The Last Farewell

What do you think of this one? In particular, what do you think of blowing up the buildings? At least you can say Little House went out with a bang! One question I think I've seen discussed at some point but don't remember the answer -- why wasn't the church/school blown up? It seems Reverend Alden and/or Miss Plum would have taken their turn pressing the plunger. The church/school building was significantly damaged, however, I assume by flying debris from the other buildings. I kind of cringed when Revered Alden walked over to ring the bell. That didn't look safe. BTW, I finished watching this episode yesterday, so I have now, after nearly two years, watched the entire DVD covered wagon set. What will I do next? Watch it again, of course, starting with the pilot movie this time.

I was sorry to see the town blown up, but I understand Michael's decision to do it. As far as the church goes, it was the center of their community. They held meetings there. The children attend school in that building. They worshipped there. As people of faith, I don't think they would destroy God's house. It would seem so wrong.

jes9 wrote:

What do you think of this one? In particular, what do you think of blowing up the buildings? At least you can say Little House went out with a bang! One question I think I've seen discussed at some point but don't remember the answer -- why wasn't the church/school blown up? It seems Reverend Alden and/or Miss Plum would have taken their turn pressing the plunger. The church/school building was significantly damaged, however, I assume by flying debris from the other buildings. I kind of cringed when Revered Alden walked over to ring the bell. That didn't look safe. BTW, I finished watching this episode yesterday, so I have now, after nearly two years, watched the entire DVD covered wagon set. What will I do next? Watch it again, of course, starting with the pilot movie this time.

I Just watched the whole DVD set.(might do it again next year.LOL) I kind of wished carrie,mary and adam and even nellie could have been in the last one. I thought it was so sad at the end blowing up the town. At least this show had an ending to the show with no losing endings really.

I agree...I've always wondered why all these beloved characters were not included in the last LHOTP movie. I know that Katherine MacGregor was ill at the time, but certainly Mary, Adam, Cassandra and James (yes! Even them! ), and Nellie must have been there to a perfect close of our favorite TV show...

Vanesa.

Vanesa wrote:

I agree...I've always wondered why all these beloved characters were not included in the last LHOTP movie. I know that Katherine MacGregor was ill at the time, but certainly Mary, Adam, Cassandra and James (yes! Even them! ), and Nellie must have been there to a perfect close of our favorite TV show...

Vanesa.

Oh,Then that explains why i didn't see her.Even if it was just for a bit,Not even a mention of there names

I didn't like the ending of this episode.......made no sense to me when I first saw it

The reason the building were blown up is because Michael didn't want the buildings being used in any movies or other TV shows that would later on film on that set and he was afraid they would be used in ways that would be inapropriate.

Well he had to leave the land as he found it. So taking everything down was a way of doing that.

I watched this again tonight...haven't seen it in years since the tv series usually repeats without the movies.
I found myself noticing and reflecting on different things my mind a bit scattered in the first half. Seeing Charles and Caroline in a "real house" seemed odd, especially when I saw the china doll on top of a clock on the mantle. (you can buy that doll you know) It seemed almost too nice, not as warm as the atmosphere at the "Little House"was.
Not seeing the children bothered me, even for a few seconds...none of them could do it or he didn't want them? No mention of Albert even in passing.
I thought it was odd he told the stage driver to drop him off at Laura's to "save the driver a trip to town" when he still had to take Drew to town to stay at the hotel.
I noticed the restaurant said Nellie's on the big sign and "Caroline's on the window, kind of weird...what is the name? I felt sad that Harriet was ill..and although Nancy was made to be a psychopath in many ways, did they have to confirm it by having her kill a rabbit by not feeding it or giving it water, as told by Nels ? I don't think that was funny at all.
The first scene of Charles and Caroline in their old house was in the dark, in bed..maybe an easier transition than seeing them walk up to it and it's not theirs anymore. Most of the scenes except one were like that. I noticed they kept the camera on them tight and didn't show much of the home inside, maybe thinking it would seem odd to fans. I know Karen wanted curtains when they started the show..I guess the Carter's got them. : ) They did do a nice job with little extras to make if different.

I did like seeing Charles and Caroline together again, but the chemistry to me wasn't there as much, maybe the tension of the last day, being apart for so long, but it just didn't work as much this time. Having Charles argue like that in the restaurant was silly too.
I liked how the town saved other towns in the end, Reverend Alden was right, but where do they go when they leave...not rich or having bank accounts...where do they take their things? Charles had a home, no one else did....did they answer that and I missed it?

