Connect with us

World

How ‘The Good Doctor’ Series Finale Handled the Death of [SPOILER] — and Took Shape After a ‘Downsized’ Season 7

Published

on

How ‘The Good Doctor’ Series Finale Handled the Death of [SPOILER] — and Took Shape After a ‘Downsized’ Season 7

Spoiler Alert: The following interview discusses events from “The Good Doctor” series finale “Goodbye,” streaming on Hulu as of May 22.

If you’re looking for the right prescription for a solid series finale consisting of high emotional stakes, happy and sad tearful moments followed by a big dose of hope, then “The Good Doctor” delivered on all of those elements in Tuesday’s series finale, which wrapped up seven seasons on ABC.

The drama, which premiered on September 20, 2017, followed the journey of autistic surgeon Shaun Murphy (Freddie Highmore) as he grew from surgical resident not only to being a successful doctor at San Jose’s St. Bonaventure Hospital, but also a husband, father and friend to the colleagues he worked with over the years. In the series, created by David Shore and developed from the 2013 South Korean drama “Good Doctor,” Shaun’s autism often saw him face conflicts in which he was torn between logic and emotion with the show’s finale digging deep once again into that arena.

In the episode, Shaun is faced with two of his closest friends – mentor and father figure Dr. Aaron Glassman (Richard Schiff) and returning friend Dr. Claire Browne (Antonia Thomas, who left the series as a regular after its fourth season) – facing life or death situations that Shaun felt the utmost responsibility to solve. This dramatic situation for Shaun drove the show’s final hour, as the last few episodes efficiently locked down happy endings for several cast members like colleagues Dr. Morgan Reznick (Fiona Gubelmann) and Dr. Alex Park (Will Yun Lee) finally being wed in last week’s episode.

Shore and executive producer Liz Friedman helped us dissect the show’s last episode, including how the shortened 10-episode final season impacted its conclusion, why Claire was the past cast member they chose to bring back and how they handled the death of Glassman in the episode — while keeping an upbeat end.

Advertisement

Once you found out the show would be ending after Season 7, did it change the end point you had been thinking about, or did you know this was coming so had time to plan?

Liz Friedman: I had planned for a season ender that either was in the ballpark of something that could wrap it up, or there were certain ideas I had of that if you included this little thread, it could launch into next season. I knew [the show ending] was a possibility. I was trying to keep everyone’s options open for as long as possible. I’m sad the show is ending, but I’m glad that we had enough notice. We were able to adjust, and do a true finale. I’m very happy with how we wrapped up the show.

Were there any adjustments you needed to do just because of the writers strike, with fewer episodes for the season?

Friedman: No, that was not in the planning. I mean, part of going through the writers strike was a repeated calculation of how many episodes we could do if it ended next week. And it was hard, honestly, because even when we came back, we had the ability to do 15 [episodes]. ABC initially said, no, we only want 13 and then that number got reduced to 10. But we figured it out, and downsized our story to make it work for that many episodes.

Did either of you go back and watch the pilot in preparation for this final episode?

Advertisement

David Shore: Yeah, we did. Liz watched right away, and told me I should watch it, too. I was going to watch it anyways, but she just said, “Yeah, it’s really good.”

Friedman: We had also watched it for when we did “The Good Lawyer” spinoff [last year]. There are definitely moments that refer back to [the pilot]. Honestly, it was a bit of an accident, but we came up with the story, and then I took a look at the Season 1 finale, which was really about Shaun learning that Glassman had cancer. And those two stories speak to each other quite a bit in a way that really pleases me. It really gives a very good measure of Shaun’s progress over the course of these seven years.

How much did Freddie Highmore weigh in on the finale and how things wrapped up? Was he involved with a lot of the choices?

Friedman: Freddie’s great in that. Over the past few years, I talked to him as I get the next section of stories and I talk him through what’s coming, and he’s a writer’s dream audience. He says, “Oh, that sounds good,” and then he throws in a, “Oh, that sort of reminds me of this…” He’s such a dream to work with. We would go through every script with him, and he asks us about any things he wants to change. And almost every change he wants to make makes the script better.

As a viewer, the show’s true love story is Shaun and Glassman, especially with how that relationship has unfolded and where it ends up in at the end of Season 7. Has that always been in the forefront of your minds, as well?

