My Own Worst Enemy Finale

[GadgetFreak]

I watched a few episodes of My Own Worst Enemy and liked (not loved) it. I have the rest saved up. Was there any closure in the series finale?

[fred2]

Not really. I can provide a teaser if not a spoiler if you are interested.

I will miss the show. I enjoyed it even if there were plot holes you could drive a truck through.

[cditty]

Was the episode this week the last one?

[AstroDad]

Not really. I can provide a teaser if not a spoiler if you are interested.

I will miss the show. I enjoyed it even if there were plot holes you could drive a truck through.

i stopped watching when it got canceled, but liked it alright. I wouldn't mind a spoiler

[pkscout]

I'm OK with no real closure. What I want to avoid is an outright cliff hanger. If it ends in a cliff hanger, I think I'll skip it.

[madscientist]

It's not a cliff hanger. At least, no one is in imminent danger hanging from a roof or anything like that. There are definitely unresolved issues, as follows:

The B plot in this episode is that they think they figured out a way to "fix" Henry. They try a few different things (involving stopping his heart with electricity to "reboot" the chip) but they don't seem to work reliably. Then Tony says he figured it out from watching the brain scans during the last attempt. Henry decides he doesn't want to go back to living "half a life" but Mavis says she wasn't offering him a choice. They go to get the chip fixed, but they find Tony shot dead and all his computer data deleted. Mavis says, "someone doesn't want you fixed". End. This seems more like the start of another plot arc than a cliffhanger.

The other B plot involves Raymond who, as Tom, was in Boston with clients at a strip club (aside: there are no strip clubs anything like that anywhere within 100 miles of Boston) and is recognized by someone he stole money from in his old life (as Raymond before he joined Janus). These bad guys come to his home but Tom has no idea who they are. Raymond sets up a meet with them and kills them both. However, Mary is suspicious and tracks Raymond to the meet and sees the killings. End.

[Gunnyman]

I'm going to miss this show. Canceling it was a blunder, not as huge a blunder as killing off Journeyman, but still a blunder nonetheless.

[Rob Helmerichs]

I'm going to miss this show. Canceling it was a blunder, not as huge a blunder as killing off Journeyman, but still a blunder nonetheless.
Why was it a blunder? Since hardly anybody was watching it, the decision seems rather prudent...

[busyba]

Wait, that was the finale? Really?

[ElJay]

It's too bad that they didn't just take out the last 30 seconds. That part of the story could've been more-or-less resolved at that point.

[Rob Helmerichs]

Wait, that was the finale? Really?
It wasn't any kind of finale, it just happened to be the last episode they had filmed when NBC said "Enough is enough, we're done here."

[Gunnyman]

Why was it a blunder? Since hardly anybody was watching it, the decision seems rather prudent...

Sometimes a takes a little while for a show to find its footing. IMHO, MOWE was just starting to.

[Rob Helmerichs]

Sometimes a takes a little while for a show to find its footing. IMHO, MOWE was just starting to.
But if a show finds its footing and hardly anybody is watching it...well, if a tree falls in the forest and all that?

That's what sucks about TV viewers, for which networks often take the heat. Once "the people" have given up on a show, it's almost impossible to get them back. How often has a show had really crappy ratings for its first half-season, and gone on to become a hit? In effect, you're asking the network to lose probably tons of money each and every week indefinitely, on the very slim chance that the show will catch on.

[newsposter]

Why was it a blunder? Since hardly anybody was watching it, the decision seems rather prudent...

I believe that show that I like should be made no matter what.

[Rob Helmerichs]

I believe that show that I like should be made no matter what.
There is that...

[pkscout]

It's too bad that they didn't just take out the last 30 seconds. That part of the story could've been more-or-less resolved at that point.

They did the same thing with Women's Murder Club. If they had just edited out the last 15 seconds, it would have been an OK end. Leaving it in left you with a B-story cliff hanger. I understand canceling a show because it isn't doing well, but not spending $10,000 (just a guess on my part) to re-edit the last 30 seconds of a show just seems like crapping on the viewer.

There's only so many times I can get crapped on before I say, "Screw it. I'll TiVo a new show for a whole season and only watch it if it's renewed." And all that does is create a vicious cycle.