I love the show, but I think this is the last time I'll watch this one. Too sad in a lot of ways.
s

littlehouselover wrote:

I found myself noticing and reflecting on different things my mind a bit scattered in the first half. Seeing Charles and Caroline in a "real house" seemed odd, especially when I saw the china doll on top of a clock on the mantle. It seemed almost too nice, not as warm as the atmosphere at the "Little House"was.

That was the first thing I thought of when I saw their house. They were so broke they had leave Walnut Grove, but they were obviously doing well in the city—well enough that Charles got 4 weeks paid vacation and had a beautiful home. If they were doing so well, why wouldn’t Charles have used his savings and brought his family back to the town they all loved? Other people were prospering in WG. Bare minimum, he could have moved his family closer.

littlehouselover wrote:

Not seeing the children bothered me, even for a few seconds...none of them could do it or he didn't want them? No mention of Albert even in passing.

I thought that was awful too. Maybe Jason Bateman was off doing other things, but the other actors might have been available. Remember when Charles and Caroline had to tell Laura, Albert, Carrie and Grace that they couldn’t afford to take everyone to Winoka for Mary’s wedding? Wouldn’t it have been nice to see a brief around the table discussion with the kids where they explained they were going back home to visit Laura while they stayed with Aunt Tess (who never existed until this final episode). It would have been a perfect way to acknowledge the loss of Albert too.

littlehouselover wrote:

I thought it was odd he told the stage driver to drop him off at Laura's to "save the driver a trip to town" when he still had to take Drew to town to stay at the hotel.

And wasn’t that the same stage coach driver as always? Wasn’t that Jack Lilley? They acted as if they didn’t know him when he had been driving them around for years.

littlehouselover wrote:

I noticed the restaurant said Nellie's on the big sign and "Caroline's on the window, kind of weird...what is the name?

That always bugged me that they left it that way.

littlehouselover wrote:

I felt sad that Harriet was ill, and although Nancy was made to be a psychopath in many ways, did they have to confirm it by having her kill a rabbit by not feeding it or giving it water, as told by Nels ? I don't think that was funny at all.

I think it’s even worse that Jason tells Nels that his daughter is stranger and Nels agrees.

littlehouselover wrote:

I did like seeing Charles and Caroline together again, but the chemistry to me wasn't there as much, maybe the tension of the last day, being apart for so long, but it just didn't work as much this time.

I think it was the storyline more than anything. Overall, they presented the united front they always did, but it was so emotional, there was little focus on anything other than protecting the town.

The one thing that really bothered me was Charles not shedding any tears over the blowing up of Walnut Grove. He was always the emotional one, yet here, he was stoic. He battled with Laura over not understanding how Almanzo felt about the land. He acted relatively calm in the meetings. And when they are blowing the town to smithereens, only Caroline is crying. Charles is comforting her. If we are supposed to believe Charles still considers WG his home, then he should be crying buckets.

One other thing that made no sense to me was Laura’s reaction to Almanzo buying a rifle. First of all, they were pioneers. Didn’t he hunt? Wouldn’t he already own a rifle? And why does she become so incensed about leaving if she couldn’t understand why Almanzo was upset in the first place? Is it merely because Lassiter is forcing them out? So, somehow, she’s okay with working for a jerk like Lassiter the rest of her life? I don’t buy it. I think she would have been more like Caroline, understanding how Almanzo felt, but trying to convince him not to get too involved and get hurt.

littlehouselover wrote:

I liked how the town saved other towns in the end, Reverend Alden was right, but where do they go when they leave...not rich or having bank accounts...where do they take their things? Charles had a home, no one else did....did they answer that and I missed it?

They never answered this question, but picking up and moving on was the pioneer way. Perhaps not as quickly as that, but I bet it happened from time to time. Almanzo and Laura were said to be going back to Burr Oak, IA. Mrs. Foster’s belongings were going to be in two different wagons, so not how sure that would work out. What happened to her husband and children anyway? Reverend Alden (whose spouse also disappeared) would probably have a place to stay since he was a traveling minister.

"No mention of Albert even in passing".

Thank you so much for making that point! I was so ticked off about it I wrote a 16 page
story about Albert dying. To not mention him in the final episode was a travesty. As much
as he contributed to that show, the writers could have at least acknowleged him.

Before Willie pushed that plunger to blow up the restaurant, he could have at least looked
back at the gathering and said " I'm glad Albert isn't here to see this".

