Sopranos:The Final Episodes

[Mateo]

I meant to insert th post I got this from:

hxxp://tv.com/the-sopranos/show/314/board/411/topics.html

Inside scoop? I'm just reading shit about the ending as other people are... chill :rolleyes:

When your post is started by...

So here is what I found out...

...it makes it sound like you came up with that all by yourself. The link helps. Thank you.

The final ep has created more buzz online than anything else I can remember. Except for those stupid cats on the ihasacheeseburger site. :rolleyes:

I'm gonna be busy all day reading Sopranos shit.

[Mateo]

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d21/jfp37/ending.jpg

[Honolulu_Blue]

One dude's view...

http://www.pajiba.com/tony-from-jersey.htm

The first line uttered by the titular character in “John from Cincinnati” was “the end is near.” For our dear families of “The Sopranos,” of course, the end was last night. It was an open-ended end. It was an ambiguous end. And it was a perfect end.

Yes, for this show, it was the perfect ending. Like many other seasons, the penultimate episode really held the “action,” and this was more of a clean-up episode to show us the aftermath. We see how the Jersey family gets itself more-or-less back on track and out of the turf war by brokering a deal with New York and getting Phil permanently gone. We see how the Soprano family gets itself more-or-less back on track with new houses to build, legal careers (get out now, Meadow — it’s not too late!) and fiancés to marry, and movies to produce and clubs to start. And then, of course, there’s Tony.

In the episodes leading up to this finale, David Chase and company have gone out of their way to de-humanize Tony, reminding us that the head goombah we have come to know and love is. Not. A. Good. Guy. The gambling, Christopher’s murder, the almost-whacking of Paulie — almost every episode this season has acted as another underline of the “anti” in “antihero.” And this finale was no different. Sure, there were some moments where Tony actually appeared to have advanced on a basic emotional level — he showed some actual sympathy and remorse towards Silvio, and there was even a smattering of empathy for Junior. Yet Tony is still, when it comes down to it, the same self-centered son of a bitch he’s always been, and the visit with A.J.’s shrink was meant to show us that Tony hasn’t really made any progress in his journey over the last six seasons, as he quickly steered the discussion of his son’s well being to his own mommy issues.

Now I have to assume that all the talking over the next day or two will be about the ending, or lack thereof. I went to one message board last night and did a quick scan and, as I suspected, it was already full of “worst episode ever,” “I want that hour of my life back,” “they copped out to leave the door open for a movie” and “all that tension and buildup for nothing” comments. Some of you reading this very column may be nodding your head in agreement. Well, at the risk of offending and alienating you, you’re all fucking idiots.

Truthfully, we got a touch more finality here than I was expecting. Phil? Dead. The NYC/Jersey turf war? Resolved (for the moment, although that moment may be fleeting, depending on how you interpret the show’s end). Meadow and A.J.? Apparently moving into rather comfortable places in their lives (although, again, that comfort may be quite shattered depending on that last moment). The Feds? Rolling with the subpoenas and indictments. In fact, the only real ambiguity in this episode was the very end. And that’s really what <STRIKE>the insufferable monkeys</STRIKE> people are pissed about.

That final scene is, quite simply, one of the best moments this show has ever had. And coming on the heels of last week’s amazingly executed hit on Bobby, “The Sopranos” truly ended on a high note from a direction, cinematography and editing perspective. But the true genius of this scene is that very same ambiguity many are now crying about. Is Tony looking up with every ring of the front bell because he’s anticipating his family members, or is he looking up because, even though the current “war” is over, he fully knows that his life is always one bullet from ending? Are we seeing a truly objective scene, where the guy at the bar really does have an unnatural interest in Tony, or are we simply seeing Tony’s perspective of everyone as a possible enemy (remember that our pal isn’t just cautious, but a raging narcissist)? Does that guy at the bar, who we last see going to the bathroom, really have nefarious plans for Tony, or is it just that maybe he recognized the well-televised head of the Jersey family (or “gang,” as the departed Phil derogatorily commented) sitting in his local diner? And then there’s the final blackout. Did we get cut out in the middle of just another New Jersey night, with Tony simply watching Meadow walk through the door, with the Soprano life, much like a movie, just going “on and on and on?” Or was that Tony’s last fleeting moment, perhaps with Mr. Bathroom Guy returning to put two into Tony’s head? (And yes, there was “peace” with NYC, but surely there were still those loyal to Phil who weren’t too pleased at his capping, not to mention the countless others who must hate Tony because of who he is and what he’s done to them.)

There is so much that can be read into and interpreted out of that final scene, all played to one of the greatest prom songs ever (screw the naysayers — Journey rules), that I dare say it’s richer and more layered than almost any scene that has ever been on TV. And as for “the insufferable monkeys” who call this a disappointment and the television version of blue balls? Well, actually, I take it back. I don’t find you insufferable or think that you’re “fucking idiots.” … I feel sorry for you. I am truly sorry that you missed, or were incapable of appreciating, this final chapter for what it truly was. Look, like many others, I did more than my fair share of pissing and moaning about this show’s decline from the genius of its inception. But even at its dullest and most uneventful, it was still better than 90% of everything else on TV. And there’s no arguing that the show was responsible for a major shift in television. It really put HBO on the TV map, which in turn opened the door for Showtime and FX and cable television programming in general. It also pushed network dramas into a darker, grittier “realism” (that it had more or less avoided in the name of “escapism”) and a more cinematic design and aesthetic. Quite frankly, this show probably had a bigger impact on the nature of television than any show before it, and while I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t personally dub it the best show ever, I might dub it the most important. And tonight’s final chapter was a worthy denouement (and the fact that it wasn’t really a denouement — which is technically where a series of events are firmly resolved — is exactly why it was the perfect ending for this show).

Does Tony live to go on mobbing another day? Or, as Bobby said, did he not even hear his last moment coming? Did Carm and A.J. and Meadow just watch their lives shatter before them as the family patriarch was brutally murdered in a diner? Or was this a rare and happy night in the Soprano’s life?

Many will have their own interpretations of this final moment. I have no such interpretation because, frankly, I don’t care. “The Sopranos” has never been about finality (except with regard to many character’s lives, that is). It’s been about the little moments and incidents that act to form the pastiche of life, be it family life or mob life. And … well, look — I just don’t know how many other ways to say it. I’m in awe of what David Chase did. This was as fitting and “in tone” an ending as the final montage that Alan Ball gave us in “Six Feet Under.” It left me desperately wanting more (something I wouldn’t have believed I’d be saying a mere two months ago) and, just like Steve Perry’s final lyric, I almost want to plead that they “don’t stop.” But that would ruin the beauty of this moment.

[molson]

I don't need to see that necessarily. I wanted the show to be wrapped up. I wanted everything that was told over the last 7 seasons to mean something.

Geez. The thing I loved most about the finale is that it really separates the fans from the non-fans.

I know a lot of people are disappointed with the finale, I just can't believe those people have actually followed the show all these years.

[molson]

I never watch one second of the show, but on a whim, I flipped to the show and watched the last 15 minutes. The acting was pretty good (except for the main guy's horrifically stupid voice) and it seemed well directed, but the ending made me think I didn't miss much.

Stick with reality shows. They're easier to understand.

[Oilers9911]

Cop out. This will go down as a poor ending. The writers are charged with telling a story - and they couldn't end it. They got lazy and couldn't end the show.

Ridiculous. The story did have an ending. The Sopranos life goes on but to us it is over. Some people are just too shallow to look beyond the big blazing ending. Not everything needs to be tied up in a neat little bow.

[Johnny93g]

I just rewatched the whole episode, and the ending stands out even more to me now. Just fantastic. I really think this was the perfect ending. All the posibilities. I'll be going through withdrawl next sunday night for sure.

[stevew]

I've been very impressed that the details of tonight's episode haven't been leaked. You would have thought somebody would have had enough money thrown their way to spill the beans. They must have said that you would have an actual mob hit put on you if you divulged any of the plot details.

AICN apparently had a recap of the episode on friday or saturday. So some did get to see it days in advance. The Phil hit at the gas station was pretty well a "known" plot point in many of the spoilers I read. Incl the part where the black kid threw up. Maybe the major suprise to me there was that Walden did the hit instead of Bennie. They may have switched them up later.

[Schmidty]

Typical.

Huh?

[Schmidty]

Stick with reality shows. They're easier to understand.

Honestly, I've never watched the Sopranos before, because I've never had HBO until about a month ago, not because I think I'm cool by not watching it. If I had had HBO over the years, I probably would have watched the show at some point.

[gottimd]

So here is what I found out. The guy at the bar is also credited as Nikki Leotardo. The same actor played him in the first part of season 6 during a brief sit down concerning the future of Vito. That wasn't that long ago. Apparently, he is the nephew of Phil. Phil's brother Nikki Senior was killed in 1976 in a car accident. Absolutely Genius!!!! David Chase is truly rewarding the true fans who pay attention to detail.

So the point would have been that life continues and we may never know the end of the Sopranos. But if you pay attention to the history, you will find that all the answers lie in the characters in the restaurant. The trucker was the brother of the guy who was robbed by Christopher in Season 2. Remember the DVD players? The trucker had to identify the body. The boy scouts were in the train store and the black guys at the end were the ones who tried to kill Tony and only clipped him in the ear (was that season 2 or 3?).
Absolutely incredible!!!! There were three people in the restaurant who had reason to kill Tony and then it just ends

hmmmm, didn't one of them die in this attempt?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_characters_from_The_Sopranos_in_the_DiMeo_Crime_Family#John_Clayborn

[stevew]

So here is what I found out. The guy at the bar is also credited as Nikki Leotardo. The same actor played him in the first part of season 6 during a brief sit down concerning the future of Vito. That wasn't that long ago. Apparently, he is the nephew of Phil. Phil's brother Nikki Senior was killed in 1976 in a car accident. Absolutely Genius!!!! David Chase is truly rewarding the true fans who pay attention to detail.

So the point would have been that life continues and we may never know the end of the Sopranos. But if you pay attention to the history, you will find that all the answers lie in the characters in the restaurant. The trucker was the brother of the guy who was robbed by Christopher in Season 2. Remember the DVD players? The trucker had to identify the body. The boy scouts were in the train store and the black guys at the end were the ones who tried to kill Tony and only clipped him in the ear (was that season 2 or 3?).

Absolutely incredible!!!! There were three people in the restaurant who had reason to kill Tony and then it just ends

The guy at the bar was credited as "Man in the Members Only Jacket" and was a real life philly restaurant owner who only appeared in one episode(this one). I dunno about the other guys in the diner, but I don't think that they are necessarily who people think they may be.

[GoDukes]

Geez. The thing I loved most about the finale is that it really separates the fans from the non-fans.

I know a lot of people are disappointed with the finale, I just can't believe those people have actually followed the show all these years.

So liking it makes you a fan, hm? Allllright. lol

[Ksyrup]

In some strange way, I wish I had watched this show so I could take part in the universal discussion going on everywhere I look or read. I guess it's because the show aired on HBO that it never seemed like a big deal to me, since I wasn't constantly hit over the head with commercials for it, etc., but I had no idea this show was so big. I saw one episode years ago, out of boredom late one night - I think it was about Tony running into a snitch while up in the NE taking his daughter to scout out colleges - and it seemed like a decent show, but didn't really interest me. But I'm not a mob show/movie fan at all - never seen a Godfather movie, nor Goodfellas (other than a couple of clips), etc. Too bad this show wasn't about something that would have interested me.

As far as "life goes on" endings, I think you either love them or hate them. I didn't particularly care for the Seinfeld ending, and I absolutely hated Broadcast News because of a similar type of ending.

[Maple Leafs]

Never watched the show, but I'm intrigued by the final scene. Has it been posted online anywhere yet?

[Bad-example]

How about that classic scene with Janice and Tony? Janice saying that she got therapy and put all her mother's shit behind her, and right after tearfully saying that she gets no thanks for it. The essence of Janice in three lines of dialogue. Completely self deluded as to how much she really is like dear old mom.

[Bearcat729]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bphuuLi17SU

Here, I don't believe that there is anything unsafe for work about the video

[Maple Leafs]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bphuuLi17SU

Thanks

[TazFTW]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bphuuLi17SU

Here, I don't believe that there is anything unsafe for work about the video

Apparently my HBO cut out the final shot of Tony and the family at the table with Tony looking up. The last thing I saw was Meadow heading to the restaurant and then it went to black.

[sachmo71]

I never watch one second of the show, but on a whim, I flipped to the show and watched the last 15 minutes. The acting was pretty good (except for the main guy's horrifically stupid voice) and it seemed well directed, but the ending made me think I didn't miss much.

you missed a lot

[Logan]

So here is what I found out. The guy at the bar is also credited as Nikki Leotardo. The same actor played him in the first part of season 6 during a brief sit down concerning the future of Vito. That wasn't that long ago. Apparently, he is the nephew of Phil. Phil's brother Nikki Senior was killed in 1976 in a car accident. Absolutely Genius!!!! David Chase is truly rewarding the true fans who pay attention to detail.

So the point would have been that life continues and we may never know the end of the Sopranos. But if you pay attention to the history, you will find that all the answers lie in the characters in the restaurant. The trucker was the brother of the guy who was robbed by Christopher in Season 2. Remember the DVD players? The trucker had to identify the body. The boy scouts were in the train store and the black guys at the end were the ones who tried to kill Tony and only clipped him in the ear (was that season 2 or 3?).

Absolutely incredible!!!! There were three people in the restaurant who had reason to kill Tony and then it just ends

I had an email forwarded to me that originated from some guy at Lehman Brothers with this exact wording.

[molson]

Honestly, I've never watched the Sopranos before, because I've never had HBO until about a month ago, not because I think I'm cool by not watching it. If I had had HBO over the years, I probably would have watched the show at some point.

It's not that you didn't watch it, it was that you felt like you could have an opinion of the entire series after watching the last 15 minutes. That, and the whole posting in a thread who's topic doesn't interest you in the least.

[Schmidty]

It's not that you didn't watch it, it was that you felt like you could have an opinion of the entire series after watching the last 15 minutes. That, and the whole posting in a thread who's topic doesn't interest you in the least was a tad annoying.

I think you need to relax with a nice glass of iced tea.

I watched the end of the Sopranos. I read some of the posts. I posted my impression of the part that I saw in a thread devoted to the subject. I didn't make fun of the show or anything. I just thought that, even though I never watched the show, the ending seemed lame.

[NoMyths]

It was great. The more I think about it (and I've been thinking about it all day) the more I'm impressed. I spent a chunk of the day talking about it with anyone who'd let me harangue them. The final scene achieves the effect it sets out to achieve -- it heightens the tension to a peak using film craftsmanship (the fast intercutting of shots like Meadow's tires, people entering the restaurant, etc.), and then ends at exactly the most tense moment for anything that might have occured next. The effect has its merits and faults -- chief among them being that it is in opposition to the closure effect (descending action, the falling off from the peak to a resolution) the majority of the general audience is expecting -- but it was masterfully done, and it's the only example of which I now know that skirts the fallacy of imitative form (frex, the idea that the best way to write a story about something boring is to write boring sentences) and yet finds a compelling place beyond the emotional effect to a fulfillment of the series' themes.

It was a really remarkable magic trick: we as the audience were demanding something never before seen on television. Chase and Co. delivered. And the better you know the series, and the more you enjoy it for the non-whacking scenes, the more this end becomes the most effective way to exit the Sopranos narrative. Whatever happens afterwards, we feel at the ultimate moment exactly how Tony Soprano feels: that everyone is a disappointment or a threat, and that the end could come before you even know it. And then it did.