[cditty]

The execs just cancel shows way too fast now. They announced they were canceling this one a while back. I don't think 4 episodes had even shown yet before they announced it.

[Dmtalon]

Networks these days don't like shows where they have to pay actors... They want cheap shows with no "plots" (with or without holes) for mindless cows to watch...

We certainly need another Survivor, or game show about how smart you are...

I was not nearly as invested in MOWE as I was some other series of yesteryear that were canceled prematurely, but it sucks just the same. You gotta hit the gate running or your out.

Ironically, it seems most of the BRIGHT burning shows that capture large audiences fizzle out much faster than shows that develop longer lasting stories. Lost, Hero's, Prison break, these all came out swinging, but now just collect pay checks IMHO. You get stuck continuing to watch them for no other reason than the time invested already... (p.s. Finally got my wife to dump PB this season...)

[AJRitz]

There's only so many times I can get crapped on before I say, "Screw it. I'll TiVo a new show for a whole season and only watch it if it's renewed." And all that does is create a vicious cycle.
Yeah, this is what I did with "Tru Calling".
Saved up the whole first season. Waited to watch until FOX officially renewed it. LOVED the first season - watched the whole thing in two weeks.

Then FOX cut the renewal order in half.
Then FOX cut the half-sized renewal order in half again.

I've given up trying to outmaneuver the networks.

[lew]

How often has a show had really crappy ratings for its first half-season, and gone on to become a hit? In effect, you're asking the network to lose probably tons of money each and every week indefinitely, on the very slim chance that the show will catch on.

Not often but JAG became a hit after switching networks. Baywatch became a big hit after leaving the network for syndication. Seinfeld got low ratings the first year or two. My memory is shows like 60 Minutes and Dateline's ratings improved significantly. Conan didn't find his audience right away. NCIS was never in danger of being cancelled, but its rating dramatically improved over the last year or two.

Your point is valid, very few shows improve their ratings. It doesn't make sense for a network to spend $$$ for an expensive show, hoping ratings will improve.

[atrac]

I very much dug this show and the ending of the finale *really* left me wanting more.

It's a shame this show didn't get the viewers I feel it deserved.

I can completely understand the decision to cancel it, but dang it, I would have liked to see it stay.

If you ask me, it ended on a cliffhanger. I didn't know this was the last episode so when it was over and I realized it was done I thought, "Noooooooo!!!" :(

[Peter000]

Yeah, I loved this show for the most part. I was really getting into Tom/Raymond's character and life. It's ironic that HIS personal life is the one unraveling, what with his wife seeing him off those loan sharks and close to discovering his double life. It helps that Edward and Henry are communicating to keep Edward's family "in the dark."

I'm sorry this show has been cancelled. :( But I'll live.

[Wheens]

I was really getting into Tom/Raymond's character and life. It's ironic that HIS personal life is the one unraveling, what with his wife seeing him off those loan sharks and close to discovering his double life.

Sort of gives meaning to the saying "I can tell you, but then I'll have to kill you!"

[Rob Helmerichs]

Sort of gives meaning to the saying "I can tell you, but then I'll have to kill you!"
Of course in this show, it could just as easily be "I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill me. Us. Whatever" :D

[classicX]

How often has a show had really crappy ratings for its first half-season, and gone on to become a hit?

Star Trek (pick one)
Seinfeld

Those are the first ones that came to mind.

[classicX]

I think what did the show in was a) the "After Heroes" death slot, and b) the title.

My Own Worst Enemy

I mean really, who approved that show title? I could ramble off a bunch of show titles better than that without even thinking. I'm sure most of us can. That's the problem - no one wanted to watch a show where the title says nothing about the subject of the show. Having watched the show, I fully understand the title, but I had to actually watch it to find out what it meant. Even after having seen the previews.

I didn't mind, but the countless, mindless TV drones would.

Think about it honestly - I'm willing to bet that almost all of your favorite shows have descriptive titles. I'd also bet that the majority of prime time shows cancelled by networks in the past 5 (or so) years had strange titles that didn't even hint at the subject of the show. As much as I loved it, Journeyman comes to mind. Daybreak is another. You really had to watch them to understand what the title meant.

OK, rant over.

[wtherrell]

But if a show finds its footing and hardly anybody is watching it...well, if a tree falls in the forest and all that?