I couldn't be in more agreement with you and thanks for saying it!

Dave

Spanky wrote:

The reason the building were blown up is because Michael didn't want the buildings being used in any movies or other TV shows that would later on film on that set and he was afraid they would be used in ways that would be inapropriate.

This thing about Michael not wanting the sets being used has been floating around the net for years. It's PARTIALLY true, but not the primary reason. Read the true facts below from the guy that arranged the use of the land: Kent McCray Exec. Producer.

From a Kent McCray Interview

Kent: A lot has been said of late about why on Little House on the Prairie we blew up the town. I would like to set it straight so that everyone understands what actually happened. We have to go back to the start of the series when I made an arrangement to rent the property from Newhall Land and Development in Newhall, California.

The agreement that I had with them was that at the end of the series we would put the acreage back to its normal state. The reason for this was that Newhall Land and Development used the acreage as a feedlot for their cattle empire. Therefore, they were afraid if the buildings still stood one of the animals might get into them and get hurt or children in the area might get into the area and start to smoke, and with the high grass area that could be very dangerous. So it was in our initial agreement that we put the land back to its original state--thus filling in the areas where we had the stream and the town, and the stream by the little house, and taking the buildings down. That was the original reason.

Now, lets talk about why we blew up the town. On a given day in the tenth season we had already done two two-hour shows and our commitment was to do a third. We had not decided on a script at this point and I was in the office working with Don Winter, our construction coordinator, about what it would take to dismantle all the buildings. While we were doing this and trying to run an estimate on the cost involved, Mike walked in the office and listened to what was going on and said, “How are you going to take the buildings down?” And I said, “We will probably bring in a large size crane similar to what you see on home makeover and knock the buildings apart, pick up the debris, and cart it away.” He said, “Let me think about that for a minute.” He went into the office and Don and I continued working and finished what we were doing.

About an hour and a half later Mike came back into my office and said, “What if we blow up the town? That would get the buildings all in pieces and you still can bring in your equipment to pick up the debris and cart it away.” And I said, “That’s fine.” He replied, “I will write a show that is where we will blow up all the buildings. I will not blow up the little house nor the church, but my thinking is to blow up all the other buildings.”

That in place Mike went and wrote a script called The Last Farewell. Now while we were preparing the show we had to run a few tests. We were not sure if we blew up the town what kind of force it would take and how close we could get our cameras. So the first building to be blown up was the Garvey house. That was a test. Luke Tilman, our special effects man, rigged the building with explosives and we set a platform which we thought we would have the cameras on. We had a few water wagons and a few other necessary pieces of equipment there to run the test. We blew up the Garvey house and as it blew up we realized that our camera platforms were really too close because they also fell apart. We brought in the water wagon, drug out the hose, and the hose had more leaks in it than anything else. So that was, we learned, a bad moment as well.

So, than it was decided the first building that we would blow up would be the house Laura Ingalls Wilder was living in, which was the two story ornate house that we had put up in a separate location from the town. After that it was decided on a given date when to blow up the town. I had to go to the local sheriffs department to make arrangements with them so they know when the actual explosions start that it wasn’t some attack or something happening in the area. I also had to alert the fire department. They brought out extra equipment to assist us if anything caught on fire. So it was quite a chore to rig everything that needed to be done in place, and therefore, we had it set for a given date to blow up the town.

On the given morning we had, I believe, five cameras running. The first building we blew up was the mill and when the water wheel came tumbling down it broke my heart because that was the centerpiece that brought everyone together in the town. And from there I think we blew up the seed and feed, we blew up Nellie’s Restaurant and Olsen’s store. I think the final things to go, but not sure of its order was the post office, Doctor Baker’s office and the blacksmith’s shop.

This is the original reason why the buildings were blown up. It is also true in some respect that Michael did say at a time that he wanted the buildings destroyed because he didn’t want any other show to come in and use them in commercials or another western to take over where we left off. I think that brings it up to date. Hope you all understand.

Kent told me that story, too, when I interviewed him. He's a great guy. He should write a book one day. He's a natural storyteller.

Davetucson wrote:

"No mention of Albert even in passing".

Thank you so much for making that point! I was so ticked off about it I wrote a 16 page
story about Albert dying. To not mention him in the final episode was a travesty. As much
as he contributed to that show, the writers could have at least acknowleged him.

Before Willie pushed that plunger to blow up the restaurant, he could have at least looked
back at the gathering and said " I'm glad Albert isn't here to see this".

