Softpedia
 

NEWS CATEGORIES:



NEWS ARCHIVE >>
SOFTPEDIA REVIEWS >>
MEET THE EDITORS >>
Home > News > Life and Style > Movies

May 16th, 2009, 10:44 GMT · By

Matt Olmstead Defends Tragic ‘Prison Break’ Series Finale

SHARE:

Adjust text size:


Executive Producer Matt Olmstead explains why Michael from “Prison Break” had to die
Enlarge picture
Fox announced that the four-year-long “Prison Break” series would come to an end as early as January. The series finale aired last night and, in true “Prison Break” fashion, it did not fail to surprise fans. Michael Ausiello of The Ausiello Files has managed to speak with Executive Producer Matt Olmstead and get him to explain why they chose such an ending for the show.

*Fans who have not seen the last episode yet are encouraged not to read any further than this – plenty of major spoilers ahead.

As Ausiello points out, diehard fans of the series (and not only) must have been gutted by the producers’ decision to have Michael killed in the series finale, after all he’s been through. However, as Olmstead explains, this has not been a means of ensuring that the series stays dead, but rather a choice they deliberately made to even things out and stay true to Michael’s character, as shown throughout the four seasons.

“[The idea of killing him] started as a discussion with Wentwoth [Miller] around Season 2. He brought up a good point: His character’s hands are as dirty as anyone’s. If you look at the initial act that he committed – robbing a bank to get into prison to break his brother out – there were ramifications to that; a lot of people got hurt. Not by them, but when they rattled the cage of the company that was after them, the body count started to pile out. And Michael was aware of this. And we’ve addressed his guilt throughout the show. But at a certain point, it felt nobler to have the character die so that others could live.” Olmstead explains.

At the same time, the idea of simply having Michael and Sara walk out in the sunset would have been not in tune with the series, even if that was what most fans would have wanted. Having Michael make a final sacrifice, instead, meant that he would die to let others live, his child included. Speaking of which, it is precisely this child that should make fans see the ending as a happy one instead of a tearjerker, Olmstead believes.

“For me, it IS a happy ending.” the executive producer says. “Look at the very first episode of the season when Michael realizes Sara’s alive. They have a chance to run away, and they both elect not to because, as two people of conscience, they can’t live with what they both now have experienced. And at the end of the finale, when they’re on the beach and talking about the baby that’s coming, that’s a huge victory in that they both stood their ground and, with the help of other people, brought down the ultimate antagonist. So they have their moment.” Olmstead explains.

For the full interview on the whys and the hows of the series finale of “Prison Break,” please see here.

TELL US WHAT YOU THINK:

12,374 hits · 28 comments · Link to this article · Print article · Send to friend · Subscribe to news

MUST-READ RELATED ARTICLES:


Television Makes Fat Epidemics Acceptable

Susan Boyle’s Appearance on Oprah Confirmed

Farrah Fawcett’s Cancer Story Will Air on NBC, May 15

Mexican Telenovelas Hit Hard by Swine Flu

Keira Knightley’s Anti-Domestic Violence Ad Banned from TV

READER COMMENTS:


Comment #1 by: Maria Storlazzi on 16 May 2009, 12:21 UTC reply to this comment

I loved the ending until when you know Michael died. You are left to wonder if he ever saw his son because the date on Michaels grave was 2005 when he died. I don't understand why they could not give Sara & Michael the ending they deserved. Being a devoted fan for four years I would have, as I am sure many others would have, loved to see them happy with their son and not going to visit his grave. But besides that, I loved seeing Sucre and C-note back and T-bag going to jail and the rest of the show was wrapped up nicely especially the General getting what he deserved.

Comment #1.1 by: MichaeLives on 30 May 2011, 15:54 GMT

Pluck the writers, he ain't dead. He knew there was a chance he would get caught so put together the video to make sure they would run with the plan. The truth is he will just escape and meet them in Costa Rica, the end.

:-D


Comment #2 by: Kathryn on 18 May 2009, 05:58 UTC reply to this comment

that's a horrible rationale! if they wanted to show that michael was willing to die to save everyone then he should have died SAVING them! shielding someone form a bullet or letting himself get blown up to stop a bomb or something. Dying of his brain tumor after everyone is safe is stupid. and how is it happy to have a child without a father- particularly when that father was so excited and devoted to the child.