Advertisement

Shore: Certainly that relationship has been absolutely essential to the show from day one, and it was the one constant to the show throughout, adding to the sadness at the end. But it’s very much a father-son relationship, and we were aware of that right from the beginning and we wanted to play that out to the end. The role of a father and handing that off, and getting your child ready for the world.

Let’s talk about the finale with this conundrum that Shaun is in with the lives of both Glassman and Claire at precarious points. Can you talk about crafting that story?

Friedman: We found this medical story about microphages, and that seemed like a very interesting one to tell. From there, we had been thinking about the idea of having Claire return, and that we’ll have her come back for a relatively mundane medical procedure in [the May 14 episode] and then it will fan into this great mystery in the second [episode]. That worked very well to have Claire at the center of both a dramatic medical story, but also have her comment on all the change that’s happened in these people she’s known.

The Glassman story that we were going to have his cancer come back had been brewing for a while. What ended up working out really nicely was to be able to have the finale and have the two patients be characters that were a key part of our cast. That really allowed us to just keep the focus on what the audience wants, rather than trying to introduce an outside patient.

There are a lot of people from the show’s past that you could have brought back. Did you consider bringing some other people back, and how did you settle on Claire?

Advertisement

Friedman: There had been talk about bringing another character back that wasn’t possible, and that really sort of set up that it should be clear and we should really focus on Claire. Although, Perez [Brandon Larracuente] does make an appearance at the end.

Shore: But we didn’t want it to just be somebody coming in for a cameo and saying goodbye. We wanted to bring them back and utilize them properly.

It was a nice twist that Glassman steps in to do this unapproved procedure to save Claire so Shaun wouldn’t have to jeopardize his career. But would you say he’s saving Shaun one more time, or is he thanking Shaun for everything he’s done for him? I kept going back and forth on that.

Friedman: How did you see it, David?

Shore: He’s doing one last gesture for Shaun. Shaun cannot give up being a doctor. Shaun deserves to be a doctor. We wanted Shaun to be ready to fully sacrifice himself and we wanted Glassman to recognize, ‘no, I have to sacrifice myself for Shaun.’

Advertisement

How about you, Liz?

Friedman: Yeah, much the same. I think it’s definitely a mitzvah because what Shaun has accomplished is quite amazing and Glassman has been a key part of that. So this was really a sacrifice that allows Shaun to keep utilizing a pretty miraculous gift that he has in terms of his ability as a doctor.

Shore: I should add that, speaking of thanks, there was more dialogue in that scene at one point and it all worked very nicely, but in editing it all just got boiled down to the thank you. Shaun has so much to thank Glassman for, and they’ve reached a point that they had trouble reaching where Shaun is no longer fighting against Glassman. He’s just accepting Glassman.

Friedman: You can tell that David has moved into director mode, because he’s advocating for less words, but I totally agree. In fact, I was the one who said, “I think we should just make it that — that’s all we have to say.”

Was there ever a scenario when you thought you might have more episodes or more time and would actually see Glassman die and you could do the funeral? Or was that never something you wanted to touch?

Advertisement

Friedman: In a different scenario where there are more seasons of the show? Yeah, I would say that’s distinctly a possibility.

Shore: I remember thinking on the day when we were doing that carousel and that moment where Shaun’s alone on the carousel. It was about Glassman dying but the larger thing was about the end of the relationship and that Shaun is going to be OK. We shot at that carousel many seasons ago.

Shaun in the future giving a TED Talk was a great way to start seeing where he and everyone else end up. How did that scenario come to the episode?

Shore: I don’t know where it started from, but I know it wasn’t me. I just heard about it. That’s a good idea.

Friedman: I actually think it came out of when Freddie and I were talking at one point. It was before they had decided that it was going to end at 10 [episodes], but it had started to form in our minds of what would the ending be? And Freddie talked about Shaun standing up and giving a speech and he talked about it in the context of it being a nod to the pilot, that there’s that whole great section in in the boardroom. Glassman gives this great speech, and ultimately Shaun gives his great speech.

Advertisement

From that, I was thinking about speeches and trying to think about a context that suggested where Shaun had landed [in the future] and then I said, “Oh, OK, it’s a TED talk.” What I think is interesting is then independently, David came up with the idea of Shaun going back to the room where he did, in fact, that speech in the pilot, so that all the roads kept connecting to the beginning.

The names that are scrolling as Shaun is giving the TED talk, were those actual patient names from the show, or was there another significance to those names?

