Blue Bloods season 13: Why no two-part finale?
So with this in mind, we want to go ahead and pose the following question: Why aren’t we getting a two-part finale here? Isn’t that something that the writers should have considered? Well, it’s an easy thing to have an answer to: There just wasn’t an incentive to create one this time around.
What can be somewhat easy to forget about within the world of TV is that sometimes, shows are a little more complicated than they appear to be on the surface. Scheduling plays heavily into how finales are designed, and because there was no two-hour slot for a finale this year, Blue Bloods opted to not go in this particular direction. They opted to do a few other things instead and stay true to their mostly-procedural format.
We know that for some diehard fans of the show, there can be frustration that events of one episode do not directly connect to any other. It’s only human to innately want something more from the show, but there’s no real incentive for producers to suddenly create some big, serialized arc — or even a two-parter a lot of the time. A lot of the money from this show comes from syndication, and when you are watching the show in repeats, it is a little harder to have continuous stories. A lot of people end up watching an episode on an island.
So while there is no two-part finale this season, rest assured that there will be some big stuff nonetheless. Over the course of the finale, you’re going to see Peter Hermann, Sami Gayle, Stacy Keach, and Jennifer Esposito all back. Isn’t that worth celebrating?
Related – Check out some more sneak peeks for tomorrow night’s new Blue Bloods episode now
Are you sad there is no two-part finale for season 13 of Blue Bloods?
Be sure to let us know in the attached comments! Once you do just that, remember to keep coming back for some other updates.
(Photo: CBS.)
This article was written by Jessica BunBun.