Comment #2.1 by: Rose on 18 May 2009, 13:08 GMT

I totally agree Kathryn - how was this ending good? After being a faithful fan for all these years, I was so horribly disappointed. All of the sacrifices that went into all of them finally being free and Michael still not able to have his happy ending?! If the series isn't coming back why not just let things end on a happy note - with all of them riding into the sunset after all of the things they had to endure all of these seasons? It was highly upsetting to me. I felt robbed!

Comment #2.2 by: rawash on 30 May 2009, 17:58 GMT

I watched the final break and it was a good ending and a happy ending in my opinion...

Comment #2.3 by: SKS on 31 May 2009, 14:31 GMT

I agree with most of what has been said here. I don't understand the producer's logic and/or rationale for having Michael die. For him to have survived the many near death experiences of the last four seasons was obviously unrealistic. However, we fans were willing to suspend our disbelief in order to enjoy this great show. To somehow try to justify Michael's death in the series finale as a more "realistic" and "true to his character" ending is complete contrary to his unrealistic experiences of the first four seasons.

Finally, nothing is gained by Michael's death in the finale. He *doesn't* die in order to save anyone else, though there would have been ample opportunity to have his death do this during the many times when he almost died when it would have mattered to save someone else. Thus, his death ends up being almost totally meaningless except to provide a cliche and thoroughly unsatisfactory ending for many fans who have otherwise very much enjoyed this series and remained loyal in spite of decreasing ratings over the past four years.

We are very disappointed in the producer's final choice regarding this otherwise original and very entertaining series.


Comment #3 by: Diana on 18 May 2009, 14:10 UTC reply to this comment

All great shows must come to an end, and this one by far was no exception! However, T.V. does have a way of bringing characters back from the dead. I would not be surprised and very pleased if Prisonbreak returned for quick "minute"!


Comment #4 by: Douglas Waltz on 19 May 2009, 11:48 UTC reply to this comment

This was the worst decision ever made on a television show. The poroducers did it for no good reason and now I will never watch another episode of this show in reruns or box sets. I am done.


Comment #5 by: solo ,uganda.east africa on 19 May 2009, 14:25 UTC reply to this comment

am still shocked how a classic series like that could end. you guys left us open mouthed. the ending was unexpected especially micheals death. anyway it still rocked and in uganda it was must watch. maybe you guys should wrap it with amovie.


Comment #6 by: Thomas on 19 May 2009, 22:57 UTC reply to this comment

If Michael had suffered from nose-bleeds from the very first episode, and if during each season his symptoms got progressively much worse, I might have accepted this ending as being honest. It could even have explained how the tumor gave him his ability to solve the impossible problems that he faced each week. However, the producers cheated. The fact that it was revealed that he had a tumor only this season-- and had surgery by the company to fix it--felt to me more like a plot device to keep viewes on the edge. Sort of like agent Bauer dying on "24". Obviously the producers felt the need to wrap things up too quickly knowing that this was the last episode. Too bad. Reminds me of the "Star Trek: Enterprise" finale. Dissaponting.


Comment #7 by: Katie on 22 May 2009, 14:11 UTC reply to this comment

It didn't make sense to me, he didn't die so anyone could live he finally truimphed and then he just dies, it didn't make sense because someone could ask why didn't Lincoln he killed people to survive and was less heroic and sefless than Michael. It felt like a stab in the back. Did he meet his son? Did he have at least a year or two of bliss before dying? I hope those questions are answered in the DVD Boxset along with an alternate ending so that I can sleep easy. So thanks Matt Olmstead for snapping my heart into a million pieces after a watched faithfully for 4 years even when you almost made the stupid decision to kill Sara, so THANK YOU VERY MUCH.


Comment #8 by: nicole on 23 May 2009, 10:51 UTC reply to this comment

Awful. Your rationalizing as writers is just AWFUL! The ending was crap. What happened was that you guys gave up on good writings and decided to take the easy way out and just kill him. Wow. You guys are just so talented. Fox , you suck. I am forever switching to NBC or CBS. You guys are idiots. I will watch other shows that support their characters.


