So what was the relevance of the part from East Germany at the beginning?

It was a good idea. Could have been a lot better though.

To me, it's more of an over-saturation issue than anything else. If this were Season 1 it would have been universally praised. In order to stay true to the source material, you end up with redundancies and revisited themes. But if you try to stray too far away from it in an attempt to be original, you lose what "Fargo" is all about. There's only so much blood to squeeze out of a creative idea before it falls flat.

I really hope they don't try for a Season 4 (though I'm sure they will, as all great TV devolves before it's canned). This was a grand experimentation that exceeded everyone's expectations, truly prestige TV. It's time to move on.

Does anyone like ambiguous endings? The common refrain of, "the ending is up to the viewer" usually ends up feeling like a cop out to me.

Did anyone else not realize this was the season finale? I'm torn on the concept of this open ending. Per what Dom said about the whole season not jelling, I never felt we got the payoff we were hoping for.

edit: slow ponied

The man is accused of being Yuri Gurka who killed his girlfriend, who presumably was the Helga who would never stop talking that Yuri mentions to DJ Qualls.

The opener plays into the end of the season as both centre on what is actually the truth

“I always agreed with FX that the only reason to do another Fargo is if the creative is there,” says Hawley, who at the moment is drawing a blank in regards to what Season 4 would center around.

“It took 15 months to get Season 2 off the ground, and 18 months to get Season 3 on the air. I have to turn my attention to the second season of Legion and a film potentially the winter after next. We’re looking at three years from now,” the EP about a rough timeline for a Fargo Season 4.

From: http://deadline.com/2017/06/fargo-se...ws-1202117731/

Thought this season was excellent TV.

Those of you criticizing can suck it. i wish nothing but the walking dead reruns for you.

Some thoughts:

1. So I guess Yuri just ended up dying at the bowling alley? I didn't think a chopped off ear would be fatal.
2. How did Nikki know how to rob VM's truck, and know to send the documents to the correct IRS guy? My take was that she was blessed by God and had superpowers. In her scene with Emmit, I seemed to notice a radiant glow around her body, but I could have imagined that.
3. The only thing I mind about the ambiguous ending is that we were provided with zero context clues as to what might happen. So you can't even have a discussion of what the ending should be. It's a coinflip.
4. Mr. Wrench GOAT


Overall, I'd say this season was pretty great, but worse than the first two. This season really kicked into high gear half way through.

She had seen the truck with Ray, they probably just followed it, and Mr Wrench was established in Season 1 as a very capable hitman.

It looked like part of his skull too.

It ties in directly with a Native American extra from some non-existent Ronald Reagan movie and a UFO.

Really underwhelmed by the finale. Not a fan of the ending and I would have liked to see more of the planning and execution of the ambush at the storage building.

Varga needed a Coen-style horrific death as a payoff. Maybe his yellow teeth popping out while a car rolled over his head. There's no satisfaction with him surviving, ambiguously or not.

both involved the true identity of the person being interviewed/interrogated/arrested.

and I dont think the ending was ambiguous. he clearly gets lets go. does anyone think the beginning was ambiguous? that dude clearly gets got by the state.

Gloria smile tells me that Varga goes to Rikers to eat mashed potatoes from a box while she goes to the State Fair with her son to eat fried snickers.

The ending scene was a homage to the ending scene of Lord of War, where Nicolas Cage declares that he is too valuable of an asset to the government to be sent to prison, and within five minutes a high-ranking official would come through the door and inform him that he was being let free.

Cage's character had plenty of information about corrupt foreign officials and moles in the US Military. What might Varga have to offer in such regard?

It tells me she's ok with the fact that he's about to be let go (and actually, per the direction of the scene, he's essentially already gone), whereas in the past she was a bit more beaten down by the cynical realities of her work, and life in general. She gets to have fried Snickers either way.

Varga is definitely set free. I mean, he runs his local business out of a semi and has a computer system that makes you think he has the nuclear codes. He was always intended to be shady and bigger than you saw on screen. Why he focused his efforts on a Midwest parking lot operation is the only remaining question. It probably has no answer. Dramatic effect.

Sent from my Alcatel_5054O using Tapatalk

I forget what he said but he explained why he liked the parking lots business in one of the earlier episodes. Of course he gets set free, he's not just going to throw that out there unless he knows what he's talking about. It would be hilarious for some random person to say that to a cop though.

Agree. I hate them. Their function is that they're better than a bad ending but worse than a good one. So if you can't come up with a good way to end something, then you do this.

For the life of me I can't figure out why people invariably find them to be some sort of artistic masterstroke. If you want to tell me a story, then tell me the whole ****ng story.

I like how it ended and thought it was appropriate for the show. There is no whole story in Fargo, there is just crime in the norther plains centered around quirky characters with loose connections and Sisyphus pushes his boulder back up the hill one more time.

So you think The Sopranos ended the way it did because David Chase had writer's block?

Writer's block is probably not exactly the term I'd use. I'd say he either,

1. Wrongly thought his ending was artistically better
2. Wanted to kill Tony, but felt that doing so explicitly would be unsatisfying for a lot of viewers. He couldn't think of a way to kill Tony without causing that problem (i.e. kill him in a satisfying way).

I guess if you want to call #2 writer's block, it still doesn't account for #1. But I suppose they're not entirely mutually exclusive.

Something I must have missed in a scene in the finale: