MovieChat Forums > New Tricks (2003) Discussion > Ending Anomalies (Spoilers if you haven'...

Ending Anomalies (Spoilers if you haven't seen the last episode)

posted 9 years ago by nicky-682-764451
4 replies | jump to latest

It's a pity the writers decided to mess with the characters just to make the clean break they wanted.

We had Steve telling Fiona "I can't go to Glasgow with you because it would mean admitting my marriage is over". And yet a day later he's made the decision to go after all. A bit quick for such a change of heart.

And a couple of episodes back Danny sold his car to give his son money to buy a car which he'd promised him for his 21st. And yet now, his son is over in Bondi beach... Now I know they never actually said he was in London for his 21st but you'd have thought Danny might have mentioned it if he was in fact out in Australia!

Why did Sasha suddenly decide to take the new job? Strickland all but implied he would reinstate UCOS, why the sudden change of heart?

And the biggest question of all, why did they let that awful woman get away with it? Hats off to Geraldine Sommerville for playing her so brilliantly but she should have got her come-uppance. Even if Strickland decided to let it go because of his promotion I can't see Sasha normally just meekly accepting it.

Disappointing is how I'd describe the ending really. I understand the writers wanted to give them all a happy ending, but from the end of the case to the last scene all reasoning and characterisation seemed to have gone out of the window.

My only explanation is that the BBC wanted to make it the definite end, rather than leaving it open. Make it more difficult for Netflix or others to pick it up maybe?

[–] TravisTheSky 9 years ago

Yes, that last little scene was eye-rolling! Ted had spent an entire episode complaining how much he hated caravanning and was desperate to avoid it. Suddenly, he decided that he wanted to do it so badly that he QUIT HIS JOB to do it full time?!?! Zero credibility.

--------------------
remember: tv is called PROGRAMMING, items of news are STORIES

[–] lantzn 8 years ago

He didn't quit his job, originally they were only suspended while the bungled case was being resolved and then later because they continued secretly working on the case the redhead shut down UCOS for "budget" reasons. So he really did not have a job at that point and probably went home, told his partner and they decided to do the traveling. He no longer had the excuse of having to work.

[–] cherns-2 7 years ago

I've just watched the episode, and agree with most of the sentiments in this thread, especially about Danny's turnaround, and about the future (if any) of UCOS. However, regarding Ted's travel: the last words of the episode, during the long shot of the Thames:

Sasha, referring to Steve's antipodean plans: "Bondi Beach's answer to Sam Spade..."

Steve,referring to Ted's plans to travel with Pat:"Beats a camper van around Europe."

Ted: "Who said anything about a camper van? We're going to the Amazon."

In addition to the strange omission of Rose from the credits, I also note that Meera Syal is credited as playing Baroness Steiner. I'm pretty sure that there was only one baroness in the episode, and her name was Khan. Some inside joke by the post-production crew, maybe? Last-minute changes? "Job's over and we don't care any more?"

[–] lantzn 8 years ago

I'm sure you knew this but it was Danny telling Fiona and Steve buying his son a car, not the other way around.

Yes this whole ending was just wrong in so many ways. Sasha and Strickland should have come back with a guns a blazing (uh wait...this is the Uk), er I mean stern words being said to the redhead putting her in her place and then reinstating UCOS with everyone coming back to carry on with the best record in the station. It would end with everyone in the pub happy.

I was sooo disappointed.