I couldn't be in more agreement with you and thanks for saying it!

Dave

I think it's especially wrong because Albert wanted to go back to Walnut Grove to die. How could they say nothing?

The writers goofed!

They just forget how close people follow shows like this. ALot of us grew up WITH the Ingalls girls as well as Albert, Andy, James etc. Of course we would think of Albert and all those we lost during 10 seasons. It was our family too we were leaving.

Well said!

Michael had personal issues then, but didn't give respect to characters that helped form the show OR respect to the show itself. Unlike last shows of lets say the Walton's or others in the same caliber, he rushed it and it showed.

Quote :

I noticed the restaurant said Nellie's on the big sign and "Caroline's on the window, kind of weird...what is the name?

The original name of both the hotel and restaurant was "Nellie's". With business so bad at the restaurant because of Nellie's bad cooking and attitude, the Oleson's brought in Percival, who recommended changing the name of the restaurant to "Caroline's" and making Caroline a partner in the restaurant. His thought was the name change would bring people back to the restaurant.

jes9 wrote:

Quote :

I noticed the restaurant said Nellie's on the big sign and "Caroline's on the window, kind of weird...what is the name?

The original name of both the hotel and restaurant was "Nellie's". With business so bad at the restaurant because of Nellie's bad cooking and attitude, the Oleson's brought in Percival, who recommended changing the name of the restaurant to "Caroline's" and making Caroline a partner in the restaurant. His thought was the name change would bring people back to the restaurant.

I remember that, but why did he leave the name Caroline's on the window, especially when the Ingalls family didn't live in town anymore? Nellie didn't even live in town. Why not change it to Oleson's?

I just looked weird with 2 names...either leave the "Nellies" off or wash the Carolines' off the window. At one time it said Caroline's in both areas if I remember correctly.
Sounds funny, but it made me more sad seeing that and they weren't around for over 3 years.

I guess we can critisize Michael for the Last Farewell. We can critisize the inconsistencies on the show, people appearing and never coming back, why did this happen and why did this not happen? But the one thing we can't forget is that he never comprised his values in his stories. His writing all had the same values, love of family, love of children and kindness to everyone. He wrote, directed, produced and acted. Something very rare in episodic televsion. It takes a tremendous amount of talent to do that. Very few have achieved it.

As many people on this site already know, I lost my only son in 1974. He was 5 years old. I was 28 years old and totally devastated. I lost my faith and what I thought at the time, any hope of ever recovering from it.

As odd as it may seem, watching Little House gave me hope. Michael taught me, through his writing, that you can get through anything if you just hang on and have faith that things will get better. And personally, I will always love Michael Landon for that. He had his values and stuck to them, not bowing to the pressures of studio execs or any one else.

I am much older now, and I notice a lot more than I did when I was younger. If you really analyze the talks between Michael and Melissa, they are very, very precious. Not to mention Albert in that barn asking him if he could call him Pa, or in the loft when he asked him to adopt him "if it is not asking too much".

Sure, I critisize some of the epiodes too, but in my heart, I know Michael was doing his best,
and I loved him, not only what he did for me, but what he did by presenting such a fine collection of stories for the world to see. I've met some wonderful people in this forum, and they realize that too. Don't be too hard on him, he gave it his all!

Dave, I agree...he was far from perfect (although none of us are close to that) but I just didn't think it would have taken much effort on his part or the writers to make it a little better. I know they tried, but he wasn't in a good place toward the end and I felt it showed. It seemed he cared more about the other things than paying homage to the show and the legacy it would have.

I'm sorry for your loss, nothing can come close to that, and as Charles said to a woman he was helping on the show who also lost a son, " Oh, I don't think you ever get over something like that. I suppose that's why faith is so important to me."
I just don't think a person can handle something like that alone. I know when I was having hard periods, Little House was like a balm. Even now, it's on 6-10 in my area and when I have a bad day or am stressed, I put it on and many times, (unless it's just a bad show) I feel myself relax and forget things for a while. For that I am very grateful.

I'm the same way. They are on permanant record on my DVR. If one is my favorite, I watch it again, if not, I delete it. "As long as were together" is on Monday. I'll probably watch it for the 50th time because of Albert, but what the heck, they give me a great deal of joy, and I guess that is what counts.....

We need more joy, smiles and laughter in life, and if a show can bring some of that, it's wonderful.

I really think Stan Ivar was crying his head off during the explosions. If he wasn't, it was great acting!