I really can't praise The Sopranos as a whole enough -- for its flaws and the limitations of its medium and makers, this episode and this series, are a landmark in the art of filmmaking. Last night we saw something that will be a watershed moment for future television narratives and where they can go. But time needs to go by for perspective, as with most great art.

[Toddzilla]

Given how the critics and fans of The Sopranos have smashed David Chase specifically and the show in general for not living up to expectations and not paying off in a way we came to expect after the first few seasons, this had to be Chase's way of saying "Screw all of you people, this is *my* show and I'll end it *my* way." He threw all the blood-thirsty fans a bone with the episode last week, and this week he indulged himself.

In the end, however, the show's legacy is left to the fans and critics, and Chase pretty much sealed the fate of The Sopranos as perhaps the biggest undelivered promise in dramatic television - 2 or 3 of the best seasons in television history followed by 4 seasons of self-indulgent ungratifying crap, with the finale episode - and the final scene - a perfect example of what's been wrong with the Sopranos for so long.

[Buccaneer]

This is interesting as it got my wife and I talking about series finales again. She is the "wrap-it-up-and-tie-a-ribbon" type and I am the opposite, which is why she hated the Quantum Leap finale and I loved it. We have no opinions about Sopranos since we don't get HBO nor have any interest in doing so but I told her, alluding to Sopranos, that half of the fans will love it and half will hate it - no matter which type of ending they choose to do.

[molson]

In the end, however, the show's legacy is left to the fans and critics, and Chase pretty much sealed the fate of The Sopranos as perhaps the biggest undelivered promise in dramatic television - 2 or 3 of the best seasons in television history followed by 4 seasons of self-indulgent ungratifying crap, with the finale episode - and the final scene - a perfect example of what's been wrong with the Sopranos for so long.

The show certainly has changed a lot during it's run, but it's very much an issue of preference. I watched season 1 recently, and to me, it really hasn't aged well and doesn't stand up to depth we've seen the last two years.

[Bearcat729]

This is interesting as it got my wife and I talking about series finales again. She is the "wrap-it-up-and-tie-a-ribbon" type and I am the opposite, which is why she hated the Quantum Leap finale and I loved it. We have no opinions about Sopranos since we don't get HBO nor have any interest in doing so but I told her, alluding to Sopranos, that half of the fans will love it and half will hate it - no matter which type of ending they choose to do.

It's been a while since I have seen it, and not to threadjack, but I thought that Quantum Leap wrapped up nicely.Sam ends up in the bar talking to the big guy in control and is told that he was doing this for a reason and then is given the choice to continue or go home and Sam decides to continue.

Or am I totally wrong on this

[Buccaneer]

Bearcat, Sam was never given the choice, it was asked rhetorically because both knew the answer. We never knew (and this was the part my wife didn't like) whether he ever made it back home - definitely a "life goes on" ending or Sam's case, "leaps go on".

[spleen1015]

My family moved in the middle of the final season of Quantum Leap to a place that didn't have a local NBC affiliate. So, I never got to see how it ended. I loved that show.

[Buccaneer]

My family moved in the middle of the final season of Quantum Leap to a place that didn't have a local NBC affiliate. So, I never got to see how it ended. I loved that show.

The final season is out on DVD (I've watched most of it recently, except for the Evil Leaper, never got into that). The season ended with a Civil War leap, a great Elvis leap and then the finale.

Sorry to threadjack.

[Noop]

You the viewer was the one who got wacked.

[Bubba Wheels]

Some critic on Countdown (watchable with reg host MIA) quotes Chase as saying "its all there if you watch it." The show was about Tony's life, and the screen goes dark just as Meadow walks in. Someone goes in the john right before and two 'brothers' are browsing the case close by.

The opinion is Tony is dead, never saw it coming. Meadow is the last thing he sees.

[cartman]

From over at Fark:

http://www.thegreatcornholio.com/images/paulie.jpg

[Karlifornia]

Dudeskis! Everything about the ending was a juxtaposition of what television dramas are supposed to be. An escalation of drama achieved through pure direction and cinematography, which would presumably lead to an easy followthrough, and use of music to add to said tension. The followthrough was a followthrough, but it was the polar opposite of what most envision a followthrough to actually be. The music did heighten the tension, but it was with a power-ballad that most roll their eyes at upon hearing now. I think the music choice would be akin to hearing "Welcome to the Jungle" during a wedding scene. It has the rising action you're looking for, but it casts such an odd light on the scenario that it just works, and is so not cliche that it feels very fresh.

Anyways, I think the ending took the "what you don't see is the most horrifying possible thing" route. We just don't know......If we had seen Tony getting shot in the face, it would have been closure, yes. But what the hell does closure even mean in regards to an alternate universe?

And to those who say "I feel like I've wasted 8 years of my life"....Just watch CSI...they wrap that shit up in an hour every week. That should suit you just fine. That's not a knock, and I'm not saying that makes you less an appreciator of art, but it's just different tastes, and it's too bad you mistook a gun going off every other episode for Terminator 4.

[lcjjdnh]

First, I loved the ending.


Second, thought this might interest people:


http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2007/06/sopranos_creator_we_did_what_w.html



What do you do when your TV world ends? You go to dinner, then keep quiet. Sunday night, "Sopranos (http://www.nj.com/sopranos/)" creator David Chase took his wife out for dinner in France, where he's fled to avoid "all the Monday morning quarterbacking" about the show's finale (http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/sepinwall/index.ssf?/base/entertainment-0/1181536338249770.xml&coll=1). After this exclusive interview with the Star-Ledger, agreed to well before the season began, he intends to go into radio silence, letting the work -- especially the controversial final scene -- speak for itself.
"No one was trying to be audacious, honest to god," Chase said. "We did what we thought we had to do. No one was trying to blow people's minds, or thinking, 'Wow, this'll (tick) them off.' People get the impression that you're trying to (mess) with them and it's not true. You're trying to entertain them."
Read the full story in Tuesday's Star-Ledger.

[hawk4669]

From over at Fark:

http://www.thegreatcornholio.com/images/paulie.jpg

Ok...that made me truely LOL. And my crew at work is looking at me quite strangely now.

Thanks for sharing.

Cheers!

[cartman]

A couple of more observations:

The flip side of the Journey single on the jukebox was "Any Way You Want It"

The name of the episode where Junior shot Tony was "Members Only". The guy that was seeing walking into the bathroom was was wearing a Members Only jacket.

[Karlifornia]

A couple of more observations:

The flip side of the Journey single on the jukebox was "Any Way You Want It"

The name of the episode where Junior shot Tony was "Members Only". The guy that was seeing walking into the bathroom was was wearing a Members Only jacket.

Nice. See, if we had had a clear ending, this type of discussion wouldn't be happening. This is fun, people!

[cthomer5000]

Geez. The thing I loved most about the finale is that it really separates the fans from the non-fans.

I know a lot of people are disappointed with the finale, I just can't believe those people have actually followed the show all these years.

Perhaps if you put the terms "blind loyalist" in there, your comment makes sense. Because by your definition, I'm sure people who didn't like the finale cannot be fans, which is of course absurd.

I watched every episode of the show. I really liked the final 2 episodes. I liked the show overall, but all things considered, i could only really recommend seasons 1-3 to someone who had never seen the show. I thought there was just a ton of fluff in 4-7.

[lcjjdnh]

Interview with Chase:
http://www.nj.com/columns/ledger/sepinwall/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1181623651270570.xml&coll=1&thispage=1

"I have no interest in explaining, defending, reinterpreting, or adding to what is there," he says of the final scene.
"No one was trying to be audacious, honest to God," he adds. "We did what we thought we had to do. No one was trying to blow people's minds or thinking, 'Wow, this'll (tick) them off.'
"People get the impression that you're trying to (mess) with them, and it's not true. You're trying to entertain them."

[stevew]

The name of the episode where Junior shot Tony was "Members Only". The guy that was seeing walking into the bathroom was was wearing a Members Only jacket.

Yeah, i noticed that as well. Kind of a bookend effect for the season IMO.

If you don't think he dies, it kind of sucks that some stupid punk kid getting busted for E would be the reason that Tony gets taken down. Maybe then it all goes back to the fact that AJ is such a putz, and he wasn't enough of a leader to calm the Gervasi boy down and put him in check like he needed to.

[Ksyrup]

The music did heighten the tension, but it was with a power-ballad that most roll their eyes at upon hearing now. I think the music choice would be akin to hearing "Welcome to the Jungle" during a wedding scene. It has the rising action you're looking for, but it casts such an odd light on the scenario that it just works, and is so not cliche that it feels very fresh.


I watched the clip someone posted above, and the funny thing about the music is that I had the exact opposite reaction to it that you did. I bet he had this whole thing planned out years ago, down to the music, because before the White Sox hijacked this song, it was one of those guilty pleasure-type songs, but since 2005, that song has been everywhere and is far more acceptable to listen to. So when I heard it during the clip, I actually thought it was almost cliche how late to the party he was for using it. Someone got there first, and instead of coming off like Tarantino using Jungle Boogie, it smacked of bad timing.

[Neon_Chaos]

To anyone who TiVoed the last episode, was Tony holding/eating an orange during any part of the show? If he did, then I believe he got whacked from the blind side by the guy who went into the bathroom. (Following the recurring theme of oranges=death from the Godfather) Meadow was the last thing he saw, and then boom. "I bet you don't hear it when it happens."

Silence, and the credits roll for the first time without any music.

[Qwikshot]

I think he (Tony) lives.

Yes, the orange is an homage to "The Godfather", hell, just about one reference an episode did that...and that's an interesting thing, was the "Godfather" so big that it resulted in the mob acting like it, or was the "Godfather" a realistic depiction of what mob life was.

I think the Sopranos was showing a little of what present mob life is. It's dying.

When Phil is talking to his number two, it was showed and stated that "LIttle Italy" has gotten smaller, the guy on the phone wandered into Chinatown. It's dying.

Look at Tony's crew, you think even with him alive, that they'll ever be that big. I liked when Tony finally met with Uncle Junior, to see for himself, to prove to himself that Junior was so far gone that it wasn't an act (Remember Junior wanted to off Tony). I loved how he talked to Junior about that "thing" and Junior goes ,"I was part of that?" And Tony goes, "You and my dad ran New Jersey." Forgiveness Tony, and the realization that it won't ever be like that again. It's dying.

You see AJ and Meadow simply following in the footsteps. AJ was for a brief shining moment ready to do something positive - join the army, nevermind the Trump thing, but to actually learn Arabic and be something (of course, what did Michael Corleone do to try to cut ties, join the war) but instead of seeing the positives (and though it was masked by the fear of losing him to war) they corrupted AJ back into his old ways. Meadow was different, she was the one closest to breaking free, but it was seeing her dad get arrested and dating a mobster's son that pulled her back in (170k a year, defending mobsters, excuse me, Italian-Americans). I think Tony was disappointed as much as he was excited at the thought of her success, the one that almost acheived greatness without the taint, which is why he's looking up for her, which is why when he was in his coma he heard her voice (still gives me chills and made me tear up since I gotta little girl of my own).

Carmella is older and wiser, the spec houses are bringing in the income she couldn't rely on Tony for. She builds crappy homes that have rotten foundations due to cost cuts and questionable practices (like getting Tony to get inspectors to okay the house). And while she had guilt that someone could be harmed by the bad roof, we see her looking at new ones to work on.

Tony, still needs the outlet to talk to, hence why he took over AJ's counselor. He's got indictments coming, but the lawyer didn't seem too worried (too busy looking at the dancing girls getting ready) and munching into that hamburger.

In the end the family is intact, but rotten as ever, and no one is there to take the reigns when Tony does finally go off, if Phil had just waited, he could've had this crew easy.

So Silvio is down and out, and Paulie is a nervous captain (I don't think he's a rat)..."I'm old, I just survived my prostate!" The guy wasn't ever a leader, he was an enforcer, and the years are going by that he'll be less and less at that.

So the crew is dying too, I didn't see anyone who shined enough to bring new life into it, and the crew AJ hung out with, the new breed, is getting busted for drugs, just like the old breed, only slicker and more violent, not smart enough to know what to do, not honorable enough to be trusted.

You see Tony raking the leaves and hearing the ducks and smiling, the idea of family was still there. I mean he went to Junior to find a way to help Bobby's kids (lord knows that Janice won't)

Seeing the final moments for the 2nd time, all the tension was gone (I can see why Schmidty wasn't impressed). Tony is always going to live in fear, he's sliding back into the depths. AJ wants him to enjoy the good things, and I think that goes back to when Tony finally came out of the coma, "Every day is a gift." I think Tony has accepted that sooner or later, the lights go out.

So like a episode before, the Doors were playing the instrumental break but I know, knew..."when the music's over, turn out the lights."

Chase did, and it was good.

[Qwikshot]

I don't consider my view to be better or correct than any others' view. I think this is what Chase intended, you draw your own conclusions. It's made the ending that much more interesting...there is no closure per se, just the continuance out of our eyesight and ears, and the imagination of our own as to what happens.

[Ksyrup]

From an objective view of the last scene, not having watched the show, the beauty is that there are enough clues to convince you he got shot, but it's not obvious, so (a) it can retain that unknown ending forever, if he wants it to, ensuring it lasts longer in peoples' minds then it otherwise would have, and (b) it also leaves the possibility of a movie wide open.

[cthomer5000]

I watched the clip someone posted above, and the funny thing about the music is that I had the exact opposite reaction to it that you did. I bet he had this whole thing planned out years ago, down to the music, because before the White Sox hijacked this song, it was one of those guilty pleasure-type songs, but since 2005, that song has been everywhere and is far more acceptable to listen to. So when I heard it during the clip, I actually thought it was almost cliche how late to the party he was for using it. Someone got there first, and instead of coming off like Tarantino using Jungle Boogie, it smacked of bad timing.

I don't think they were going for that kind of musical effect at all. They use so many songs each show that i don't believe they're ever going for the "wow" factor. Not to mention I can say I haven't personnally heard this song any more or any less over the course of the last 15 years. Like most people in america, i have no idea about your White Sox reference, but the song has always been in roughly the same level of rotation on radio for as long as I can remember.

[Ksyrup]

No, it got picked up big time after the White Sox made it their unofficial anthem and had Steve Perry sing the National Anthem, I believe, at one of the WS games. It was uncool before; it became hip after.

[Honolulu_Blue]

Like most people in america, i have no idea about your White Sox reference, but the song has always been in roughly the same level of rotation on radio for as long as I can remember.

Agreed. This thread is the first time I had any idea of any connection between this song and the White Sox.

Then again, I know pretty much next to nothing when it comes to music, so I will trust Ksyrup who seems to know pretty much everything.

[Ksyrup]

CNN now has an article about the song, and they referenced recent popularity of the song that I had forgotten about:


"Don't Stop Believin' " has been featured in a several television and movie scenes. It crept onto an iTunes top-10 list when, during the same week, it was on Fox's "Family Guy" and in a romantic scene on MTV's "Laguna Beach."

Sports teams have adopted it, too. After the Chicago White Sox used it in 2005, Perry sang it at the parade to celebrate the team's World Series victory.


hxxp://www.cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/TV/06/12/tv.sopranos.thatsong.ap/index.html

[Maple Leafs]

Agreed. This thread is the first time I had any idea of any connection between this song and the White Sox.
Same here.

[Ksyrup]

None of that matters, I guess, but it just didn't strike me as "out of the blue" as it probably would have without all of the times it's come up in the mainstream in the last couple of years. It may have been that the irony of the lyrics and the end of the show were too good to pass up.

[molson]

I don't think it was used as a "hip" song by any means. It had a similar feel to the use of "Jessie's Girl" during the shootout climax of Boogie Nights.

[Ksyrup]

I don't think it was used as a "hip" song by any means. It had a similar feel to the use of "Jessie's Girl" during the shootout climax of Boogie Nights.

But that's precisely the point - in 1997, Jessie's Girl was totally unpopular and worked well. If Boogie Nights was a 2007 movie, using that song now, when it's been covered a couple of times, the song is more popular because of the 80s revival, etc., it wouldn't have come out of left field so well. That's my point about Don't Stop Believin' - it may have nothing to do with why it was chosen, but that song doesn't work as well, IMO, because it's no longer unpopular and ridiculed (as much). When you've been beaten to the punch by Family Guy, it loses its edge. That's all I'm saying.

[Ksyrup]

See, this is what I'm talking about...on another board I post at, one of the guys is going to be featured on the upcoming VH1's World Series of Pop Culture. This is his exact quote:

"Using "Don't Stop Believing" in the finale = so very lame. I mean, I love that song as much as the next guy, but Sopranos must be like the 20th show to use that song in the last couple of years."

[cthomer5000]

I just don't think I believe that's the feel they were going for. I guess we'll agree to disagree.

[molson]

But that's precisely the point - in 1997, Jessie's Girl was totally unpopular and worked well. If Boogie Nights was a 2007 movie, using that song now, when it's been covered a couple of times, the song is more popular because of the 80s revival, etc., it wouldn't have come out of left field so well. That's my point about Don't Stop Believin' - it may have nothing to do with why it was chosen, but that song doesn't work as well, IMO, because it's no longer unpopular and ridiculed (as much). When you've been beaten to the punch by Family Guy, it loses its edge. That's all I'm saying.

I'm sure that's all true, I think we're just saying that for those of us unaware of Don't Stop Believin's "revival" (as David Chase probably was), I think it had the intended effect. I'm also guessing he had that song in mind for the final scene since very early on, if not before the series even started.

[cthomer5000]

Back to my major gripe about the show... I feel like they could have written this as the ending for season 4, and it would have been every bit as effective. Seasons 4-7 for me were mostly just weak or redundant. I mean, seriously... how many times did we tackle Christopher's addiction issue? I realize it really is that big a battle for many people, but christ does it make for boring TV the 5th time around. I think seasons 1-3 were fantastic, and after that the rest just isn't worth the time you have to put in.

[Ksyrup]

I'm sure that's all true, I think we're just saying that for those of us unaware of Don't Stop Believin's "revival" (as David Chase probably was), I think it had the intended effect. I'm also guessing he had that song in mind for the final scene since very early on, if not before the series even started.

I agree with that. Which is why I'm sure he stuck with the song even though it had gotten popular. I guess what I'm trying to say is it might have been more effective without the recent history of the song, and it seems like that did effect some viewers negatively (although I didn't watch anything other than that scene), but the song obviously had a relevance to the show for which the popularity of the song didn't matter.

On that other board, there is this post detailing the songs on the jukebox, if anyone is interested in looking for "hidden meanings:"


"
Here are the songs titles I can read (from top to bottom) on the pages of the jukebox as Tony flips through it. To my surpise, a lot of the songs are repeated throughout the jukebox, but never in the same order. So I don't think its just a simple matter of the close-ups of the jukebox being edited into the scene out of order. While songs are repeated, they page of the jukebox upon which they appear is never in the same order twice.

Page numbers were designated by me, upon best guess based upon how the scene was shot and edited. I list song titles left column first, then right column, and always top to bottom.

Page 1 - Left Hand Column
Illegible.

Page 1 - Right Hand Column
1) Somewhere In The Night;
2) My Baby Drives a Buick;
3) Those Were The Days;
4) Turn Turn Turn;
5) Only The Strong Survive;
6) Victim of Love;
7) I've Gotta Be Me;

Page 2 - Left Hand Column

All songs from Page 1 - Right Hand Column, but in reverse order.

Page 2 - Right Hand Column
1) I've Gotta Be Me
2) A Lonely Place;
3) This Magic Moment;
4) Since I Don't Have You;
5) Crystal Blue Persuasion;
6) I'm Alive;

Page 3 - Left Hand Column

Not shown onscreen.

Page 3 -Right Hand Column

1) I'll Take You (Heartache and All);
2) Somewhere In The Night (third appearance);
3) My Baby Drives a Buick (third appearance);
4) Who Will You Run To;
5) Magic Man (Live);
6) A Lonely Place (Second Appearance);
7) This Magic Moment (Second Appearance);
8) Since I Don't Have You (Second Appearance);
9) Crystal Blue Persuasion (Second Appearance);

Page 4 - Left Hand Column

Not shown onscreen.

Page 4 - Right Hand Column

1) Magic Man (Live) (Second Appearance);
2) Don't Stop Believing;
3) Anyway You Want It;
4) I'll Never Be In Love Again;
5) Rock It Billy;
6) I've Gotta Be Me (Second Appearance);
7) A Lonely Place (Second Appearance).

- - -

Obviously, a lot of the song titles clearly resonate with themes throughout the show. I'm curious as to why "My Baby Drives a Buick" was included prominently three separate times. Any remarkable appearances of a Buick in the show? Places I'm going to look for are Junior or Johnny's car in flashbacks, Livia's car (esp. when she ran over her friend); or the car used in the various countryside driving dreams when Tony was in the backseat. <!--IBF.ATTACHMENT_391942-->

[Honolulu_Blue]

Back to my major gripe about the show... I feel like they could have written this as the ending for season 4, and it would have been every bit as effective. Seasons 4-7 for me were mostly just weak or redundant. I mean, seriously... how many times did we tackle Christopher's addiction issue? I realize it really is that big a battle for many people, but christ does it make for boring TV the 5th time around. I think seasons 1-3 were fantastic, and after that the rest just isn't worth the time you have to put in.

Good thing for me then that I only watched Seasons 1-3 and then the final two episodes. I lost track of the show after Season 3, when I moved out of the country, and never started watching it again until two weeks ago.

[Anthony]

since when was "Don't Stop Believing" uncool? in NYC, it's a staple at the bars i go to.

The Macarena is uncool. Don't Stop Believing is a classic rock song. it's one of my top 50 favorite songs. i even used that song to end this video montage i made of a Halloween party i was a part of. it's a keeper.

[Passacaglia]

I live in Chicago, and don't remember Don't Stop Believin' being played in reference to the Sox. But then again, I probably just wasn't paying attention.

[Karlifornia]

since when was "Don't Stop Believing" uncool? in NYC, it's a staple at the bars i go to.

The Macarena is uncool. Don't Stop Believing is a classic rock song. it's one of my top 50 favorite songs. i even used that song to end this video montage i made of a Halloween party i was a part of. it's a keeper.

Lol...slight generation gap, I guess?

[molson]

since when was "Don't Stop Believing" uncool? in NYC, it's a staple at the bars i go to.

The Macarena is uncool. Don't Stop Believing is a classic rock song. it's one of my top 50 favorite songs. i even used that song to end this video montage i made of a Halloween party i was a part of. it's a keeper.

I've observed the love for the song at bars, but I always assumed it was an ironic enthusiasm. On the other hand, nobody would be even ironically fired up about the Macarena. So I think there's a certain kind of uncool that makes something cool again.

[Karlifornia]

I've observed the love for the song at bars, but I always assumed it was an ironic enthusiasm. On the other hand, nobody would be even ironically fired up about the Macarena. So I think there's a certain kind of uncool that makes something cool again.

bingo

[OldGiants]

There's no ambiguity at all. Tony was shot and died. As has been mentioned by several, the place was full of folks who wanted Tony dead.

I considered the 'fade to black' to be his death. My sister agreed and pointed out that:

" In one of the early episodes of the sopranos, tonys talking with bobby
about what it must feel like to die. Bobby says "at the end, you probably dont hear anything, everything just goes black"

She pointed out a few episodes back Tony remembered this conversation as he was falling asleep.

It was well setup, if you were paying attention.

[Anthony]

i haven't seen the ending yet but got tired of skipping all the talk so i read how it ends. i agree the ending is consistent with how Chase has handled the series. set up very nicely.

however, and i've said it before, the storyteller - not the artist, mind you - has a duty to tell the story. the artist leaves room for interpretation. the storyteller gives you the beginning, middle and the end. you don't tell us about Hansel & Gretle and fade to black right when Hansel gives the witch a chicken bone. i honestly believe endings like this are cop-outs, they are the failure of the storyteller to provide a definitive closure to a story out of fears it won't hold up over time. this is a failure on Chase's part. he was not up to the task of killing off one of tv's treasured characters, so he leaves us off with a black screen. "here", he says, "you pull the trigger". again, i agree the ending was done well, but a climax is not an ending. Chase took the easy way out and leaves the rest up to the viewer, whose job isn't to finish the story. if i have to finish Chase's story for him then pay me some of his salary and i'll do it.

[spleen1015]

There's no ambiguity at all. Tony was shot and died. As has been mentioned by several, the place was full of folks who wanted Tony dead.

I considered the 'fade to black' to be his death. My sister agreed and pointed out that:

" In one of the early episodes of the sopranos, tonys talking with bobby
about what it must feel like to die. Bobby says "at the end, you probably dont hear anything, everything just goes black"

She pointed out a few episodes back Tony remembered this conversation as he was falling asleep.

It was well setup, if you were paying attention.

This is all asuumption. There is no way to know for sure. It was set up so that any number of things could happen on purpose.

[John Galt]

There's no ambiguity at all. Tony was shot and died. As has been mentioned by several, the place was full of folks who wanted Tony dead....

It was well setup, if you were paying attention.

You might want to read this article about and interview (http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1181623651270570.xml&coll=1&thispage=1)with Chase (especially the last paragraph on page 4):

"Not from Chase, but I feel the need to debunk the e-mail that's making the rounds about all the Holsten's patrons being characters from earlier in the series. The actor playing Members Only guy had never been on the show; Tony killed at least one, if not both, of his carjackers; and there are about 17 other things wrong with this popular but incorrect theory."

The reason I'm still not buying the Tony is dead theory is that wouldn't the last thing we saw be Meadow instead of Tony? If we were watching Tony's last moments, wouldn't we see his daughter charging in? It just makes more sense from a director's perspective since that whole scene was really from Tony's view. Why then do we just he his face at the end?

The Tony is dead theory is plausible, but still inclined to believe that things are intentionally ambiguous.

[spleen1015]

You might want to read this article about and interview (http://www.nj.com/starledger/stories/index.ssf?/base/columns-0/1181623651270570.xml&coll=1&thispage=1)with Chase (especially the last paragraph on page 4):

"Not from Chase, but I feel the need to debunk the e-mail that's making the rounds about all the Holsten's patrons being characters from earlier in the series. The actor playing Members Only guy had never been on the show; Tony killed at least one, if not both, of his carjackers; and there are about 17 other things wrong with this popular but incorrect theory."

The reason I'm still not buying the Tony is dead theory is that wouldn't the last thing we saw be Meadow instead of Tony? If we were watching Tony's last moments, wouldn't we see his daughter charging in? It just makes more sense from a director's perspective since that whole scene was really from Tony's view. Why then do we just he his face at the end?

The Tony is dead theory is plausible, but still inclined to believe that things are intentionally ambiguous.

We see Meadow running into the place. At the moment where she would be opening the door to come in, it switches to Tony and we hear the bell ring as if someone has opened the door, Tony looks up for half a second, then black.

[molson]

There's no ambiguity at all. Tony was shot and died.



The more I think about it, the more obvious this seems. I don't believe that the restaraunt was "full of people" who wanted him dead. The simplest explanation is that the one guy went to bathroom so he could take out Tony at an angle where he wouldn't see him coming (and where he could do it at close enough range as to avoid hitting the family). I have heard no other explanation as to why things would cut off when they did.

I'm trying to imagine how showing the final hit (if that's what it was), would have come across on the screen. That kind of ending would have surprised me. It would have felt very non-Sopranos.

[molson]

The reason I'm still not buying the Tony is dead theory is that wouldn't the last thing we saw be Meadow instead of Tony? If we were watching Tony's last moments, wouldn't we see his daughter charging in? It just makes more sense from a director's perspective since that whole scene was really from Tony's view. Why then do we just he his face at the end?



The show has never been from Tony’s POV in a literal sense. I think it could have just been an artistic interpretation of death.

[John Galt]

We see Meadow running into the place. At the moment where she would be opening the door to come in, it switches to Tony and we hear the bell ring as if someone has opened the door, Tony looks up for half a second, then black.

I know what we see. My point is that it would make more sense to not show Tony's face last if you really want to see the truncation as the end of his life. Things would "fade to black" only if you were looking through Tony's eyes. My argument doesn't automatically discount the Tony is dead theory - it is just a point about the direction that makes me think the theory less sound.

[John Galt]

The show has never been from Tony’s POV in a literal sense. I think it could have just been an artistic interpretation of death.

Yeah, but so much of the last scene was. And the truncated scene with a fade to black just makes more sense if we are looking through Tony's eyes. There is no reason if you are shooting third person to end so abruptly. Shooting first person, on the other hand, makes perfect sense for a cut ending.

[molson]

I know what we see. My point is that it would make more sense to not show Tony's face last if you really want to see the truncation as the end of his life. Things would "fade to black" only if you were looking through Tony's eyes. My argument doesn't automatically discount the Tony is dead theory - it is just a point about the direction that makes me think the theory less sound.

Showing Meadow (From Tony's point of view) with the last scene would make it super-obvious what Chase was going for, and it would probably come off as a little cheesy.

[gottimd]

Question, if Tony was about to be shot, assuming at close range, Meadow was running up straight at him.....wouldn't her facial expression change if presumably someone was a foot away from Tony with a gun pointed at his head most likely in her clear view?

[molson]

Question, if Tony was about to be shot, assuming at close range, Meadow was running up straight at him.....wouldn't her facial expression change if presumably someone was a foot away from Tony with a gun pointed at his head most likely in her clear view?

The time between the door opening and the end of the show is less then a second. Maybe enough time for Meadow to have a reaction, but not enough for Tony to have a reaction to Meadow.

If they did a Tony POV of Meadow looking shocked, it would have felt very amateur film schoolish.

[NoMyths]

We need to clear something up: what occurred at the end was not a fade to black -- there was no fading. The shot cut to black from Tony.

[John Galt]

We need to clear something up: what occurred at the end was not a fade to black -- there was no fading. The shot cut to black from Tony.

That's true. I'll stop saying "fade to black."

[bosshogg23]

The finale shown wasn't the complete ending that was shot apparently. The entire ending that was shot includes Meadow sitting down at the table and the Members Only jacket guy approaching the table then the cut to black. This is according to the guy who played the FBI Agent.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06122007/news/nationalnews/sopranos_snit_hits_the_fans_nationalnews_michael_starr_and_murray_weiss.htm?page=2

[Radii]

I'm with JG here. There is definite ambiguity. I'm really leaning towards the more subtle explanation that the stress that every viewer had waiting for something terrible to happen is just the way life will go on for the Soprano family, however long it goes on for. We see every person as a threat, every time the door opens we assume the worst, every time someone glances over we expect the hit to be coming. We expected something terrible to happen while Meadow was trying to park her car, while she was running across the street, when the Members Only Jacket guy walks to the bathroom, and that's all there is. That *is* Tony Soprano's life, that feeling that was instilled in every viewer during the last 5 minutes is the feeling that Tony has every second of every day. We don't know when, or how it will end, but we know that it will, and that every moment Tony has is spent fearing the worst in everyone.

I'm sure all of the above has already been said by people here, but after reading reactions all over the place, that seems to be where I'm settling. And it doesn't mean that Tony didn't get killed by one of those people 5 minutes later, just that it didn't necessarily happen then, and it doesn't really matter when or how it happens.

[Logan]

Just another vote to say that, as HA pointed out, "Don't Stop Believin" has been a monster bar song in NY/NJ for awhile. And yes, it kicks ass.

[spleen1015]

I'm with JG here. There is definite ambiguity. I'm really leaning towards the more subtle explanation that the stress that every viewer had waiting for something terrible to happen is just the way life will go on for the Soprano family, however long it goes on for. We see every person as a threat, every time the door opens we assume the worst, every time someone glances over we expect the hit to be coming. We expected something terrible to happen while Meadow was trying to park her car, while she was running across the street, when the Members Only Jacket guy walks to the bathroom, and that's all there is. That *is* Tony Soprano's life, that feeling that was instilled in every viewer during the last 5 minutes is the feeling that Tony has every second of every day. We don't know when, or how it will end, but we know that it will, and that moment Tony has is spent fearing the worst in everyone.

I'm sure all of the above has already been said by people here, but after reading reactions all over the place, that seems to be where I'm settling. And it doesn't mean that Tony didn't get killed by one of those people 5 minutes later, just that it didn't necessarily happen then, and it doesn't really matter when or how it happens.

This is how I see it as well.

[Radii]

I'm kinda suprised no one has mentioned the fact that Tony, while fingering through the music selections, goes over a couple songs by Tony Bennett including “I’ve Gotta Be Me” before choosing Journey. I'm not the type that's good at pulling meaning out of small events like that, but it was something I noticed and expected to read a lot about.

[molson]

The finale shown wasn't the complete ending that was shot apparently. The entire ending that was shot includes Meadow sitting down at the table and the Members Only jacket guy approaching the table then the cut to black. This is according to the guy who played the FBI Agent.

http://www.nypost.com/seven/06122007/news/nationalnews/sopranos_snit_hits_the_fans_nationalnews_michael_starr_and_murray_weiss.htm?page=2

The rest of his comments are pretty interesting -

"[Tony's daughter] Meadow got into the diner, sat down . . . The menacing 'Members Only' jacket-wearing man at the counter was a little bit more in play, and I think she's sitting there with the family kind of all together . . . and all of a sudden, the menacing man gets up, starts walking toward their booth. End of show," Servitto said.

"The scene cut as the [menacing] guy was advancing toward [Tony], as if he was about to shoot Tony. It was, I think, less ambiguous that Tony was going to get shot."

[albionmoonlight]

it doesn't really matter when or how it happens.

Yes.

And, if Tony somehow manages to avoid a hit for the next five minutes or the next 30 years, all he really has to look forward to is that stress filled life and probably dying alone of dementia.

(All of which makes you wonder if getting killed would be the worst thing for Tony.)

[path12]

I'm with JG here. There is definite ambiguity. I'm really leaning towards the more subtle explanation that the stress that every viewer had waiting for something terrible to happen is just the way life will go on for the Soprano family, however long it goes on for. We see every person as a threat, every time the door opens we assume the worst, every time someone glances over we expect the hit to be coming. We expected something terrible to happen while Meadow was trying to park her car, while she was running across the street, when the Members Only Jacket guy walks to the bathroom, and that's all there is. That *is* Tony Soprano's life, that feeling that was instilled in every viewer during the last 5 minutes is the feeling that Tony has every second of every day. We don't know when, or how it will end, but we know that it will, and that every moment Tony has is spent fearing the worst in everyone.

I'm sure all of the above has already been said by people here, but after reading reactions all over the place, that seems to be where I'm settling. And it doesn't mean that Tony didn't get killed by one of those people 5 minutes later, just that it didn't necessarily happen then, and it doesn't really matter when or how it happens.


This is the explanation I'm settling on also. I don't think he got shot. Right then anyway.

[Ksyrup]

I'm kinda suprised no one has mentioned the fact that Tony, while fingering through the music selections, goes over a couple songs by Tony Bennett including “I’ve Gotta Be Me” before choosing Journey. I'm not the type that's good at pulling meaning out of small events like that, but it was something I noticed and expected to read a lot about.

I posted what someone recorded as the songs he flipped through up above. I didn't watch the show, so I don't know what meaning, if any, the song titles might have to the show.

[Bad-example]

Tim Goodman addresses the finale and makes a pretty convincing argument that the cut to black leaves Tony alive and kicking. As usual, he is worth a read: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/sfgate/detail?blogid=24&entry_id=17571

[Karlifornia]

Battlestar Galactica finale..as directed by David Chase
<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Okkqp6CcM68"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Okkqp6CcM68" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Karlifornia]

Citizen Kane..as directed by David Chase

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ms99nentT6Y"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Ms99nentT6Y" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Karlifornia]

The Godfather..as directed by David Chase

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZlCwfSHQCow"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/ZlCwfSHQCow" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Qwikshot]

http://www.slate.com/id/2168397/

Harry Potter as ended by David Chase...

[Anthony]

[insert any movie/show here] as directed by Chase.

we get the point now.

[JasonC23]

what better









(jbmagic by David Chase)

[Surtt]

Being cynical...
I think Tony Died,
but it was purposely left the ambiguous so he could be resurrected if a movie is ever made.

[molson]

Most detailed analysis of the final 5 minutes that I've seen.

I totally missed that Tony was eating an orange earlier in the episode - that basically clinches the "Tony's whacked" theory (though I'd agree Chase didn't go all the way, in part, in the off chance that there's a movie).

http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1406/1/

[SunDevil]

Most detailed analysis of the final 5 minutes that I've seen.

I totally missed that Tony was eating an orange earlier in the episode - that basically clinches the "Tony's whacked" theory (though I'd agree Chase didn't go all the way, in part, in the off chance that there's a movie).

http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1406/1/

I find it interesting the reading into hints or things in the last scene. Whether actually true or not, it was still nonetheless entertaining.

[ISiddiqui]

Just saw it on DVR...

I thought it was a great finale episode. The ambiguity at the end was brilliant. I think he ends up getting shot. The series is told through Tony's eyes and after he's been popped, it just ends... no music, no visuals... nothing. Because he got killed in the blink of an eye, in the middle of dinner.

Though I can also see that life goes on, but Tony is always, always looking over his shoulder at every possibly threat, forever. Though the cut to black
and seconds of silent black screen indicate to me that Tony's dead.

Though definately an ending that'll be talked about for a loooong time.

[Karlifornia]

The series is told through Tony's eyes

No

[molson]

No

Not literally, of course, I mean, we don't get a strict POV camera shot from Tony's perspective, but otherwise, the story is very much from his point of view. He's the protagonist, even while he does horrible things. The entire story is from his point of view, what he finds important.

[Bad-example]

The bit that David Spade did on his Comedy Central show this week was pretty funny. Every week they edit him into a segment from a popular show and this week it was the ending of The Sopranos.

[Anthony]

Not literally, of course, I mean, we don't get a strict POV camera shot from Tony's perspective, but otherwise, the story is very much from his point of view. He's the protagonist, even while he does horrible things. The entire story is from his point of view, what he finds important.

ummm, no. if it was his point of view only then we wouldn't know about what happens to the other characters. Tony would have to be in every scene for us to see other characters. the series focused on him but it's not his point of view.

[Anthony]

Most detailed analysis of the final 5 minutes that I've seen.

I totally missed that Tony was eating an orange earlier in the episode - that basically clinches the "Tony's whacked" theory (though I'd agree Chase didn't go all the way, in part, in the off chance that there's a movie).

http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1406/1/

The line attributed to Tony above, "Where is the Ghost" is incorrect. According to the Closed Captioning, which I didn't initially think to check, the exact words are "Where is Googootz," pronounced like "guh-goats." While "Googootz" looks like an infectious crusty buildup caused by the overuse of search engines, it's actually a real Italian nickname that I simply didn't recognize and therefore misheard.

i don't know what the actual spelling is, but that word is an italian dialect for "crazy/loony".

[Logan]

The entire story is from his point of view, what he finds important.

ummm, no. if it was his point of view only then we wouldn't know about what happens to the other characters. Tony would have to be in every scene for us to see other characters. the series focused on him but it's not his point of view.

Not only that, but we also saw opposing POVs when it came to a lot of Tony's actions and decisions. There was a lot of talking behind his back when it came to him not offering up Tony B to Johnny, and what would happen as a result. Not to mention how often we saw Chris bitching to Ade about Tony's questionable decisions.

[molson]

Not only that, but we also saw opposing POVs when it came to a lot of Tony's actions and decisions. There was a lot of talking behind his back when it came to him not offering up Tony B to Johnny, and what would happen as a result. Not to mention how often we saw Chris bitching to Ade about Tony's questionable decisions.

I said "not literally", but whatever. I mean, that author who used that phrase in that article is obviously well aware that that show isn't Tony's POV to the extent that you an HA are talking about it, he clearly means the term to be defined in a different way.

[RedKingGold]

The real beauty and greatness of the Soprano's ending is that it has nearly been one week later and there are still new posts in this thread.

[Karlifornia]

I said "not literally", but whatever. I mean, that author who used that phrase in that article is obviously well aware that that show isn't Tony's POV to the extent that you an HA are talking about it, he clearly means the term to be defined in a different way.

Well, because there is a main character in a show doesn't mean it's coming from his perspective. Seeing it through his perspective would have warped the series into making everything he did look justified.

[flounder]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cy3MRCEypes"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cy3MRCEypes" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

[Karlifornia]

<object width="425" height="350"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cy3MRCEypes"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cy3MRCEypes" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></object>

I would have lost my shit if I were at the ballpark when they played that.

[Maple Leafs]

The fans booing the ending is awesome.

[GoDukes]

The real beauty and greatness of the Soprano's ending is that it has nearly been one week later and there are still new posts in this thread.


How is that greatness?

[Buccaneer]

How is that greatness?

Because if they wrapped it up and put a bow on it, then they told you how to think. This way, we use our own imagination and thought processes.

[QuikSand]

Because if they wrapped it up and put a bow on it, then they told you how to think. This way, we use our own imagination and thought processes.

So, why have a show at all?

[King of New York]

<object height="350" width="425">

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Cy3MRCEypes" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" height="350" width="425"></object>

That's great :)

[Buccaneer]

So, why have a show at all?

Beats me. Most people seems to have the TV on to fill the time or just to have background noise. :)

[molson]

So, why have a show at all?

Why have a show if everything's not spoon fed to you? Probably because many people prefer that.

It's a matter of preference, as has been well established in this thread. There's Sopranos ending types, who like things to be unsettled, and the more traditional types, who want everything more tidy.

[molson]

Even Hillary Clinton's in on the parody rampage:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/?splash=1

[gottimd]

Just to keep the thread alive......

Why would the guy need to go into the bathroom to get a gun? I understand that it was "in honor" or whatever of the Godfather, but Michael had to get the gun out of the bathroom because he knew Salozzo (sp?) and the Police chief would frisk him.

This supposed assassin was in no danger of being frisked so why not just up and shoot him? Did he go into the bathroom for element of surprise or to take a deep breath before he killed Tony?

The members only jacket guy definitely didn't cowboy up if he had to go to the bathroom first.

[cartman]

Just to keep the thread alive......

Why would the guy need to go into the bathroom to get a gun? I understand that it was "in honor" or whatever of the Godfather, but Michael had to get the gun out of the bathroom because he knew Salozzo (sp?) and the Police chief would frisk him.

This supposed assassin was in no danger of being frisked so why not just up and shoot him? Did he go into the bathroom for element of surprise or to take a deep breath before he killed Tony?

The members only jacket guy definitely didn't cowboy up if he had to go to the bathroom first.

He might have had the gun with him. He might have retreated to the bathroom to get the gun out without anyone noticing, and also to get an angle of approach where Tony wouldn't notice him.

As to who it might have been, it could have been a lot of people. Maybe it was one of Coco's crew. Maybe Butchie kept the hit out, because he knew once Tony was out of the way, and no more Phil, he'd be in charge.

[Bubba Wheels]

Just to keep the thread alive......

Why would the guy need to go into the bathroom to get a gun? I understand that it was "in honor" or whatever of the Godfather, but Michael had to get the gun out of the bathroom because he knew Salozzo (sp?) and the Police chief would frisk him.

This supposed assassin was in no danger of being frisked so why not just up and shoot him? Did he go into the bathroom for element of surprise or to take a deep breath before he killed Tony?

The members only jacket guy definitely didn't cowboy up if he had to go to the bathroom first.

Maybe, right before he whacked Tony, he had to use the bathroom?

[molson]

Just to keep the thread alive......

Why would the guy need to go into the bathroom to get a gun? I understand that it was "in honor" or whatever of the Godfather, but Michael had to get the gun out of the bathroom because he knew Salozzo (sp?) and the Police chief would frisk him.

This supposed assassin was in no danger of being frisked so why not just up and shoot him? Did he go into the bathroom for element of surprise or to take a deep breath before he killed Tony?

The members only jacket guy definitely didn't cowboy up if he had to go to the bathroom first.

Coming out of the bathroom was the perfect angle to whack Tony without taking out a family member as well (especially since Meadow wasn't there yet, which is another hint), and without Tony seeing him to get a shot off himself (the door, and the counter where he was sitting, was directly in Tony's line of sight).

I do think though, there could have been a clearer hint somewhere about WHO would be taking Tony out at this point.

[GoDukes]

Because if they wrapped it up and put a bow on it, then they told you how to think. This way, we use our own imagination and thought processes.


I can use my imagination without turning on a TV/going to a movie. When I'm watching a show, I want to be told/see a story, not given part of the story, and told to make up the rest.

[molson]

I can use my imagination without turning on a TV/going to a movie. When I'm watching a show, I want to be told/see a story, not given part of the story, and told to make up the rest.

The Sopranos weren't know for their dramatic season finales. If you want all the loose ends tied up, watch Law & Order.

[GoDukes]

The Sopranos weren't know for their dramatic season finales. If you want all the loose ends tied up, watch Law & Order.

How about a SERIES finale? You know, the one HBO has been hyping for roughly 3 years? There is a difference between ending a season and a series. The story was ending. Chase, for whatever reason, decided not to end it.

I almost hope that Chase makes a movie and picks up where the show ends because I'd love to see everyone who is romancing that finale feel stupid for getting played.

[Logan]

I can use my imagination without turning on a TV/going to a movie. When I'm watching a show, I want to be told/see a story, not given part of the story, and told to make up the rest.

If the final scene was the family sitting around the breakfast table, and then there's a knock on the door, cutting to the Feds coming in and taking Tony in...are you satisfied? Just knowing he got picked up for the, what, 5th time we've seen in the series? How is that concluding the story? You won't be interested in finding out what happens while he awaits trial for 2 years?

[st.cronin]

Most aesthetic theory that I agree with suggests that ambiguity is a bad thing. Obviously, there are people who like it, in all mediums, but I think its an open question whether ambiguity can ever be successful in art.