That's what sucks about TV viewers, for which networks often take the heat. Once "the people" have given up on a show, it's almost impossible to get them back. How often has a show had really crappy ratings for its first half-season, and gone on to become a hit? In effect, you're asking the network to lose probably tons of money each and every week indefinitely, on the very slim chance that the show will catch on.
They should just go ahead. The government will bail them out.

[tivogurl]

How often has a show had really crappy ratings for its first half-season, and gone on to become a hit?
I believe The X-Files qualifies.

[DeathRider]

I think what did the show in was a) the "After Heroes" death slot, and b) the title.

My Own Worst Enemy

I mean really, who approved that show title? I could ramble off a bunch of show titles better than that without even thinking. I'm sure most of us can. That's the problem - no one wanted to watch a show where the title says nothing about the subject of the show. Having watched the show, I fully understand the title, but I had to actually watch it to find out what it meant. Even after having seen the previews.

I didn't mind, but the countless, mindless TV drones would.

Think about it honestly - I'm willing to bet that almost all of your favorite shows have descriptive titles. I'd also bet that the majority of prime time shows cancelled by networks in the past 5 (or so) years had strange titles that didn't even hint at the subject of the show. As much as I loved it, Journeyman comes to mind. Daybreak is another. You really had to watch them to understand what the title meant.

OK, rant over.

I guess Weeds is descriptive:D

Dead like Me - I wish that show lasted more than 2 seasons.

Dexter? Oz? Firefly? - They were/are some of my favorites.

[Hunter Green]

That's the problem - no one wanted to watch a show where the title says nothing about the subject of the show.
Tell me you're joking, please. Either about a) that the title has to be descriptive for the show to succeed, or b) that this title isn't descriptive, because I can't tell which is more ridiculous.

[bruinfan]

i watched every episode... and found it mildly entertaining... but i couldn't get past the fact that it was ridiculous to put edward in the field at all. why would EDWARD want to go in the field, much less any of his superiors? and while the switchovers were somewhat entertaining, they were predictable and used too loosely as a plot device. i just couldn't get past all that.

i liked the tom/raymond story... and i liked the edward/henry dynamic...

so no spoilers??? fine
and the whole fixing the switch story.... finding a way to trigger the switch doesn't 'fix' henry. it doesn't resolve the issue of the switch flipping spontaneously. plus, how are they going to flip the switch when they have to get his body temp below freezing and then shock him with that much electricity. if they did find a way, he'd be incapacitated for seconds anyways, and that wouldn't be practical

[alpacaboy]

Dead like Me - I wish that show lasted more than 2 seasons.


I'm actually glad they killed that when they did. Actually, I just wish season 2 was better. Loved Season 1(It felt like they basically explained the rules, then let the characters go from there), but I think Season 2 kept getting bogged down looking for exceptions to the rules and it became more about the mythology than the characters.

With MOWE... I dunno. It was watchable. I think I saw every episode, but I wouldn't buy the DVDs or anything. Personally, I wanted to see more Edward. Scared Henry wasn't fun for me to watch. I'm sure most would disagree.

[Jayjoans]

I chuckled when I saw the actor portraying the guy Raymond owed money to, isn't he the guy from Fast Times at Ridgemont High that was supposed to be such a player and fumbled the ball in the baseball dugout?

Man, he's old. I haven't aged a bit, but he got old.

[mattack]

The execs just cancel shows way too fast now. They announced they were canceling this one a while back. I don't think 4 episodes had even shown yet before they announced it.

But they at least kept showing the episodes. That is a GOOD thing, IMHO.

[mattack]

Dumb question.. Why exactly did they have the double life? I'm sure that was answered in the first episode, but I just don't remember. Cromwell's character and Woodard's character don't have the 'switched' character. Why not just keep the spies in their spy life all the time?

Also, in I think the last episode, Cromwell's character was talking to someone else through a video link. Who played the woman he was talking to? I actually checked the credits at the time, but forgot to write it down/look up to see what I knew her from.
(The last episode doesn't have cast info at epguides.com, and the imdb info doesn't list her either.)

[alpacaboy]

Dumb question.. Why exactly did they have the double life? I'm sure that was answered in the first episode, but I just don't remember. Cromwell's character and Woodard's character don't have the 'switched' character. Why not just keep the spies in their spy life all the time?

