It made sense for Dick Whitman to take another man’s identity. Dick had a terrible childhood, with a dead prostitute for a mom and a dead alcoholic father, then a home with his abusive stepmother in a bordello. He also never finished high school. And Dick just arrived recently to the war, but the real Don Draper was close to finishing his tour. It made sense for Dick to switch the dog tags to become Don Draper.
But now Don doesn’t need to really escape his life, he’s been set free from a lot of it, even if it’s not by choice. He could move to anywhere in the US and stay Don Draper, or change his name to something else, it doesn’t matter. There’s no need for him to take someone’s existing identity. And there’s hardly any time for them to introduce a new character with no family ties that could die and Don could take his place without it being hugely contrived.
I don’t know how serious you are about this suggestion, since it sounds so crazy to me, but I seriously doubt we’ll see Glen again. Out of 92 episodes, Glen has been in 12, mostly in the early seasons. He got a good ending with Sally and Betty in the episode two weeks ago. And while the show has shown places other than New York, it would be a stretch for them to show the Vietnam War and have it look good. And I don’t think Don has any real love of the army. He was hardly in the army for very long, since he arrived as Dick Whitman and left as Don Draper a fairly short time after.
One of the best ideas for an ending I can recall came up during one of Cracked.com’s photoplasty contests: an older Don Draper’s career is finally and utterly destroyed when in 1985 he enthusiastically spearheads the campaign for New Coke.
If Sally’s going back to school it’s probably September 1970. The Coke campaign debuted on January 28, 1971. That means it’s probably already in development. A campaign that major would need a lead time of six months to a year.
I agree with all that (and used the word “contrived” myself, in the post you quoted).
But the fact that a particular ending would be contrived or implausible doesn’t mean it won’t be filmed. If there’s any doubt on that point, check out the finale of Dexter.
I agree, too, that Glen is purely a secondary character. It’s only the fact that he’s played by the son of the show’s creator that leads me to suspect we may see him again.
As for the US military playing a role in the show’s ending: I’m just guessing. But certainly Weiner is teasing us with the possibility–was it last week’s “previously on Mad Men” or the “previously” clips for the week before, that showed Don looking at “his” war medal (the Purple Heart, I think)…?
You said it’d be contrived, but you also said you could imagine it, so I thought you meant that you saw it as a possible ending. I won’t say that it’s impossible, but I’d put the odds at extremely unlikely.
I’ve only watched the first season of Dexter, but from what I’ve heard of the last four seasons of it, Dexter and Mad Men can’t at all be compared in writing or overall quality. Just because something crazy happened on a bonkers TV show that it sounds like most people had given up on, doesn’t mean that it’s even remotely plausible for Mad Men.
Who needs new? Say he meets someone out of the past on the West Coast, who sobs about losing his family and commits suicide; just like that, Dick-Don-Duck.
(Or maybe Sal Romano? But, see, my way, they finally justify naming him ‘Duck’.)