Shore: Actual patient names from scripts past. We did 126 episodes, so there’s a theoretically 1500 names on that list.

Friedman: And the first name that comes up, Adam, that’s the boy Shaun saved in the pilot.

In the last moments, after the TED talk and the entire cast has gathered and embracing, was that the last scene you shot for the show?

Advertisement

Shore: I wish it had been, in some ways, but we would have never gotten through the day. So scheduling stuff prevented that, but we were well aware of it as we were shooting it, and it was a rough time in that regard anyways. But it was lovely. It was actually really nice.

This interview has been edited and condensed.

World

Ohio University fires coach Brian Smith over ‘serious professional misconduct’

Published

on

Ohio University fires coach Brian Smith over ‘serious professional misconduct’

ATHENS, Ohio (AP) — Football coach Brian Smith was fired Wednesday by Ohio University, which cited “serious professional misconduct.”

Smith had been placed on indefinite leave on Dec. 1. The university said it terminated Smith’s contract for cause following an administrative review that found him “engaging in serious professional misconduct and participating in activities that reflect unfavorably” on the school. It did not provide specifics.

Rex Elliott, who is Smith’s attorney, said in a statement that: “We vigorously dispute Ohio University’s grounds for the termination for cause of Coach Brian Smith.

“He is shocked and dismayed by this turn of events, and we plan to fight this wrongful termination to protect his good name. Coach Smith is an ethical man who has done an exemplary job for the University. He wants nothing but the best for the players, coaches, and the entire Bobcat community.”

The 45-year old Smith was named the head coach on Dec. 18, 2024, after Tim Albin left to become the coach at Charlotte. Smith came to Ohio as running backs coach and passing game coordinator in 2022, then was promoted to associate head coach in 2023 and offensive coordinator in 2024.

Advertisement

The Bobcats went 9-4 under Smith, including a win in last year’s Cure Bowl over Jacksonville State and a 17-10 victory over West Virginia this season.

Defensive coordinator John Hauser will serve as interim coach for the Frisco Bowl on Dec. 23 against UNLV. The search for a permanent coach is underway.

___

Get poll alerts and updates on the AP Top 25 throughout the season. Sign up here. AP college football: https://apnews.com/hub/ap-top-25-college-football-poll and https://apnews.com/hub/college-football

Advertisement

Continue Reading

World

Putin derides European leaders as he insists Russia’s war goals in Ukraine will be met by force or diplomacy

Published

on

Putin derides European leaders as he insists Russia’s war goals in Ukraine will be met by force or diplomacy

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Russian President Vladimir Putin said Wednesday that Russia’s goals in Ukraine are unchanged and will be accomplished either through negotiations or by further military advances if diplomatic efforts fail.

Putin, speaking at an annual board meeting of the country’s Defense Ministry, touted Russia’s military progress on the battlefield and technological advancements as his war in Ukraine grinds on into a fourth year.

“The goals of the special military operation will undoubtedly be achieved,” he said, using the Kremlin’s term to refer to Moscow’s 2022 full-scale invasion.

“We would prefer to accomplish this and address the root causes of the conflict through diplomatic means. However, if the opposing side and its foreign patrons refuse to engage in substantive dialogue, Russia will achieve the liberation of its historical lands by military means,” the Russian leader told military officials, according to a transcript of the speech released by the government.

Advertisement

PUTIN CALLS TRUMP’S PEACE PLAN A ‘STARTING POINT’ AS HE WARNS UKRAINE TO PULL BACK OR FACE ‘FORCE’

Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chief of the General Staff Gen. Valery Gerasimov attend the annual board meeting of the Defense Ministry in Moscow Dec. 17, 2025. (Alexander Kazakov/Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)

Putin also took aim at Kyiv and its European allies for “whipping up hysteria” about Moscow as the Trump administration works to end the war. 

NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte warned allies last week that Russia could be ready to use military force against the alliance within five years and urged members to boost defense spending and production, so their armed forces have the resources to protect their homelands.

Putin referred to European leaders as “piglets” during the Defense Ministry meeting, according to a translated video of the remarks posted by Russian presidential envoy Kirill Dmitriev.