My guess is (assuming the chip works) so if the agent is captured in the cover identity, they can't reveal any secrets. Also, it is easier for them to maintain a cover if they don't have to think about it. (Of course, something important might happen near them and the cover won't realize it where the agent would. Potato, potato.)

[Rob Helmerichs]

My guess is (assuming the chip works) so if the agent is captured in the cover identity, they can't reveal any secrets. Also, it is easier for them to maintain a cover if they don't have to think about it. (Of course, something important might happen near them and the cover won't realize it where the agent would. Potato, potato.)
Another reason might be that they thought it would make for a really cool TV show. And maybe didn't think much beyond that...

(I think it would have been more and more of a problem over time had the show survived. The "cover" identity in these cases serves no rational purpose whatsoever, at least that has been shown in the operations we've seen.)

[steve614]

It took me about three episodes before I figured out how to tell the difference between Henry and Edward.

At that time, I thought the series was doomed because if I had that hard of a time figuring it out, the general viewing public would never catch on. :(

[balboa dave]

This series was obviously drawn from R.L. Stevenson's original characters Dr (Henry) Jekyll and Mr (Edward) Hyde. It also had many scenes that were already done in the very, very good British series Jekyll, which was a more obvious revisiting of the original novella (and also had a big sinister back story). But I think MOWE's failure stems from not going far enough.

I had no problem distinguishing between Henry and Edward. I thought Christian Slater did a great job. But I do think that points out the problem. The differences between the two sides of his personality should have been more sharply drawn. Henry was no more evil than Jack Bauer, and in that respect, was more hero than bad guy. If he had been written as a ruthless killing machine, maybe treating innocent people just as ruthlessly as the bad guys (ok, that still sounds like Jack Bauer), but perhaps more animal-like, where it's obvious he could not live like that 24/7 (damn, another Jack Bauer reference), or maybe if he worked for a more obviously evil organization, the public would have had an easier time buying into the premise. But they didn't.

Oh well. I liked this series. Maybe Steven Moffat will find it in his heart to write a second season for Jekyll.

[Steveknj]

Not often but JAG became a hit after switching networks. Baywatch became a big hit after leaving the network for syndication. Seinfeld got low ratings the first year or two. My memory is shows like 60 Minutes and Dateline's ratings improved significantly. Conan didn't find his audience right away. NCIS was never in danger of being cancelled, but its rating dramatically improved over the last year or two.

Your point is valid, very few shows improve their ratings. It doesn't make sense for a network to spend $$$ for an expensive show, hoping ratings will improve.


M*A*S*H was about one episode away from getting the ax the first season until it got moved it's second season behind All In the Family on Saturday nights (imagine Saturday night was a BIG TV night back then, now it is TV wasteland!!). Anything other than cop or reality shows doesn't make it these days. And you know who's fault it is? OURS (at least if you believe in the ratings system). Most of us constantly tune into 10 different versions of the same show with a slightly different twist. How many different "talent" contests are getting huge ratings? Tons of them and you KNOW this new NBC one will do well. And how many different COP shows are there that are essentially the same show we watched in the 60s and 70s with modernized plots. Do we REALLY need THREE versions of CSI? But people watch them as they have since Adam 12 and Dragnet. They are essentially the same show. Bad guy does something wrong and the cops try and catch them, using whatever the method du jour is. People, you want something different and new? Stop watching the same old crap!!

[TAsunder]

I disagree. It's the studio's fault. They should have swapped it with Knight Rider. That time slot is a dead zone and Knight Rider deserves to die. At least if they had done that, we could know for sure they did all they could.

Above is mostly tongue-in-cheek from a Knight Rider hater.

[Steveknj]

I disagree. It's the studio's fault. They should have swapped it with Knight Rider. That time slot is a dead zone and Knight Rider deserves to die. At least if they had done that, we could know for sure they did all they could.

Above is mostly tongue-in-cheek from a Knight Rider hater.

And you'd think that NBC could come up with a NEW idea, rather than rehash shows from the 80s that weren't all that successful back then!!

[TAsunder]

And you'd think that NBC could come up with a NEW idea, rather than rehash shows from the 80s that weren't all that successful back then!!

I disagree. I would never think that. :p