, friend.

 

[the G-man]

Apparently the guy who wrote original ad, Backer, has watched the first couple of seasons of MM and gave up because it was too soap opera like for him and not enough about the advertiseing business. That's what he says anyway, and if true then he's missing the point of the show. The advertising business was largely a backdrop for the story MW wanted to tell. It was a means to an end and never meant as an end unto itself.

You make a good point. OTOH, I can understand that it's not always to suspend disbelief when a watching a show that deals with your real life job, even if only as a backdrop.

I have the same problem with a lot of lawyer shows. Something will happen that is clearly NOT how the law works and, even if I'm otherwise enjoying the show, that will jar me out of the moment.

 

[J.T.B.]

And, no, the way MW wrote the ending isn't obvious given how everything had unfolded up to that point as well as other clues along the way.

But really, all that was left out was showing Don actually working on the commercial. But a lot of other clues were there. Hobart dangled Coke in front of Don (via Betty) clear back in season 1. He brought it up again in his "you passed the audition" meeting this season. One of Peggy's main questions, after telling Don that McCann will take him back in a heartbeat, was "Don't you want to work on Coke?" I didn't find it too much of a leap see that new inner-peace, rock-bottom-and-reborn Don realized, yes, I do want to work on Coke, and I can do it better than anyone.

Which is not to say that my interpretation is "right," but I didn't see the ambiguity that others have mentioned. As Warped9 said earlier, a lot of the clues are subtle, and lord knows I've missed and/or forgotten a lot of them over the course of the series.

Apparently the guy who wrote original ad, Backer, has watched the first couple of seasons of MM and gave up because it was too soap opera like for him and not enough about the advertiseing business. That's what he says anyway, and if true then he's missing the point of the show. The advertising business was largely a backdrop for the story MW wanted to tell. It was a means to an end and never meant as an end unto itself.

Has anyone seen anything on how long that commercial was originally in rotation? As a kid it seemed like it ran for like ten years, but it was probably much less. Also I'm probably conflating the original with the Christmas tree version.

 

[Warped9]

Has anyone seen anything on how long that commercial was originally in rotation? As a kid it seemed like it ran for like ten years, but it was probably much less. Also I'm probably conflating the original with the Christmas tree version.

I also remember the ad running for several years and that there was a Christmas version of the ad some years after the original. This was confirmed recently when I read up on the origins of the ad.

 

[EnriqueH]

Loved the ending.

 

[Green Shirt]

Loved the ending.

Of the Coke commercial, or the show?

 

[Maurice]

Editorially, the direct cut from Don's smile to the Coke ad is pretty unambiguous. What's ambiguous, if anything, is what that smile means: had he found contentment at this place or is that the moment when he thinks of the basis of the ad?

 

[Kor]

As far as the backdrop of the show... I've read polar opposite reactions from people who were actually in the ad business in the sixties. Some say it was nothing like that, and the drinking, sexism, other unprofessional behavior, etc. depicted on the show is appalling. But others say it was exactly as shown on Mad Men (and maybe even more so!) Different agencies must have had vastly different "corporate cultures."

Kor

 

[TEACAKE'S PLEATHER DOME]

I don't think the ambiguity was intended to be whether or not Don creates the Coke ad; I think what is ambiguous is whether or not Don found "enlightenment" through his expeiences.

Scenario A: Don has come to terms with himself and from his newfound enlightenment he is able to tap into that to create the ad

Scenario B: Don sees the path to enlightenment, but is unable is unable to truly embrace it and cynically creates the ad.

I think when Don truly heard the bland everyman at the retreat talk about his pain and Don broke down and embraced him he at that point was buying the world a coke. It was a simple gesture of care and empathy without any self investment.

That he went on to make a helluva lot of money off that experience with a great ad is pure Don Draper.

 

[Warped9]

^^ No, I think Don breaking down and hugging the stranger was the final realization he wasn't truly alone after all--that others were experiencing the very same or very similar isolation he felt.

At his core Don didn't feel he was worthy of being loved. That sense probably isn't unusual with the upbringing he had. And I think most people experience something like this at one time or another. So even though others throughout his life would reach out to him he remained somewhat aloof because he didn't feel worthy. And sometimes he couldn't make allowances for other people's different ways of expressing themselves or for some of their shortcomings.

On some level he recognized kindred souls in Peggy and even Roger--not identical but similar in some way(s). But he really had no way of telling them how he really felt because he was afraid of ultimate rejection. So Don went through a lot of going-through-the-motions as a substitute for really opening up.