[RedKingGold]

How about a SERIES finale? You know, the one HBO has been hyping for roughly 3 years? There is a difference between ending a season and a series. The story was ending. Chase, for whatever reason, decided not to end it.

I almost hope that Chase makes a movie and picks up where the show ends because I'd love to see everyone who is romancing that finale feel stupid for getting played.

If you really watched the Sopranos and was a decent fan, then you should have had no expectations for that kind of ending.

In all honesty, I was really surprised by the amount of action in the second to last episode. I believe that might've been a bone to throw at some viewers to inject some action into an otherwise dull sixth season.

Regardless, if you really expected things resolved in the Sopranos, then your watching the wrong show.

[RedKingGold]

Most aesthetic theory that I agree with suggests that ambiguity is a bad thing. Obviously, there are people who like it, in all mediums, but I think its an open question whether ambiguity can ever be successful in art.

Man, that is ambiguous.

[st.cronin]

Man, that is ambiguous.

Its also not art.

[RedKingGold]

Its also not art.

Everything is art. And art is everything.

[GoDukes]

If you really watched the Sopranos and was a decent fan, then you should have had no expectations for that kind of ending.

In all honesty, I was really surprised by the amount of action in the second to last episode. I believe that might've been a bone to throw at some viewers to inject some action into an otherwise dull sixth season.

Regardless, if you really expected things resolved in the Sopranos, then your watching the wrong show.


I love the high horse that certain people who watch The Sopranos ride around on.

Just another reason why The Wire kicks the The Sopranos ass up and down the street. Art. Amazing writing. Social commentary.

My favorite summation of The Sopranos finale:


Given how the critics and fans of The Sopranos have smashed David Chase specifically and the show in general for not living up to expectations and not paying off in a way we came to expect after the first few seasons, this had to be Chase's way of saying "Screw all of you people, this is *my* show and I'll end it *my* way." He threw all the blood-thirsty fans a bone with the episode last week, and this week he indulged himself.

In the end, however, the show's legacy is left to the fans and critics, and Chase pretty much sealed the fate of The Sopranos as perhaps the biggest undelivered promise in dramatic television - 2 or 3 of the best seasons in television history followed by 4 seasons of self-indulgent ungratifying crap, with the finale episode - and the final scene - a perfect example of what's been wrong with the Sopranos for so long.

[Karlifornia]

I'd love to see everyone who is romancing that finale feel stupid for getting played.

Wanting people to feel stupid=Awesome!

[RedKingGold]

I love the high horse that certain people who watch The Sopranos ride around on.

Just another reason why The Wire kicks the The Sopranos ass up and down the street. Art. Amazing writing. Social commentary.

People like you are funny.

[RedKingGold]

BTW, if you hated it so much, why are you still posting in this thread? Haven't you made the same "I hated the series finale of the Sopranos" several other times in this thread?

[Karlifornia]

I love the high horse that certain people who watch The Sopranos ride around on.


I named my high horse "GoDukes' Grandma"...and I like to ride around on it all day long, baby!

[GoDukes]

BTW, if you hated it so much, why are you still posting in this thread? Haven't you made the same "I hated the series finale of the Sopranos" several other times in this thread?

Because I feel like discussing it? Haven't you made the same "I loved the series finale of The Sopranos" post several other times as well?

[Logan]

If you want to discuss it, please answer my question:

If the final scene was the family sitting around the breakfast table, and then there's a knock on the door, cutting to the Feds coming in and taking Tony in...are you satisfied? Just knowing he got picked up for the, what, 5th time we've seen in the series? How is that concluding the story? You won't be interested in finding out what happens while he awaits trial for 2 years?

[GoDukes]

If the final scene was the family sitting around the breakfast table, and then there's a knock on the door, cutting to the Feds coming in and taking Tony in...are you satisfied? Just knowing he got picked up for the, what, 5th time we've seen in the series? How is that concluding the story? You won't be interested in finding out what happens while he awaits trial for 2 years?

Probably better than what we saw, but not by much.

Just because you throw out another crappy ending doesn't mean the ending we saw wasn't crappy.

[RedKingGold]

Probably better than what we saw, but not by much.

Just because you throw out another crappy ending doesn't mean the ending we saw wasn't crappy.

Out of curiousity, how would you have ended the show?

[Anthony]

Out of curiousity, how would you have ended the show?

what's the point of that? so you can sit and laugh at how stupid his ending would have been?

unless i missed a memo, he isn't paid to write for the Sopranos. none of us are. it shouldn't be to us to do Chase's job. any one of us could create an ending for the series - that's not hard. the point isn't to come up with a better ending, its for Chase to have come up with an ending - period. big difference.

if i want art i'll go to a musuem. if i'm going to watch a story on tv i want that story to have an ending.

[molson]

if i want art i'll go to a musuem. if i'm going to watch a story on tv i want that story to have an ending.


I can use my imagination without turning on a TV/going to a movie. When I'm watching a show, I want to be told/see a story, not given part of the story, and told to make up the rest.


We get your preferences. Other people have different preferences. There's lot of channels on the TV.

[Anthony]

We get your preferences. Other people have different preferences. There's lot of channels on the TV.

no, i don't have to change the channel and watch a different show. i'll watch what i want and have the reasonable expectation to have things resolved.

and if you prefer to not have things resolved i have a TON of half finished show ideas and novel plots that i can send to you.

[RedKingGold]

no, i don't have to change the channel and watch a different show. i'll watch what i want and have the reasonable expectation to have things resolved.

and if you prefer to not have things resolved i have a TON of half finished show ideas and novel plots that i can send to you.

I think that's where your missing the point. The Soprano's has proved since day one that they will not follow the catharsis theme that all other gangster films/tv shows followed. If you ever watched some of the Northern Exposure shows that Chase directed, you would seem some of that style in his writing.

Like I said before, I think people like you and GoDukes (and I've met people with similar opinions in real life) are funny because you're still upset enough about the show's ending (over a week later) to comment on it.

It's a show, you didn't like the ending, move on.

Then again, I just realized I'm trying to rationalize with HA and would be more productive licking my computer screen then responding to your comments.

[Qwikshot]

what's the point of that? so you can sit and laugh at how stupid his ending would have been?

unless i missed a memo, he isn't paid to write for the Sopranos. none of us are. it shouldn't be to us to do Chase's job. any one of us could create an ending for the series - that's not hard. the point isn't to come up with a better ending, its for Chase to have come up with an ending - period. big difference.

if i want art i'll go to a musuem. if i'm going to watch a story on tv i want that story to have an ending.


It's not art....it's not TV, it's HBO.

Here's the problem with all of this, it doesn't matter what you think, or I think, or the majority of Soprano's viewers, it only mattered what Chase thought. The series got big enough that his word wouldn't be questioned.

If you didn't like it, then I would suggest like the Godfather films that you treasure Parts 1 and 2, and forget about Part 3. Even better, ignore Rocky V, treasure I-IV and Rocky Balboa.

Not all stories have endings, granted, I've felt stories that didn't have resolution to sometimes be frustrating, the guy who wrote "American Psycho" had a book call "Rules of Attraction" that starts in the middle of a sentence and ends in the middle of a sentence, which I guess was a concept of being briefly in the moment of the characters, and then flashing out. S.E. Hinton's "The Outsiders" doesn't really end, it simply cycles through the story again.

Furthermore, just when a story ends, does it? I mean the killer gets captured or killed in a horror/mystery, is it really over? Aren't series with one character, simply stories that don't end, I mean you have something of a story within a story, but it chugs along until the series end and even then, there is existence outside of the story.

I don't think everything is ever truely linear.

You can call it an FU to the fans. You can say it was a great ending. But the fact that it is still being discussed, that it has been parodied, that it's being debated proves a sort of permenance to a television series that was about mobsters (amazingly more was that this sometimes brutal killers could be so well humanized, there were times where you had genuine sympathy for them, you understood them, and then you get smacked on the side of the head when they'd do something so brutal).

I still think it was great. You don't have to draw conclusions, you don't have to connect the dots, you just watched it.

[Logan]

what's the point of that? so you can sit and laugh at how stupid his ending would have been?

unless i missed a memo, he isn't paid to write for the Sopranos. none of us are. it shouldn't be to us to do Chase's job. any one of us could create an ending for the series - that's not hard. the point isn't to come up with a better ending, its for Chase to have come up with an ending - period. big difference.

if i want art i'll go to a musuem. if i'm going to watch a story on tv i want that story to have an ending.

You are missing such a huge point it's ridiculous. Again, what is the ending that would adequately qualify as an "ending?"

I'll answer it for you...Tony dies. That's it. That's the sole storyline that would have given the show any sort of closure. All other options leave more questions in the air, and wouldn't be a complete ending. So your point then becomes, since Chase didn't intend to have Tony die when he started the series, his show was destined to be a failure in your eyes.

[Logan]

Just another reason why The Wire kicks the The Sopranos ass up and down the street. Art. Amazing writing. Social commentary.

I missed this the first time around...

The Wire is my favorite TV show of all time. There isn't even a close second. If The Wire is a "10," Sopranos is about a 6.5. But I find it amazing that someone who appreciates The Wire like you do, can't appreciate The Sopranos finale.

(spoilerized due to some specific Season 4 of The Wire discussion)
One of the reasons I love The Wire so much is because they don't fall in line with the typical TV standards. The bad guys actually outsmart the police? Who would've thought. Plots aren't resolved at the end of every season...the thinking is a total "We'll get them next year." Sometimes, they know they missed their one and only chance (The Greek). Do you think that this last season will end with Baltimore becoming free of the drug trade? Of course not. "Life goes on." Drugs will be sold, politicians will be corrupt, the police system will be a joke.

I mean, did you see the Season 4 finale? That was a complete "Life Goes On" moment. That season started with Carver chasing all the young kids out from where they were breaking bottles and starting trouble in some alley. A whole season of work is put into those kids, trying to get them off the streets. Namond makes it, but only because Colvin literally took him in. Randy gets into the worst shape of any of them. Michael doesn't trust Cutty so he falls under the wing of Marlo and looks to have potential to be a big dog in the drug world. Dukie, saddest of them all, goes from the dirty, impoverished kid who's getting picked on, to doing well enough in school where he earns advancement, which of course takes him away from Prez, the one who believed in him, and is now out of school and selling drugs too. Our one with the least potential seems to have made it, while the more promising ones will be in jail or dead within a few years. So again...how did that season end? With Carver chasing the next group of kids out of that same alley. Life goes on is right.

[Anthony]

no one was asking for a traditional gangster ending. people were just asking for AN ending. what happens to Carm - does she lose her house like Johnny Sac's wife did when he went to jail? does AJ go enlist? does Paulie flop as a captain? does Butchie get greedy and decide to eliminate all possible rivals?

who knows?

[ISiddiqui]

Well then "people" can be disappointed. Who says there has to be a 'wrap it up' ending to a series finale? That's boring and cliche. Who cares what happens to everyone else afterwards? Come up with it yourself if you really are bothered.

[Anthony]

Well then "people" can be disappointed. Who says there has to be a 'wrap it up' ending to a series finale? That's boring and cliche. Who cares what happens to everyone else afterwards? Come up with it yourself if you really are bothered.

the storyline that i, or anyone, comes up with is irrelevant. we aren't the storytellers.

for that matter then why have a whole season, why not just stop at the pilot and let everyone make up how the show will end.

[Anthony]

if no one cared what happens to all the other characters then they wouldn't have been in the series the whole time. if you're gonna invest time with storylines then you need to see it through to the end.

[st.cronin]

I'm one of those people who thought the ending was incredibly pitiful, but then I'm not really a fan of the show - I thought that its best episodes were very, very good, but that there were more bad episodes than good episodes.

[Logan]

no one was asking for a traditional gangster ending. people were just asking for AN ending. what happens to Carm - does she lose her house like Johnny Sac's wife did when he went to jail? does AJ go enlist? does Paulie flop as a captain? does Butchie get greedy and decide to eliminate all possible rivals?

who knows?

Ok, fine...Carm loses her house. What's her next step? Is she offering meatball samples in a supermarket? Why is her losing her house, without knowing what happens later, any more of an ending than what we saw?

We're going in circles here. I know what people like you want, so I'll just quote myself:

What you (and many, many others) seem to want is to see Tony end up getting cuffed, and then have a nice series of quick flashes displaying what happened to everyone, finally including, "Tony Soprano was convicted of 47 counts of interstate fraud, conspiracy, racketeering, etc and was sentenced to 35 years in prison. He will be eligible for parole in 2029."

THAT is a cop out.

Here's another scenario:

Everything we originally saw happen, happens. At the end, 3/4ths of the Soprano family are sitting at the diner table eating their onion rings waiting for Meadow to show up. She finally does, sits down and eats an onion ring. Tony smiles, because he's with his family. Happy song comes on. Fade (not cut) to black.

How do you feel about that ending?

[NoMyths]

I'm really getting a kick out of the idea that the artist owes something to an audience.

You can increase or decrease a work's reception by including or deleting elements that make it more or less palatable to a wider audience. Clearly Chase was uninterested in providing standard closure. Bright people generally are more interested in new works than copies of old ones.

If you want closure, read some Mother Goose. One of the themes of The Sopranos is that closure is a fantasy -- Tony never gets psychiatric/emotional closure about his issues, his kids don't turn into the Cleavers, his marriage is a tattered mess, his mafia family is devastated, the feds are after him with no case being made throughout our viewing period...do you see a whole lot of closure with any of those themes? See why the core audience might be interested in aspects of the show that don't involve closure?

The Suck Generation needs to quit acting like they're owed a version of the show that is tailored to their aesthetic. The fact the show is a monumental achievement is because the people behind it are better at this than you. Just look at the landscape of failed series and films that tried to give an audience an expected, pat narrative. Put your own narcissistic, amateur arguments away and try to learn something from this work, because it's not going to change, but you might still be able to learn something from it.

[ISiddiqui]

if no one cared what happens to all the other characters then they wouldn't have been in the series the whole time. if you're gonna invest time with storylines then you need to see it through to the end.

Why not just have infinite seasons then until everyone dies? After all, if Tony's dead, well you have Carm, A.J., Meadow, etc. And what if Meadow has a kid later? Well, they probably invested time in that storyline, so we need to see that one through until the end. And if that kid has kid, ad infinitum.

We did see it through to the end. That was the end.

I mean do you usually rant and rave after every series finale (aside from Six Feet Under) because you don't know what happens afterwards to any character?

[st.cronin]

I'm really getting a kick out of the idea that the artist owes something to an audience.

You can increase or decrease a work's reception by including or deleting elements that make it more or less palatable to a wider audience. Clearly Chase was uninterested in providing standard closure. Bright people generally are more interested in new works than copies of old ones.

If you want closure, read some Mother Goose. One of the themes of The Sopranos is that closure is a fantasy -- Tony never gets psychiatric/emotional closure about his issues, his kids don't turn into the Cleavers, his marriage is a tattered mess, his mafia family is devastated, the feds are after him with no case being made throughout our viewing period...do you see a whole lot of closure with any of those themes? See why the core audience might be interested in aspects of the show that don't involve closure?

The Suck Generation needs to quit acting like they're owed a version of the show that is tailored to their aesthetic. The fact the show is a monumental achievement is because the people behind it are better at this than you. Just look at the landscape of failed series and films that tried to give an audience an expected, pat narrative. Put your own narcissistic, amateur arguments away and try to learn something from this work, because it's not going to change, but you might still be able to learn something from it.