Comment #9 by: neena on 28 May 2009, 16:23 UTC reply to this comment

i am devastated that michael died. I had read on the web that linc was gonna bite the bullet and i was soooo upset, but truly i would never have thought it will be the goregeous wentworth miller.
he will be missed


Comment #10 by: yomi on 30 May 2009, 10:10 UTC reply to this comment

perhaps this is a vivid example of a mini classical tragedy,though i would have wished for a happy ending but its unfortunate micheal has to be sacrificial lamb. best show everrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!


Comment #11 by: nada on 23 Jun 2009, 08:49 UTC reply to this comment

stupid ending @: I mean after all these years he just died !!!!!!
matt olmstead says it's a happy ending


Comment #12 by: BROWZ on 24 Jun 2009, 07:44 UTC reply to this comment

I thought the entire show was fantastic EXCEPT the last scene. But killing michael was the most depressing, useless writing move i have ever seen. His death served no purpose and the writers should be ashamed for that rediculous decision. I may never watch a show by these writers because of this. If you are going to kill the most meaninful person off, at least have it have a beneift instead of him dying in the aftermath. Once I realized they were gathering around michaels grave i was furious. Just leave that scene out. I wish I would have shut it off before that scene and I would have felt great about the serires, but it was ruined in those few seconds.


Comment #13 by: kelly l on 08 Aug 2009, 22:43 UTC reply to this comment

What idiot decided to kill off michael! A chimp could have written a better ending, they even acknowledge that michael surviving would have been what the fans wanted so why on earth did they taint the memory of the programme with an enraging ending. I could have screamed at the t.v and smashed up the entire boxset!


Comment #14 by: Tracey on 09 Nov 2009, 12:30 UTC reply to this comment

I love Prison Break and am absolutely gutted and so upset that they have killed Michael. Michael and Sara deserved a happier ending after all they have been through.


Comment #15 by: James on 12 Nov 2009, 19:42 UTC reply to this comment

They were trying to be clever and deep by killing him. All they did was depress the fans who had built up an emtional attachement to the character.

Nasty, very nasty.


Comment #16 by: Florence on 05 Jan 2010, 18:38 UTC reply to this comment

I agree with James'

'They were trying to be clever and deep by killing him. All they did was depress the fans who had built up an emtional attachement to the character.

Nasty, very nasty.'

I believe the decision was very cruel upon the viewers. I found the show really exciting and great and by Olmstead choosing to kill him off was just depressing. I didnt watch this show to feel that way so I am very disapointed. to save myself risking anymore misery I will be keeping away from viewin any of his programs.

not a happy prison break fan.


Comment #17 by: Mark on 09 Feb 2010, 01:39 UTC reply to this comment

It was a very emotional last episode but to attack the writers for using a bit of artistic licence is just wrong. Michael's death seems quite believable compared to Sara's revival in season 4 or T.Bag having his hand reattached by a vet.


Comment #18 by: 4x22 SUCKED on 17 Oct 2010, 21:48 UTC reply to this comment

CRAPPIEST ENDING EVER WHY IN THE WORLD DID YOU KILL MICAHEL....IT RUINED THE SHOW

Comment #18.1 by: ROSS on 28 Oct 2010, 10:23 GMT

Yes this was a dumbest ending possible, it would of been better if Michael would die in the fight or shoot out, on the way to the hospital, and then in the last episode show that the rest of the "team" has finished what he had started. This would remove horrible ending at the cometary. series had a lot of BS things happened in some of the episodes but i kept watching it, because i like the broader story, bu the ending just killed it...


Comment #19 by: karney on 04 Nov 2010, 06:51 UTC reply to this comment

That is the stupidest explanation for killing a character off... especially a beloved one that showed many viewers how tough it can be to persevere... to fight for what is right, to fight for your family... Whenever I see a strong driven person being written off by dying... it gives me the impression they did not know what to do with this strong character once there was no conflict. The character Michael Scofield was tough, strong in character, with a sensative spirit. Wentworth Miller did a fantastic job reaching his audience, after four years fans were invested in Scofield's life experience. I understand it was a show and not real life, but people take what they experience emotionally in life and learn from it. Yes, what you put out there on the TV/Movie screen does matter. Anyway, stating that Scofield is dead was a cop out. It took little imagination to come up with that storyline. You could have left a cliff hanger, let the fans decide, the loose ends did not have to tied up. After all "The Company" was still very much around, someone is always waiting in the wings to take over when someone powerful is knocked off. These are the new enemies... a new series in which the future possibilities for layers of storylines to begin without boundries, and a new growing family to protect. What a shame to waste such endearing love and compassion the fans had for this character as well as all the wonderful colorful characters on the show. We loved them all. They made us laugh and cry. And that is why I am unbelievably saddened and very much confused by your choice to give up on this storyline. There was so much potential to continue... when you already had an audience to go in a different direction with you. You say that Michael Scofield's hands were dirty, well the whole * cast should have died then. Everyones hands were dirty, and sometimes we do get dirty when protecting ourselves or our families. The character Michael should have lived to show his endurance... to show that bad guys don't always win. People who are personally struggling during these times need that message. Anyway, it is not a happy ending when a son never meets his father, and it mirrors the relationship Scofield had with his own father. Non existant. What a silly ending to such a great series.


Comment #20 by: The Fox on 29 Jan 2011, 16:30 UTC reply to this comment

There are sooo many opinions on here that are so true. Killing off Michael was one of the worst decisions to ever come up with on this t.v. show. Like said before his death was meaningless after all is said and done and everyone got exonerated it was over they were in the clear so here comes the producers bright idea lets kill Michael! It was utterly pointless and to justify it by saying it was Michael's "final sacrifice" his death so others may live is a poor excuse for a way out. Roughly 81 episodes with an hour long episode a piece, devoted fans to this show spent close to 3 and a half days sitting down to watch this t.v. series and they are rewarded with the lead actors meaningless, pointless, hollow, insincere, empty death. Michael should have persevered, lived on with Sara and their son because LIVING ON is what the series is about for the "team" if they had died there obviously wouldn't have been a series so Michael's death was both wrong and COMPLETELY inconsistent with how the show ran for it's 4 years. I myself watch new movies and new t.v series day in and day out and it's hard to top how bad the ending to this series was. I'd understand if the show had to be discontinued for poor ratings or maybe an actors untimely demise but it ran for 4 good years. Ratings gradually fell but it was there, the end was in sight and once it got there, finally the viewers could sit back relax, the tension and stress was gone, THE TEAM MADE IT!(so one thinks) But alas, lets kill off Michael to royally tick people off, you know maybe upset them a little. Nothing more is really to be said except with this TERRIBLE ending I will make it a point to watch no more of these producers productions and to heed others to steer clear as well.


Comment #21 by: Dule on 08 Oct 2011, 11:31 UTC reply to this comment

Please make an alternate ending to prison break so we cn all sleep peacefully at night, PLEASE !!!

Comment #21.1 by: kel on 08 Dec 2011, 04:34 GMT

I agree, bring back prison break,,,

Comment #21.2 by: AnLean on 25 May 2012, 15:54 GMT

An alternate ending is a great idea, a peace offering for the fans and followers of Michael Scofield. If the writers welcome ideas, I am willing to contribute.

I did not get the chance to watch this from 2005-2009. I watched it for a month on Netflix, and finished all seasons a week ago. I am still grieving for Michael's death. I wonder how worse it could have affected me if I watched it for four years. I feel betrayed by the writers, but I do understand what they are trying to convey. However, if the writers are able to resurrect some of their lead characters from their death, I hope they can do the same for Michael.

Probably, not just an alternate ending. A new twist.

Copyright © 2001-2012 Softpedia. Contact/Tip us at

WindowsGamesDriversMacLinuxScriptsMobileHandheldNews

SUBMIT PROGRAM   |   ADVERTISE   |   GET HELP   |   SEND US FEEDBACK   |   RSS FEEDS   |   UPDATE YOUR SOFTWARE   |   ROMANIAN FORUM