It's sad he didn't learn (until the end) that when he did open up he found compassion and understanding.

Betty was ready to hate Don for keeping secrets from her, but when she learned even just part of the truth she felt compassion for him. Anna Draper, of course, was the ultimate example of accepting him for himself (he should have tried staying with her). And Faye Miller was also a woman who didn't run when Don shared (at least) part of the truth with her. Sally also could accept Don as he opened up to her on some level. If he returns to New York with his new sense of understanding he would be ready to be the father his kids needed. Betty told him to stay away toward the end, but then Betty was pushing away the old Don she knew.

Megan was in some ways just as child like as Betty only Don was blind to it because of her ease with his kids. He fooled himself into thinking she was a good fit when she really wasn't. I think Rachel Menken could have been another Faye if he had really given her a chance and opened up to her as he would later to Faye.

Peggy was something of a soul mate to Don at least in terms of work. He recognized her talent and her tendency to bury herself in her work as well as use it as a salve for her disappointments in her personal life. Peggy kept advancing professionally yet always felt it was never enough or that she wasn't getting her due. Stan to Peggy was like Anna or Faye to Don, only it took Peggy quite awhile to see it.

Pete Campbell was a little shit in so many ways, but Trudy saw something in him she believed was worthwhile. But Pete couldn't see that (until the end) because he was so wrapped up in his own bullshit.

Roger thought he needed to be with young girls to maintain his youth, but in the end he, too, found what he really needed in Marie Calvet. She shared his joie de vivre and youthful spirit while being of an age to really appreciate it.

Joan was (somewhat cursed) by being a magnet for men. And she used that (to some extent) to get what she wanted, but she found that would take her only so far. Joan was also a very smart woman--and good at whatever she applied herself to--and gradually learned how to get the recognition she deserved without having to trade on her looks. The Joan who faced off against Jim Hobart was more powerful and self-assured than when she bargained herself for SCDP to land the Jaguar account. The Jaguar incident was also the last and ultimate time Joan traded on her looks.

Over the years the men of Sterling-Cooper have used a lot of women to help seal deals the way Joan was used. But those were nameless women seen as disposable. It didn't hit home until it was a woman they actually knew as well as cared for and respected (on some level anyway). Roger should have objected more like Don did. But once Joan finally had some power and influence (money and position) in hand with her intelligence and acumen no one could ever use her like that again.

 

[Dick Whitman]

My favorite criticism, meaning most hilarious and ridiculous, was actually to the Coke ad itself. How it commercialized a great folk song. How it represented how big business corrupted the hippy movement....

Of course there was no song before the commercial! It only recorded as a full song with altered lyrics afterwards. LOL

 

[Karzak]

I don't think the ambiguity was intended to be whether or not Don creates the Coke ad; I think what is ambiguous is whether or not Don found "enlightenment" through his expeiences.

Scenario A: Don has come to terms with himself and from his newfound enlightenment he is able to tap into that to create the ad

Scenario B: Don sees the path to enlightenment, but is unable is unable to truly embrace it and cynically creates the ad.

I think when Don truly heard the bland everyman at the retreat talk about his pain and Don broke down and embraced him he at that point was buying the world a coke. It was a simple gesture of care and empathy without any self investment.

That he went on to make a helluva lot of money off that experience with a great ad is pure Don Draper.

Having rewatched the finale again this weekend, I completely agree.

 

[Squiggy]

Regardless, interpreting the resolution your own way is fine. It's another to turn around and suddenly declare the man's creative vision as "shit" simply because one doesn't agree with it when the intent is revealed. That's nothing more than a damn temper tantrum.

Go to hell. I simply expressed an opinion of him writing it one way and then declaring it's something else.

It's a fantastic series and he wrote the ending as ambiguous. So I'm taking it at face value. If he wanted everyone to accept the ending a certain way then he should have fucking wrote it that way.

It wasn't that ambiguous to me. I saw the ending and in about 2 seconds I put it together as Wiener had (apparently) intended.

Don was sad.
Don had a breakthrough.
Don was happy and at peace.
Show commercial from an account Don had that was happy about about peace.

Where's the confusion there? Do need Draper to shout from the cliff "HEY! I HAVE THIS GREAT IDEA FOR A COMMERCIAL FOR COCA-COLA ABOUT SINGING! I'M GOING TO WRITE IT WHEN I GO BACK TO MY JOB!"