I get that you like the show, but I don't think not liking the ending means that I'm not "bright."

[molson]

The Suck Generation needs to quit acting like they're owed a version of the show that is tailored to their aesthetic.

I think there's something to that. Liking or not liking an episode or show is fine, and can lead to good discussion. The annoying thing in this thread is the absolute statements regarding what a TV show is supposed to be. It's no different than if someone posted in here about how the Sopranos sucked because there shouldn't be violence on TV.

[Ksyrup]

Why not just have infinite seasons then until everyone dies? After all, if Tony's dead, well you have Carm, A.J., Meadow, etc. And what if Meadow has a kid later? Well, they probably invested time in that storyline, so we need to see that one through until the end. And if that kid has kid, ad infinitum.

We did see it through to the end. That was the end.

I mean do you usually rant and rave after every series finale (aside from Six Feet Under) because you don't know what happens afterwards to any character?

Just speaking generally about shows, I think there's a difference between ending the storylines and ending the characters/show itself. I think all people like HA are saying is that they introduced storylines that never were ended. The Carm house storyline (I didn't watch the show, I'm just taking from what you guys have posted) was introduced during the show, and some people would expect to see it conclude, having watched previous episodes in which that was a storyline. What happens after that, ad infinitum, is outside of what was introduced into the show itself. So there's not an expectation that the characters would be resolved until they die, but that storylines introduced into the show are concluded. Otherwise, I can understand the frustration of feeling like watching the series was largely for nothing, since major storylines (apparently) never went anywhere, ultimately.

I know there's a fine line between resolving storylines and tying up a series in a nice, neat package that comes off as cliche, but I can understand the frustration as a TV viewer of not having storylines we've invested ourselves in be resolved.

It will be interesting to revisit this issue when Lost ends. How pissed will people be if that show never really resolves (or leaves as ambiguous) certain mysterious storylines that the series has been built on?

[NoMyths]

I get that you like the show, but I don't think not liking the ending means that I'm not "bright."
I figured some might not like that depiction, which I anticipated by specifying that it's a general trait, and not a universal one. There are certainly bright people who are displeased with aesthetic decisions for very good reasons. I just haven't read any of those in this thread, nor elsewhere.

[Logan]

Why not just have infinite seasons then until everyone dies? After all, if Tony's dead, well you have Carm, A.J., Meadow, etc. And what if Meadow has a kid later? Well, they probably invested time in that storyline, so we need to see that one through until the end. And if that kid has kid, ad infinitum.

We did see it through to the end. That was the end.

I mean do you usually rant and rave after every series finale (aside from Six Feet Under) because you don't know what happens afterwards to any character?

That's the point I was getting at. Come on, the line has to be drawn somewhere. All the storylines HA brought up before...Carm's rising real estate empire and her own residence, Butchie trying to take over the NY family, Paulie's success/failure at taking over another part of Tony's empire...these are all secondary (if that) stories that could literally take years to play out. That's why I'm of the belief that people like HA would only be satisfied by the "quick screen flash displaying the ultimate fate" ending.

[st.cronin]

The artist owes his EXISTENCE to the audience. Obviously much of the audience for this show was ok with this ending, so that's not really an issue, but to suggest that the artist has no debt to the audience is just nonsense. Without an audience, Chase's story would take place entirely in his head, or on his laptop. So of course he has a debt to the audience - or, perhaps more accurately, the work has a debt to the audience.

[Logan]

The artist owes his EXISTENCE to the audience. Obviously much of the audience for this show was ok with this ending, so that's not really an issue, but to suggest that the artist has no debt to the audience is just nonsense. Without an audience, Chase's story would take place entirely in his head, or on his laptop. So of course he has a debt to the audience - or, perhaps more accurately, the work has a debt to the audience.

Once again, he gave you his ending. You're just not happy with it.

[molson]

The Carm house storyline (I didn't watch the show, I'm just taking from what you guys have posted) was introduced during the show, and some people would expect to see it conclude, having watched previous episodes in which that was a storyline. What happens after that, ad infinitum, is outside of what was introduced into the show itself. So there's not an expectation that the characters would be resolved until they die, but that storylines introduced into the show are concluded. Otherwise, I can understand the frustration of feeling like watching the series was largely for nothing, since major storylines (apparently) never went anywhere, ultimately.



But if you've watched the show, you'd realize that there were MANY unresolved stories throughout the series, even during the "glory years" of the first few season. Complaining about it now is silly. Again, it's like complaining the show is too violent. OK, great, this show ain't for you, watch something else.

[JPhillips]

The artist owes his EXISTENCE to the audience. Obviously much of the audience for this show was ok with this ending, so that's not really an issue, but to suggest that the artist has no debt to the audience is just nonsense. Without an audience, Chase's story would take place entirely in his head, or on his laptop. So of course he has a debt to the audience - or, perhaps more accurately, the work has a debt to the audience.

No. The artist has no debt to the audience. In a collective and expensive art form ala tv you can make the argument that the artist has a debt to the producer, but the audience is removed from the equation as far as the artist is concerned.

I can only talk about my own work as a theatre artist, where I have a hope that the audience has an experience while watching my work. The type of experience will vary and often I don't care so long as it's an immediate experience. What I never do is try to figure out what the audience wants and then go about creating my work.

Chasing the expectations of the audience is a recipe for shitty art. The artist has to produce the work and then present it to an audience come what may.

The artist owes his existence to no one.

[st.cronin]

Once again, he gave you his ending. You're just not happy with it.

I get that, on some level, for some people, maybe even most people, the ending works. But is it "his" ending, or is it supposed to be an ending for the audience? If it was the latter, that's one thing, and the question is whether it worked - I say it didn't, others say it did. If it was the former, however, I think that's nothing less than a rejection of art's potential.

[st.cronin]

No. The artist has no debt to the audience. In a collective and expensive art form ala tv you can make the argument that the artist has a debt to the producer, but the audience is removed from the equation as far as the artist is concerned.

I can only talk about my own work as a theatre artist, where I have a hope that the audience has an experience while watching my work. The type of experience will vary and often I don't care so long as it's an immediate experience. What I never do is try to figure out what the audience wants and then go about creating my work.

Chasing the expectations of the audience is a recipe for shitty art. The artist has to produce the work and then present it to an audience come what may.

The artist owes his existence to no one.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not talking about "chasing an audience's expectations." I'm pointing out that there is an expectation that there will BE an audience. Otherwise, is it art? If you perform a play, and don't let anybody into the theater, what is that?

[molson]

If you perform a play, and don't let anybody into the theater, what is that?

It still art, just like if I painted something in my house.

I think it's an interesting point you're hitting on though. Commercial art (tv, movies), varies widely in how much is art and how much is negotiated art-like content. Here, I think it's assumed that Chase had pretty much free reign to do what he wanted. It network sitcoms, the network has more influence in the creative process, it's less about one person's work, and more about a negotiated conglomerate of ideas from people with different motivations.

When the former situation jumps into the mainstream, the results can be unsettling and jarring for many (see ABC's experiment with Twin Peaks)

[JPhillips]

But saying that the audience is part of the equation is much different than arguing that the artist's work has a debt to that audience.

[st.cronin]

But saying that the audience is part of the equation is much different than arguing that the artist's work has a debt to that audience.

Maybe so.

[ISiddiqui]

But if you've watched the show, you'd realize that there were MANY unresolved stories throughout the series, even during the "glory years" of the first few season. Complaining about it now is silly. Again, it's like complaining the show is too violent. OK, great, this show ain't for you, watch something else.

Indeed, and that's basically my answer to Ksyrup's point. I understand what he's saying, but THIS show, the Sopranos has always left dangling storylines. Chase has said that's because in life, things aren't always resolved and things are left hanging. That's just the way the show has been.

To expect something completely different in the series finale is really being silly.

[Anthony]

tv is not art. sorry for all you wannabe intellectuals. tv is something to entice us to sit down long enough to watch commercials or continue paying for the premium channels. tv is not art.

people like NoMyths will never say they didn't like the ending, because then that would mean they're an Average Joe who wants to see a shoot 'em up and watch everyone die in the finale. how do you know the joke isn't on you people. the ones who would come to Chase's defense so you get to stay on the high horse you're on.

i agree a lot with what st cronin is saying. he clearly "gets it".

[Anthony]

Indeed, and that's basically my answer to Ksyrup's point. I understand what he's saying, but THIS show, the Sopranos has always left dangling storylines. Chase has said that's because in life, things aren't always resolved and things are left hanging. That's just the way the show has been.

To expect something completely different in the series finale is really being silly.

you're completely wrong. shows are ALWAYS leaving things dangling - they're called cliffhangers. meant to ensure the audience returns the next season. as you may know, Sopranos won't be back next season - thus, the rules are different. just cuz Chase thinks things aren't always resolved in life doesn't mean he should end the show with Tony buying some pork at Satriale's.

stories (the good ones) always have an ending. The Wizard of Oz doesn't end when Dorothy throws water on the Wicked Witch. we find out what happens afterwards. we find out what happens to all the major characters introduced in the story. that is a story.

[ISiddiqui]

tv is not art.

Yes it is. Thank you for playing, have a parting gift as you exit.

[RedKingGold]

OK, so I think we can all come to this consensus:

All people who like the ending = Fake-intellectual snobs who are too proud to realize they are being fooled

All people who do not like the ending = Shallow individuals who are only attracted to endings which involve little to no thought process.

I think those are the two categories, right?

[NoMyths]

The artist owes his EXISTENCE to the audience. Obviously much of the audience for this show was ok with this ending, so that's not really an issue, but to suggest that the artist has no debt to the audience is just nonsense. Without an audience, Chase's story would take place entirely in his head, or on his laptop. So of course he has a debt to the audience - or, perhaps more accurately, the work has a debt to the audience.

No, he doesn't. My book comes out at the end of the month, and nothing in it has been written to satisfy any kind of audience outside of myself. Would it do better sales-wise if I revised the poems inside to suit the most popular mode of contemporary poetry? Probably, but it'd be a weaker collection for those changes.

The fact that other people might be interested in a work is almost entirely independent of its artistic value, particularly because of the nature of the critic vs. the amateur. The more achieved a work, the more critically-minded people will be compelled to seriously consider it. A poem like "Dulce et Decorum Est" would be just as achieved a piece of art if nobody had ever discovered it. In fact, important artists are rediscovered from time to time precisely because the audience of the time didn't notice/accept/praise the work.

Even if one expects that there will be an audience, the decision to give them what they're probably already expecting vs. following your own vision is a tricky one. I tend to side with the camp that feels art gives us experiences we wouldn't have generated on our own, and the experience generated by the finale of The Sopranos certainly did that for most of the audience.

But saying that the audience is part of the equation is much different than arguing that the artist's work has a debt to that audience.

This is more accurate. Audience consideration always plays some kind of role, if only when one is thinking "Well, how will this be read/interpreted?" It's just up to each artist to decide whether they're willing to adjust their vision to fit their perception of the audience's reaction. For major film and television projects, that almost always ties into how one can achieve the widest audience possible. It's refreshing that The Sopranos was successful enough on its own terms that the pressure to satisfy the widest audience wasn't enough to alter Chase's vision for the finale. Giving up one's own expectations is part of the joy of art -- we are supposed to be surprised by great work, because it defies or readjusts our expectations.

Art is a combination of voice/vision and craft. The finale of The Sopranos masterfully displayed both. The best art generates debate, because it challenges us to interpret something that doesn't fit into our pre-defined expectations (such as advertising, which nobody argues much about, except for when it defies tradition). The Sopranos finale is generating a discussion of aesthetic theory on a forum devoted to a text football sim -- I'd say that's a pretty good indication that there is at least some artistic merit to the episode based on that reason alone, outside of all of the other good reasons to discuss it.

We've had this discussion before, actually...a forum search would yield more discussion of the issue.

[RedKingGold]

NoMyths (Published author) >>> HA (Molester of midgets)

[Anthony]

Just speaking generally about shows, I think there's a difference between ending the storylines and ending the characters/show itself. I think all people like HA are saying is that they introduced storylines that never were ended. The Carm house storyline (I didn't watch the show, I'm just taking from what you guys have posted) was introduced during the show, and some people would expect to see it conclude, having watched previous episodes in which that was a storyline. What happens after that, ad infinitum, is outside of what was introduced into the show itself. So there's not an expectation that the characters would be resolved until they die, but that storylines introduced into the show are concluded. Otherwise, I can understand the frustration of feeling like watching the series was largely for nothing, since major storylines (apparently) never went anywhere, ultimately.

I know there's a fine line between resolving storylines and tying up a series in a nice, neat package that comes off as cliche, but I can understand the frustration as a TV viewer of not having storylines we've invested ourselves in be resolved.

It will be interesting to revisit this issue when Lost ends. How pissed will people be if that show never really resolves (or leaves as ambiguous) certain mysterious storylines that the series has been built on?


the whole point behind me bringing up Carmela and her living situation is this has happened before. the Boss of the NYC mob got thrown in jail, and wound up having to sell his huge house that his wife and kids were living in to Bobby and Tony's Sister. so, if Tony got whacked or throwin in jail - does the NJ mob step up and continue payments to her? Paulie and Gay Vito waited until Tony came out of a coma to finally bring their kickbacks to Carm, otherwise they weren't gonna pay her. what happens? her whole side business (selling houses) was based on Tony being able to lean on the inspectors to get them to approve the poorly built houses she was developing. so there goes her source of income. what happens?

if Tony gets whacked, does that once again force AJ to try to be a man and avenge him? he clearly has the means with his associates in the Next Generation of young gangsters. does that throw him over the deep end or does he finally wind up killing himself (successfully, this time)?

these are the things i'd like to know. take me from Point A to Point B.

[ISiddiqui]

you're completely wrong. shows are ALWAYS leaving things dangling - they're called cliffhangers. meant to ensure the audience returns the next season. as you may know, Sopranos won't be back next season - thus, the rules are different. just cuz Chase thinks things aren't always resolved in life doesn't mean he should end the show with Tony buying some pork at Satriale's.

Cliffhangers aren't dangling for long... they get resolved the next season.

And have you ever SEEN this show before? Have you ever seen a Season Finale for this show? There are so many storylines that are just simply dropped to never be seen again.

Actually people would probably like it better if Tony just bought some pork at Satriale's at the end. It'd be more obvious "life goes on". This one is a question mark whether he's alive or dead.

stories (the good ones) always have an ending. The Wizard of Oz doesn't end when Dorothy throws water on the Wicked Witch. we find out what happens afterwards. we find out what happens to all the major characters introduced in the story. that is a story.

What happened 'afterwards' to the characters in Frasier after he moves on? What happens to the characters in Seinfeld? What happens to the characters in Arrested Development?

Sometimes there is no ending and it doesn't matter.. or makes the story that much more intriguing.

And speaking of which, talk about a boring finale... the Wizard of Oz? It was all a dream... ugh.

[Anthony]

Yes it is. Thank you for playing, have a parting gift as you exit.

so you're saying Beauty And The Geek, American Idol and Who Wants To Marry My Dad is art? if Chase wants to be an artist he could have wrote "The Sopranos - A Novel". tv isn't the medium to excercise poetic justice. in case you didn't get the memo, tv doesn't exist to entertain you. it exists to sell ads. sorry i ruined the surprise for you. there is no Santa Claus, either.

[ISiddiqui]

these are the things i'd like to know. take me from Point A to Point B.

That's nice. Debate it yourself. Obviously Chase doesn't care about those things (really, neither do I... doesn't matter to me how Carm survives afterwards or what AJ does).

[NoMyths]

the whole point behind me bringing up Carmela and her living situation is this has happened before. the Boss of the NYC mob got thrown in jail, and wound up having to sell his huge house that his wife and kids were living in to Bobby and Tony's Sister. so, if Tony got whacked or throwin in jail - does the NJ mob step up and continue payments to her? Paulie and Gay Vito waited until Tony came out of a coma to finally bring their kickbacks to Carm, otherwise they weren't gonna pay her. what happens? her whole side business (selling houses) was based on Tony being able to lean on the inspectors to get them to approve the poorly built houses she was developing. so there goes her source of income. what happens?

if Tony gets whacked, does that once again force AJ to try to be a man and avenge him? he clearly has the means with his associates in the Next Generation of young gangsters. does that throw him over the deep end or does he finally wind up killing himself (successfully, this time)?

these are the things i'd like to know. take me from Point A to Point B.

The reason you want to know all of those things, HA, is because the artists have done a great job of engaging you enough imaginatively to believe that a collection of images overlaid on a story actually has a more thorough existence than what it really does. As an audience member, you're supposed to wonder about things like that. It's how we build our imaginative worlds.

The Sopranos had an end -- we were supposed to be left at the peak of tension for the scene. We are given enough to draw conclusions from what we've seen, but whether or not we're "right" is unimportant -- what's important is that we're still engaging in our imaginative experience of the work, and that's one of the major keys to art.

[Anthony]

ok, we've reached the "going in circles" part of this discussion. i've made my point clear, as have others. i'll rejoin when someone says something different/interesting/new.

[ISiddiqui]

so you're saying Beauty And The Geek, American Idol and Who Wants To Marry My Dad is art? if Chase wants to be an artist he could have wrote "The Sopranos - A Novel". tv isn't the medium to excercise poetic justice. in case you didn't get the memo, tv doesn't exist to entertain you. it exists to sell ads. sorry i ruined the surprise for you. there is no Santa Claus, either.

Just because it sucks doesn't mean its not part of an art form. There are banal and unimaginative paintings out there as well.

Btw, there is a reason TV CAN sells ads... because people want entertainment in whatever form that is. If it wasn't entertaining, then ads wouldn't make any money. Sorry to spoil THAT surprise for you.

[NoMyths]

so you're saying Beauty And The Geek, American Idol and Who Wants To Marry My Dad is art? if Chase wants to be an artist he could have wrote "The Sopranos - A Novel". tv isn't the medium to excercise poetic justice. in case you didn't get the memo, tv doesn't exist to entertain you. it exists to sell ads. sorry i ruined the surprise for you. there is no Santa Claus, either.

No, I didn't get the memo, and nobody else did either because THERE'S NO RULES ABOUT ART. You can do a lot of things with the television medium, and Chase gave us something brand new. It's okay to like it or not like it, but it's silly to say he didn't follow the "rules".

And if you truly believe TV exists only to sell ads, you really should be embracing The Sopranos for a) not following that formula and b) not taking commercial breaks. Really, this show isn't a good example for your argument. There are commercial aspects, certainly, but the point of the show was far different than the points of just about every other show on TV.

[Qwikshot]

I love this I really do. I think the answer to Tony's fate is that it didn't matter, he was beyond redemption and thus everything he came into contact with was likewise. I mean if I wanted to see a psychiatrist changing a mobster to do good, I would've watched "Analyze This".

Whether TV is art or not, can be brought up for debate in some other post.

[JPhillips]

HA: Just because television is a business doesn't mean that individual programs can't be art. Publishing is a business, but would you say that there are no books that are art?

You're right in that the argument is going in circles. You're a neo-classicist and don't see value in stories that don't conform to a semi-Aristotelian form. Shockingly enough this thread has become a replay of debates in the French Academy circa 1700.

[Anthony]

That's nice. Debate it yourself. Obviously Chase doesn't care about those things (really, neither do I... doesn't matter to me how Carm survives afterwards or what AJ does).

the show was only called "The Sopranos", so yeah, what did his family matter to the show. :rolleyes: they only appeared in every episode. AJ himself unexepectedly was given a more prominent role in these last episodes, glad i could see where that was all going.

tv/movie writers are our eyes/ears to the universe they create. nothing is revealed/shown by accident. these characters clearly meant something to the overall plot of the series or else they would have been written off or not introduced altogether.

if Tony did get whacked by the Members Only guy, that clearly went against how Chase depicted mob hits the whole series. his mob hits were quick - get in quick, make the hit and non-chalantly exit. none of this stalking the mark, pearing over the shoulder and going to the bathroom nonsense. so what was the reason for this guy acting like that? he's clearly featured for a reason - so give me the reason.

[st.cronin]

No, he doesn't. My book comes out at the end of the month, and nothing in it has been written to satisfy any kind of audience outside of myself. Would it do better sales-wise if I revised the poems inside to suit the most popular mode of contemporary poetry? Probably, but it'd be a weaker collection for those changes.

That's not what I'm talking about at all. Your book was created FOR an audience - it is intended to be a shared experience between you and the audience. That experience is the work, not the words on the page - and that experience is impossible without the audience. Now, maybe there are different philosophies than mine, but I don't think its possible for art to have meaning without an audience - and that's what I'm talking about.

[Anthony]

No, I didn't get the memo, and nobody else did either because THERE'S NO RULES ABOUT ART. You can do a lot of things with the television medium, and Chase gave us something brand new. It's okay to like it or not like it, but it's silly to say he didn't follow the "rules".

And if you truly believe TV exists only to sell ads, you really should be embracing The Sopranos for a) not following that formula and b) not taking commercial breaks. Really, this show isn't a good example for your argument. There are commercial aspects, certainly, but the point of the show was far different than the points of just about every other show on TV.

you paid for HBO, right? what you don't pay for in time (watching commercials) you paid for in actual money to watch the show. commercials or not, you paid something to see this show. it's a tv show all the same.

[JPhillips]

St. cronin: I would agree with you. But, there is no single meaning and that's crucial. Each audience member interprets a work's meaning differently based on their own history, prejudices, emotional state, etc. That's why I don't believe it's beneficial for the audience to try to please the audience. That attempt demands a singular experience and I don't believe that exists. The best the artist can do is provide a perspective and allow the audience to experience it.

[NoMyths]

That's not what I'm talking about at all. Your book was created FOR an audience - it is intended to be a shared experience between you and the audience. That experience is the work, not the words on the page - and that experience is impossible without the audience. Now, maybe there are different philosophies than mine, but I don't think its possible for art to have meaning without an audience - and that's what I'm talking about.

An audience gives art a large portion of one aspect of its experience, but it is not the only -- and certainly not the most important -- aspect. That doesn't change the fact, though, that art relies on surprise and newness to generate a lot of that interest, and if the audience is arguing that they are owed a certain kind of experience from the artist, they're simply wrong.

Shockingly enough this thread has become a replay of debates in the French Academy circa 1700.

I was thinking the same thing. :)

you paid for HBO, right? what you don't pay for in time (watching commercials) you paid for in actual money to watch the show. commercials or not, you paid something to see this show. it's a tv show all the same.

Right, I pay for the right to watch what HBO broadcasts. Sometimes they broadcast things that are designed solely to please as many people as possible -- Spiderman 2, for example -- and sometimes they broadcast things that are targeted for a narrower audience, such as The Sopranos. As an audience member, I have no more right to dictate the experience I receive than any other viewer -- I can write and complain or praise, but that doesn't change the fact that I have no real role in the process, and the creators can see fit to listen to my concerns or ignore them at their pleasure. Just because I paid to receive the channel doesn't mean they owe me anything other than whatever they choose to air, some of which is not going to be in line with my personal aesthetic.

[ISiddiqui]

the show was only called "The Sopranos", so yeah, what did his family matter to the show. :rolleyes: they only appeared in every episode. AJ himself unexepectedly was given a more prominent role in these last episodes, glad i could see where that was all going.

tv/movie writers are our eyes/ears to the universe they create. nothing is revealed/shown by accident. these characters clearly meant something to the overall plot of the series or else they would have been written off or not introduced altogether.

if Tony did get whacked by the Members Only guy, that clearly went against how Chase depicted mob hits the whole series. his mob hits were quick - get in quick, make the hit and non-chalantly exit. none of this stalking the mark, pearing over the shoulder and going to the bathroom nonsense. so what was the reason for this guy acting like that? he's clearly featured for a reason - so give me the reason.

Why, because you are too lazy to think about it yourself? They obviously were not interested in giving you a reason. Maybe they thought you'd think about it yourself. The story is over and what is left is up to you.

Plenty of stories have fan fiction. Come up with some yourself if it is so important to you. The writers of the Sopranos wanted to do the ending their way (and they said they knew how they were going to do it by the middle of Season 1). Why should they have to rely on cliches to please you?

[NoMyths]

Imagine if Michelangelo had been forced to conform to audience expectation. We'd not have the Sistine Chapel frescoes, nor anything that transformed art's role from celebrating the divine to elevating the human to a position of importance in art.

[st.cronin]

I don't believe NoMyths understands me at all.

[JPhillips]

HA = Rousseau?

Dramatic productions, like all other masterpieces of human wit, have no other end than human applause.

[NoMyths]

I don't believe NoMyths understands me at all.

Emily Dickinson was almost completely unpublished during her lifetime -- she had no audience. Whatever experience is possible with an audience, it doesn't alter the artistic merit of a work -- for many artists, satisfying themselves (as audience) is of more concern than worrying about an outside audience. Thus, a work always has a built-in audience (the maker), regardless of any concerns that come later with an outside audience.

[NoMyths]

HA = Rousseau?

The theatre, actually, is significantly different than most of the other arts in regards to its relationship to an audience. The Greeks had some compelling arguments about the necessity of audience to dramatic performances.

It's certainly not a wingnut position to argue that the arts exist solely to satisfy a wider audience, but it's not an argument in which I find as much merit as with the positions I've outlined in this thread.

[st.cronin]

Emily Dickinson was almost completely unpublished during her lifetime -- she had no audience. Whatever experience is possible with an audience, it doesn't alter the artistic merit of a work -- for many artists, satisfying themselves (as audience) is of more concern than worrying about an outside audience. Thus, a work always has a built-in audience (the maker), regardless of any concerns that come later with an outside audience.

Emily Dickinson's poetry was read by literary types during her lifetime, and was absolutely composed for an audience. That that audience didn't show up until later has nothing to do with that fact.

[NoMyths]

Emily Dickinson's poetry was read by literary types during her lifetime, and was absolutely composed for an audience. That that audience didn't show up until later has nothing to do with that fact.

Your depiction of her work being "read by literary types", while partially true in certain regards, is not supported by historical fact. The editor who she sent her poems to for advice, in fact, tried to change her work to fit the contemporary mold in order to reach a wider audience, and Dickinson didn't follow along. She published ten poems in her lifetime, and most of those in a single daily newspaper.

And she certainly wasn't writing to meet the expectations of her contemporary audience -- her voice was unprecedented. It wasn't until many, many decades after her death that her work came to be recognized as important. I'm not foolhardy enough to claim I know what her intentions were in regards to audience, but her behavior and career (or lack thereof) certainly doesn't support the argument that she was trying to connect on their terms. And I likewise don't believe she felt that her work was meaningless since she just made books out of her poems and stuck them in drawers.

[st.cronin]

You keep talking about "writing for expectations" which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about at all.

My claim is that the starting premise of any art is that there is an audience, and an artist. The reason I'm talking about this in this thread is that I've been told (I forget if it was in this thread or somewhere else) that the ending for the Sopranos was Chase's personal ending, that he gave the audience no consideration at all. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, how can that possibly be art?

[Butter]

The reason I'm talking about this in this thread is that I've been told (I forget if it was in this thread or somewhere else) that the ending for the Sopranos was Chase's personal ending, that he gave the audience no consideration at all. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, how can that possibly be art?

There is a difference between not considering the audience when creating, and the work not ever actually reaching an audience. Chase knew his creation would reach an audience... whether or not he considered them in the creation of the work is irrelevant.

[Ksyrup]

My apologies if this has been posted, but I don't recall seeing it. Pretty quick work. Is the Parrot being retired?



<OBJECT height=350 width=425>

<embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/XZC1jiwKMHc" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="350"></embed></OBJECT> (http://<object width=)</P>

[st.cronin]

There is a difference between not considering the audience when creating, and the work not ever actually reaching an audience. Chase knew his creation would reach an audience... whether or not he considered them in the creation of the work is irrelevant.

I completely disagree with that last statement. However, I don't think that makes you "not bright."

[NoMyths]

You keep talking about "writing for expectations" which has nothing to do with what I'm talking about at all.

My claim is that the starting premise of any art is that there is an audience, and an artist. The reason I'm talking about this in this thread is that I've been told (I forget if it was in this thread or somewhere else) that the ending for the Sopranos was Chase's personal ending, that he gave the audience no consideration at all. I don't know if that's true, but if it is, how can that possibly be art?

The starting premise of any art is not that there is an audience -- rather, the starting premise is that there is an artist. If they are compelled to create, it doesn't matter if anyone else besides them values the work, EVEN IF they do eventually want an audience for it. Chase presented his vision, and we're debating its aesthetic merit. It's not a wrong or bad ending because it defies expectations -- it's a good or bad ending on the merits of whether the work achieves artistic excellence, outside of audience.

I see where you're coming from, but we disagree about the importance of the audience to a work. From my perspective as a practicing artist, I can tell you that audience consideration for literary work is nearly zero. Popular work, on the other hand, makes audience expectation a primary concern. The Sopranos was a series that was massively popular despite being "literary" in its execution -- for the gifts Chase gave the audience (the constant malaprops, the references to outside events and such that would be resonant with the popular audience), the narrative was at its core a literary one, and the "story" ended in a similar way to many literary narratives. In fact, I'd argue that an audience steeped in literature is less likely to be put off by the finale because our expectations are refined by exposure to similar methods of dealing with narrative closure, especially in short stories.

I'd also argue that Chase did give the audience what they wanted -- something unprecedented in television history that would guarantee interesting debate.

[NoMyths]

I don't know if that's true, but if it is, how can that possibly be art?

One other thought: if artists were concerned with giving something other than their personal vision, you'd be talking about dumbed down art. We should want our artists to create works that challenge and expand our aesthetics. It is that individual artist's vision that makes a work art, and not merely craft (as in a table that you can build a blueprint for and have many people copy exactly).

[BrianD]

Interesting discussion, but I have one question. Is the object (book, movie, painting, etc) art itself, or is it just the mode of communication which is really the art?

[JPhillips]

The object or event is the art because it is in some manner fixed. The interpretation of the art will vary from person to person and era to era. To use the above example, Emily Dickinson's poems are still the same, but the interpretation of her work has changed over time and will vary from individual to individual.

St. Cronin: I believe I remember that your girlfriend is a photographer. Do you have any idea how she considers the audience as she's taking photos?

[NoMyths]

Interesting discussion, but I have one question. Is the object (book, movie, painting, etc) art itself, or is it just the mode of communication which is really the art?

Depends on which mode of art to which you refer. Object-based art (painting, sculpture, etc.) clearly falls into one camp, while performance-based art (theatre, song, etc.) takes elements from several modes.

[NoMyths]

To use the above example, Emily Dickinson's poems are still the same, but the interpretation of her work has changed over time and will vary from individual to individual.

This is actually key, key, key. In achieved art, there is a depth that allows for critics of any era to dig in and explore. In limited art, there's no interest and thus no reason. Same reason why Citizen Kane is beloved and Deuce Bigelow is not -- we see Kane with fresh eyes each time, while the other film is what it is in every viewing. Dickinson's work offers something different to a wide range of critics. Rod McKuen, not so much.

[st.cronin]

We should want our artists to create works that challenge and expand our aesthetics.

I think we do want our artists to do that - but, not to get redundant, wanting that presupposes the existence of an audience.

St. Cronin: I believe I remember that your girlfriend is a photographer. Do you have any idea how she considers the audience as she's taking photos?

Photography is mostly a hobby for her, but she has sold wood burnings and paintings and has also written a couple of children's books (unpublished). When she is working, I think she is mostly thinking about unicorns and puppies. I suspect there's a way in which the philosophy of art is actually inaccessible to an artist, at least when they're actually in creative mode.

[Logan]

No offense, but this conversation has gotten very boring, very quickly.

[Ksyrup]

What about the Parrot-y?

[NoMyths]

I think we do want our artists to do that - but, not to get redundant, wanting that presupposes the existence of an audience.

Presupposing (or praying for) the existence of an audience is a separate issue from creating a work that takes audience consideration into account in a serious way (e.g. making a narrative decision in opposition to an artist's original vision based on perceived reaction). An artist can want an audience without altering his vision (raises hand). Speaking personally, I tend to assume that my readers will not notice most of the stuff I've built in craftwise to make the machine work -- and if I'm doing a good job, they generally won't. It's kind of like with music -- you don't notice every instrument the first time you listen, or understand all the words.

To reiterate, I don't think you're unbright from the argument you're making -- you're certainly not alone in feeling that audience is important in art, but we just disagree as to the role of that relationship. But I would wager that most serious artists are concerned with any eventual audience for aspects of their career that are unconnected from their work, and generally create work that satisfies themselves and their ideas of what any artists who are important to them might think or have thought.

[NoMyths]

No offense, but this conversation has gotten very boring, very quickly.

No offense, but discussions of aesthetic theory aren't really for amateurs or the easily bored. ;)

[NoMyths]

I suspect there's a way in which the philosophy of art is actually inaccessible to an artist, at least when they're actually in creative mode.

This is an interesting statement, and one with which I find a lot of sympathy. Most artists are not the best critics of their own work. And when you are in a creative mode--at least for this writer--one is generally shutting out any kinds of outside distractions, and listening very closely to their internal voice (or imaginative wandering, with its occasional unicorn).

[Logan]

No offense, but discussions of aesthetic theory aren't really for amateurs or the easily bored. ;)

You're telling me...I don't even remember what was originally debated.

[stevew]

What about the Parrot-y?

Given the actions of the Pirate in the 80s, it's not that hard to envision him as a criminal mastermind.

[Anthony]

I'd also argue that Chase did give the audience what they wanted -- something unprecedented in television history that would guarantee interesting debate.

if the finale was 60 minutes of just tv static that would guarantee interesting debate. what's your point?

[Ksyrup]

Given the actions of the Pirate in the 80s, it's not that hard to envision him as a criminal mastermind.

Was he involved with the cocaine thing, too?

[Milton]

The artist owes his EXISTENCE to the audience. Obviously much of the audience for this show was ok with this ending, so that's not really an issue, but to suggest that the artist has no debt to the audience is just nonsense. Without an audience, Chase's story would take place entirely in his head, or on his laptop. So of course he has a debt to the audience - or, perhaps more accurately, the work has a debt to the audience.


This is nonsense. The work is what it is. The audience chooses to embrace it or not. When the artist begins listening to the audience for direction, he's lost. And he ain't finding his way back.

[NoMyths]

if the finale was 60 minutes of just tv static that would guarantee interesting debate. what's your point?

No, it wouldn't lead to interesting debate, in part because unlike the finale that aired, it would bear little relation to the characters, the narrative, or the series as a whole. There would be only a couple of things one could say about that decision, and none of them would be good. As you're clearly missing the points I've been making throughout this thread, though, I doubt any further explanations will enlighten you.

[GoDukes]

i agree a lot with what st cronin is saying. he clearly "gets it".

.

[Buccaneer]

Oh geez, now I've seen everything. st.cronin debating with NoMyths about poets, poetry and art.

[stevew]

Was he involved with the cocaine thing, too?

He was implicated for buying cocaine and introducing players to drug dealers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pittsburgh_drug_trials

Amazing that 7 players were given a full season suspension, but then had it waived for a 10% donation of their salary to drug charities.

[st.cronin]

This is nonsense. The work is what it is. The audience chooses to embrace it or not. When the artist begins listening to the audience for direction, he's lost. And he ain't finding his way back.

You say its nonsense, but then with your third sentence you assume that the audience exists. THAT is my point.

[Anthony]

No, it wouldn't lead to interesting debate, in part because unlike the finale that aired, it would bear little relation to the characters, the narrative, or the series as a whole. There would be only a couple of things one could say about that decision, and none of them would be good. As you're clearly missing the points I've been making throughout this thread, though, I doubt any further explanations will enlighten you.

Chase decided the static would be a metaphor. afterall, isn't Chase allowed to be an artist and create for himself and not care what the audience thinks? so apparently you are deciding what is art and what isn't? isn't that the same thing here what people are saying?

the medium of tv - a story one watches - calls for a beginning, a middle and an end. there is art and silent beauty in a construction worker using a jackhammer on concrete, but that doesn't mean the construction worker is free to do as he pleases and take creative license to express himself without an obligation to others.

[JPhillips]

HA: That's really a jumbled mess. First, there's a big difference between ending the story in the way Chase chose and completely obliterating the story by airing static. As Nomyths pointed out, one continues the narrative and one doesn't.

Second, you're confusing convention and obligation. I'll give you that the convention of almost every tv show is a neoclassical beginning/middle/end structure, but there's nothing that says it has to be that way. As in any artistic medium people, when given the opportunity, experiment. This experiment may not have been successful in your opinion, but you're wrong to say it somehow violated a set of rules.

Third, I don't get the jackhammer analogy. I'm assuming you're arguing that the jackhammer is confined by safety and the rules of his employer. Chase wasn't bound by either of those. If the jackhammer operator were working on his own with no safety issues of course he could do as he pleased.

I was thinking a lot about this discussion last night. I think the big issue is whether or not you want art that answers questions or poses questions. I personally want to be provoked to explore issues raised by art. Art that leaves nothing unanswered, for me at least, is dull.

[NoMyths]

Chase decided the static would be a metaphor. afterall, isn't Chase allowed to be an artist and create for himself and not care what the audience thinks? so apparently you are deciding what is art and what isn't? isn't that the same thing here what people are saying?

You're confused about the nature of metaphor. If it's detached from everything else in the episode, it's not metaphor -- it has to connect with something else to resonate in its alternate form. If he decided to run an hour of static (and HBO let him), it wouldn't be an episode of The Sopranos -- it would be an experiment, and it wouldn't generate nearly the kind of support the current finale does. It's not a matter of me deciding what is and isn't art -- it's about me applying the guiding criteria for art: a combination of voice and craft.

you are confusing art with art form. the medium of tv - a story one watches - calls for a beginning, a middle and an end. there is art and silent beauty in a construction worker using a jackhammer on concrete, but that doesn't mean the construction worker is free to do as he pleases and take creative license to express himself without an obligation to others.

This sounds nice, but it's not an accurate depiction of art. Remember: art is a combination of voice and craft. A jackhammering construction worker is engaging in a craft, and it can be beautiful to watch a craft done well. But his jackhammering does not exist because he is creating art -- he is engaging in craft, the end of which is not artistic in nature but purely functional (and we could get into the whole "but is functional craft art" discussion, but I'd prefer not to) and not meant to satisfy any of the aims of art (or almost none of them). Watching him, a viewer may be awed by the beauty of the craft, but the worker is not intentionally engaging in an artistic pursuit. Slow anything down on 16mm film and add a soundtrack and even a bowl of porridge can seem artistic. Everything is not art, though there is beauty in most things.

The "medium of TV" calls for no such thing. You're trying to tell me that variety shows, game shows, infomercials, sitcoms, network and cable dramas, shopping channels, and the whole gamut of other niche programming satisfies your theoretical rule of "beginning, middle, and end"? Speaking as an expert: not all narratives have structures that satisfy that mode in the way you're describing. Certainly The Sopranos finale doesn't offer the obvious b,m,e structure, and the disruption of that model is compelling to many of us who enjoyed the episode.

The construction worker doesn't have artistic license because he's not being paid to create art -- he's being paid to destroy concrete. Even if his technique for destroying concrete is more beautiful to watch than another man's, he will get canned if he isn't doing his job effectively. He is engaging in a craft, not an art -- and while a craft can elevated to the level of art (again: combination of voice and craft), in and of itself its aims are different than those of art.

[st.cronin]

I think the big issue is whether or not you want art that answers questions or poses questions. I personally want to be provoked to explore issues raised by art. Art that leaves nothing unanswered, for me at least, is dull.

I don't think that's the question, not for me. I would say its more like this: Is art supposed to be a sharing of something, a transmission of some experience or imagination? And if not, then what is it?

[JPhillips]

Seeing as how my art is theatre I think art is about communication. However, as I've said before, the artist is only in control of the object or event. The experience is had by the audience and while it can be guided by the artist, it can never be completely controlled. Each individual in the audience defines the experience for themselves.

For me as an artist what happens in that space between my objective and the audience's understanding is what's exciting. Every time I direct a show I am surprised by perceptions of audience members. Each time I learn a little about how people respond to my work, but I will never be able to provide an audience with what they believe they want. That's why I try to be true to my vision, along with that of the playwright and see what happens.

[path12]

I don't think that's the question, not for me. I would say its more like this: Is art supposed to be a sharing of something, a transmission of some experience or imagination? And if not, then what is it?

I guess there's not really one explanation you could put to art as a whole, but for me it is the act of creatively expressing either a thing or a statement in an abstract form. That definition does not require an audience to express a thing, although expression of a statement would imply that some sort of audience was sought.

[rowech]

I have finally finished the series after starting this summer using the power of Netflix. My conclusion on the finale is that he's dead. I don't see how anybody can watch that episode and not believe he's dead. I also believe nobody else was killed and that the point of the song is that life is going to go on for everybody else. The story continues after his death just like it will for all of our families/friends upon our death.

[Logan]

David Chase disagrees with you.

David Chase reveals the truth behind 'The Sopranos' ending (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/tv/2007/10/23/2007-10-23_david_chase_reveals_the_truth_behind_the.html)

[rowech]

Interesting...however, I just read an EW article and it made it seem like he was never going to say one way or another...

Talking with David Chase | The Sopranos | DVD News | DVD | Entertainment Weekly (http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20238655,00.html)

EW: You've been mum about the ultimate meaning of the show's finale. But in the DVD supplements you do admit that you were partly invoking the finale of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey, where Keir Dullea's character watches himself age. Does that onion-rings-at-the-diner scene even actually happen, or is Tony just ruminating?
DC: [Long pause.] There's more than one way of looking at the ending. That's all I'll say. [Laughs]

With that said, I think the only other way that scene could be taken is in that way...the cut from Tony when he comes in to when his family is there is so abrupt it made me think he was seeing what could happen.

Hopefully, at some point, he comes clean with what his true intentions were.

[Buccaneer]

Hopefully, at some point, he comes clean with what his true intentions were.

Why? People would then stop talking about it. One of the greatest ploys in cinema (and TV) are the not-so-tidy endings and the subtle clues along the way. It keeps it alive, some for generations. It is a fine line because it can go overboard with a vague and nonsensical ending and really backfire, esp. among fans (The Pretender comes to mind).

[rowech]

Why? People would then stop talking about it. One of the greatest ploys in cinema (and TV) are the not-so-tidy endings and the subtle clues along the way. It keeps it alive, some for generations. It is a fine line because it can go overboard with a vague and nonsensical ending and really backfire, esp. among fans (The Pretender comes to mind).

Agreed...even if he left it in his will to be given out after he dies, that would be fine with me.

[JPhillips]

What makes you think he had a clear decision? As a theatre director I've often done things without making a clear decision on what happens. It wouldn't surprise me at all if he never made the choice on whether or not Tony is dead. AFterall, if he made that choice he likely would have shown us.

[NoMyths]

Dang...I'd forgotten about this discussion. Glad it was necroed. :)

[Karlifornia]

Dang...I'd forgotten about this discussion. Glad it was necroed. :)

Me, too. I read through the entire thread earlier today. Man, it's almost weird now to think there was a time when I could watch a new episode every Sunday.

[MylesKnight]

So is Tony still alive?

[Logan]

He was the last time he was on my TV.

[MylesKnight]

June 2007. Wow, time flies.

http://sidesalad.net/archives/HolstensSopranosFinalSceneDiner.jpg

[Logan]

Just read back through this whole thread. Fun read. My favorite part was seeing this...

The crazy rumor I heard is that Meadow is accidently killed while driving in Tony's car (b/c Phil's crew shoot up the car thinking Tony's inside).

...and thinking, "come on did anyone really think they would replicate Beverly Hills 90210?"...only to see three hours later:

I would fuckin LOVE to see David Chase rip off Beverly Hills, 90210. Can we have a driving rainstorm too?


Nice to know I still have the same stupid thoughts nearly 5 years later. I also enjoyed this post of mine (in reference to the finale running 5 mins extra):

I'm already looking forward to people whining that they missed the end because their Tivo cut it off.

[lcjjdnh]

Timely bump. Vanity Fair just released an entertaining oral history of the show.

The Family Hour: An Oral History of The Sopranos | Hollywood | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2012/04/sopranos-oral-history)

[MylesKnight]

Timely bump. Vanity Fair just released an entertaining oral history of the show.

The Family Hour: An Oral History of The Sopranos | Hollywood | Vanity Fair (http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2012/04/sopranos-oral-history)

Great read. Thanks for the link.

[spleen1015]

Great read. Thanks for the link.

+1. Just finished it.

[stevew]

Has anyone else done a rewatch lately? To me, and maybe it's cause I've taken a few film theory classes, the ending is way more satisfying the second time around.

[molson]

Has anyone else done a rewatch lately? To me, and maybe it's cause I've taken a few film theory classes, the ending is way more satisfying the second time around.

For me, it was a lot more satisfying after I found articles like this to explain it to me.

Page 1 | The Sopranos: Definitive Explanation of "The END" (http://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/the-sopranos-definitive-explanation-of-the-end/)

Still, it wasn't at all the kind of ending I desired or hoped for at the time. Which is OK, the Sopranos has never been about traditional TV story-telling or endings, like a Breaking Bad is. It's a big slice-of-life piece, you can really jump in anywhere and be entertained. Any random clip, any random season, the show still has a way to grab me.

[cartman]

For me, it was a lot more satisfying after I found articles like this to explain it to me.

Page 1 | The Sopranos: Definitive Explanation of "The END" (http://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/the-sopranos-definitive-explanation-of-the-end/)


That's what I was saying right after it aired, albeit in many fewer words. :D

I just had a thought. Maybe the guy going into the bathroom was going to get a gun. Like he and Bobby said on the boat, you'll probably never hear it coming. He looked up to see Meadow walk through the door, and the screen went blank because he got a bullet in the head right at that moment.