“Breaking Bad” was the most methodical and specific show on television. The show’s finale aired last Sunday, and as a whole, perfected the story of the anti-hero, something other narratives attempt, but fail to execute very well.

“Breaking Bad” represents a narrative model that other shows should attempt to follow in such a competitive era in TV.

Creator Vince Gilligan and his six writers managed to do what so few series can do these days. The narrative came to completion and the loose ends were tied rather than stretched out of bounds and dragged out. Questions about the destiny of Walter White, his family and Jesse Pinkman were answered in definitive ways.

This set “Breaking Bad” apart from not only other series finales, but from other series altogether.

Television finales tend to be terribly polarizing.

“LOST” and “The Sopranos” come to mind. The final episode of “LOST” was incredibly sloppy and dissatisfying. It was too climactic. On the opposite end of the spectrum, “The Sopranos” was anti-climactic. Rather than wrapping the plot up, it focused on the theme of a single character, leaving audiences dissatisfied and with lots of questions.

But both dramas were just way too long, as they lasted between six and eight seasons. So much happened to so many characters that it might have been impossible to neatly wrap things up.

“Breaking Bad” worked better than other shows. It managed to stay true to its themes and also put a period on the last sentence of its story.

Walter White transformed from one emotional extreme to the other so many times that the audience had no choice but to keep watching.

The show lent itself beautifully to fourteen-hour Netflix binges. It never got boring. The audience had no idea what was going to befall Walt and Jesse next.

In comparison to more predictable shows, like “Friends,” where we knew Ross and Rachel would end up together, we had no idea how things were going to end with “Breaking Bad.”

Miraculously, the story concluded with all questions answered.

Despite a constant battle with the uncontainable power of meth, Walt’s actions demonstrated logic and strategy.

After months of grappling with whether we should be on his side or not, he redeemed himself by being the engine that tied all of the narrative knots.

Such a balance is rare on television. Most anti-climactic figures fade out dismally, like this year’s Dexter.

The show’s main character started off with potential like Walt, but without a structured storyline, went for an ambiguous ending. He faded out to Argentina or the ocean. We can’t be sure.

Even with such a solid story in comparison to others, “Breaking Bad” is leaving its network in the cold.

No one can tell where AMC is going. Its two most popular shows after “Breaking Bad” are “The Walking Dead” and “Mad Men.” They’ll be wrapping up soon too, though.

The network tried and failed with reality and comedy formats with “Comic Book Men” and others. It’s always hard to tell where a network will go after its hits end.

The clean finish fit the show so well. The major theme — at least one of them — was precision and scientific skill. Gilligan was almost scientific in the way that he wrote the show and oversaw the entire series.

A show about the combatting forces of exhilarating uncontrollable highs and the meticulousness of a scientist was the ideal combination for a thrilling experience.

“Breaking Bad” will be a tried and true example about how television became a higher art form.

Cassie-lee Grimaldi is a senior television, radio and film major. Her column appears weekly. She can be reached at [email protected] and reached on Twitter @cassiegrimaldi.

Published on October 7, 2013 at 12:58 am