Advertisement

TRUMP TOUTS ‘TREMENDOUS PROGRESS’ BUT SAYS HE’LL MEET PUTIN AND ZELENSKYY ‘ONLY WHEN’ PEACE DEAL IS FINAL

Russian troops stand for a moment of silence at the annual board meeting of the Defense Ministry in Moscow Dec. 17, 2025. (Alexander Kazakov/Sputnik, Kremlin Pool Photo via AP)

The comment was part of a broader tirade against the West, with Putin accusing European governments of helping Washington try to weaken and divide Russia.

“They were hoping to profit from the collapse of our country. To get back something that was lost in previous historical periods and try to take revenge,” said Putin. “As it has now become obvious to everyone, all these attempts and all these destructive plans towards Russia completely failed.”

The remarks come as U.S., European, Russian and Ukrainian officials engage in a flurry of diplomacy over potential paths to ending the war.

Advertisement

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his negotiating team met in Berlin Sunday with Jared Kushner and U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff to discuss security guarantees for Ukraine.

(Front row from left) Finnish President Alexander Stubb, Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk, French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, Steve Witkoff, Jared Kushner, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, and (back row from left) Jonas Gahr, NATO Secretary General Mark Rutte, Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, Ursula von der Leyen, Dutch Prime Minister Dick Schoof and Swedish Prime Minister Ulf Kristersson stand together in the chancellery in Berlin, Germany, on Dec. 15, 2025. (Markus Schreiber, Pool/AP)

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Witkoff and Kushner previously held a five-hour meeting in Moscow with Putin and top foreign policy aide Yuri Ushakov in early December to hash out elements of a revised peace proposal after the original leaked 28-point draft drew criticism for being too favorable to the Kremlin.

Ushakov said the Russian side received four documents from the U.S. envoys during the meeting, including one that consisted of 27 points, but he declined to go into detail of what they contained.

Advertisement

Continue Reading

World

European Parliament asks for EU funds to finance abortions abroad

Published

on

European Parliament asks for EU funds to finance abortions abroad

Published on

The European Parliament has approved a non-binding resolution asking to establish a fund to help women with no access to safe abortions in their home country.

This financial mechanism, which MEPs endorsed in a vote on Wednesday, would enable EU members to provide access to the termination of pregnancies for any woman who is legally barred from doing so in her home country, which is the case in several EU states.

It would be open to all EU countries on a voluntarily basis and supported by European funds. Member states would provide abortion care in accordance with their domestic laws.

Advertisement

The request addresses the fact that many women in Europe lack full access to safe and legal abortion, according to the resolution.

Some EU countries have highly restrictive laws on abortion rights. A total ban is in force in Malta, where abortion is not allowed under any circumstances, while in Poland it is permitted only when conception follows sexual violence or when there is a risk to the woman’s health.

In January 2021, the Polish Constitutional Tribunal banned abortions in cases of fetal malformation, which until then had been the most frequent reason for terminating pregnancies in the country.

Other countries have more relaxed laws, but they lack legal protections that fully decriminalise abortion, wide service availability, national health coverage, or government-led information on the matter.

According to the European Abortion Policies Atlas 2025, several EU countries have taken steps to guarantee the right to safe abortions. France, for instance, made it a constitutional right, while Luxembourg and the Netherlands have removed mandatory waiting periods.

Advertisement

But other member states have recorded new restrictions, increased harassment of abortion providers, and the spread of disinformation on the topic.

Splitting the centre

The European Parliament drafted its resolution as an answer to a European Citizens’ Initiative (ECI), “My voice my choice”, which collected 1,124,513 signatures across all the 27 countries and asked to improve access to safe abortion in Europe.

ECIs are tools that allow common citizens to call on the EU institutions to propose new legislation.

If an initiative gets the support of at least 1 million people across at least seven EU countries, it must be discussed by the European Parliament, while the European Commission has a timeframe to either set out legislative measures or provide justification for not doing so.

The Parliament’s text, which clarifies its position on the matter, was adopted by 358 votes to 202 and with 79 abstentions.

Advertisement

Liberals, Socialists, and leftist groups of the Parliament voted in favour, while right-wing and far right groups were mostly against. The European People’s Party, the largest one in the Parliament, was split between MEPs in favor and against.

In the resolution, the Parliament also reiterated its call to include the right to abortion in the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, a request that was approved for the first time by the Parliament in April 2024.

Pro-life organisations criticised the resolution. Italian NGO Pro Vita & Famiglia labelled this mechanism an “abortion Erasmus” and condemned it as “an incentive that will push states to compete to attract EU funds by promoting the suppression of innocent lives”.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending