Sounds of silence... 'The Sopranos' in Memoriam
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
This famous, much-beloved quotation from the film 'Gladiator'
comes to mind:
"If you find yourself alone, riding in green fields
with the sun on your face, do not be troubled; for
you are in Elysium, and you're already dead!
Brothers, what we do in life, echoes in eternity."
--Maximus Decimus Meridius (played by Russell Crowe)
I mention this, because it seems that a lot of 'The Sopranos'
fans just don't seem to appreciate the sophistication of the
series. They hear the denotations, but miss the connotations.
Like the classic S&G tune, "people hearing without listening".
A most glaring example of hearing-impaired viewers, are those
who didn't understand that "T" got whacked, ergo cut to black.
Okay, it took most of us all of about eleven seconds to come
to that conclusion, ten seconds of black plus a second or two
of rolling credits. Thus "T" swims with the fishes. He's gone.
And anybody who claims that they didn't think the signal went
dead, till the credits surprisingly appeared, fuhgeddaboutit!
For some it took hours, even days, to figure it out, but most
of them have subsequently conceded that "Tony" got his brains
splattered all over the table, by the guy in the members-only
jacket, coming heavy out of the Men's room. T was distracted
by Meadow's synchronous, last-second entrance into Holsten's,
bell ringing--one magic bullet--another angel gets its wings.
But for those who still believe that "Tony Soprano" is still
alive after the finale, look at the bright side. Whatever you
misunderstood during this mortal incarnation of yours, you'll
still have eternity to figure things like this out (again) in
your immortal soul's future incarnations. The seeds have been
planted by the brilliant David Chase. And he's right, when he
recently said: "Anybody who wants to watch it, it's all there."
The Sopranos R.I.P.
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRnMvDJljD7YrHM/nEQIOPwCgg1nAewgRhWHkfIDiGrEVD2O4gZUAoIvx
VaZDe2PUy66Zy02rp4aRqsNp
=sNOT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
cogitosam
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> iQA/AwUBRnMvDJljD7YrHM/nEQIOPwCgg1nAewgRhWHkfIDiGrEVD2O4gZUAoIvx
> VaZDe2PUy66Zy02rp4aRqsNp
> =sNOT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Good post. It's the silence that matters, more than the blackness.
tomcervo
<anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
> For some it took hours, even days, to figure it out, but most
> of them have subsequently conceded that "Tony" got his brains
> splattered all over the table, by the guy in the members-only
> jacket, coming heavy out of the Men's room. T was distracted
> by Meadow's synchronous, last-second entrance into Holsten's,
> bell ringing--one magic bullet--another angel gets its wings.
So . .. why he have to go to the john? To get the piece Clemenza hid
in the tank?
Every hit you've seen on the show, it's a fast in and out, no
lingering at the deli and then going to the john AFTER YOU'VE BEEN
MADE.
FDR
"Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer" <anon...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote in
message news:f95e8925a4bdbbcd...@remailer.cyberiade.it...
First: We see no reason for him getting shot. Who did it and what's the
motiviation? If there was a person that looked familiar that had a grudge
we knew about, or some sort of foreshadowing then we would have a basis in
him being shot.
Second: What about the "afterlife" that his alternate Kevin Finnerty had
when he was dying? If in three episodes we are to believe he spent time in
heaven, hell, purgaotory or whatever then why now would he just have a black
(void) ending?
These two crucial things lead me to believe that he did not get shot in the
final epsiode. And both would have to be successfullty addressed to make me
think otherwise.
Captain Bob
<_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> First: We see no reason for him getting shot. Who did it and what's the
> motiviation? If there was a person that looked familiar that had a grudge
> we knew about, or some sort of foreshadowing then we would have a basis in
> him being shot.
It was business. Phil Leotardo had already made the point that there
were five families, and then there was this little shit operation in
New Jersey taking money away from them. Phil's dead, but he's probably
not the only one who felt that way ... and Tony's operation was as weak
as it had ever been, with Sil out of it in the hospital, Chris and
Bobby dead, and Carlo flipped. Phil's logic was still good.
>
> Second: What about the "afterlife" that his alternate Kevin Finnerty had
> when he was dying? If in three episodes we are to believe he spent time in
> heaven, hell, purgaotory or whatever then why now would he just have a black
> (void) ending?
Tony was in a coma then. He wasn't dead. He was hallucinating.
> These two crucial things lead me to believe that he did not get shot in the
> final epsiode. And both would have to be successfullty addressed to make me
> think otherwise.
Hope this helped.
Blue
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> iQA/AwUBRnMvDJljD7YrHM/nEQIOPwCgg1nAewgRhWHkfIDiGrEVD2O4gZUAoIvx
> VaZDe2PUy66Zy02rp4aRqsNp
> =sNOT
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Lies!
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
>"Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer" <anon...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote in
>message news:f95e8925a4bdbbcd...@remailer.cyberiade.it...
>>
Alright. The "who" was Phil Leotardo just before he bought
it at the petrol station--and his head became one with the
pavement. Phil was very disappointed with the progress that
his crew was having in decapitating "T". So Phil took the
matter into his own hands, and called in a zip, an unknown
and more importantly *unrecognizable* outsider, to get the
job done. Enter man in the members-only jacket. 'Nuff said.
The afterlife is for the immortal soul, not for the mortal
body. "T" was far from a saint, so the Light at the end of
the tunnel for him was considerably further off than, say,
for the first martyr Stephen, who viewed the Light clearly
even before he was gnashed upon and stoned to death by the
rabidly-angry mob. The discarnate soul of "T" has some Hell
to pay! Whereas the dead body of Tony Soprano is likely to
be a closed-casket affair. Since he got popped last Sunday,
his funeral must already be over. Ashes to ashes, dust to
dust. The character "Tony Soprano" is dead, and his body
is reclaimed to the earth. May "he" R.I.P.
And there were SO many other clues, like the "magic bullet"
commercial when T is visiting comatose Syl, which says it
can get any job done "in ten seconds or less". Ten seconds,
which is *precisely* the time between blackout and credits.
And that's just one of 100s of clues given throughout the
sixth season. WS Burroughs reading from his Western Worlds
for example, about the seven planets of the soul, based on
the Egyptian Book of the Dead. I mean, that hearkens back
to Genesis chapter 1 -- VERY esoteric material for an oft-
gruesome television series about a New Jersey crime family.
And Magic Man on the jukebox. The guy in the members-only
jacket is the magic man with the magic bullet, one bullet.
We could go on and on about this all day long, but I hope
you can see that "T" met his maker, and that "Cleaver" is
the much-anticipated 'The Sopranos' movie that David Chase
has already made, and has already debuted at the theaters.
The Sopranos R.I.P.
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRnNT/ZljD7YrHM/nEQIWzwCgsAPua0J7CMVvUa7PEElFCMzQjngAn1+4
++clD+rJ5Whcd5kW/cCzZG40
=dd1t
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Rev. Vegetable Lasagne
@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
why is everybody so obsessed with the need for the gun behind the tank?
That was a totally different situation. Today, they guy would have just
carried it in. There's no metal detector or frisking in this restaurant
Captain Bob
Lasagne <v...@plonk.com> wrote:
He went into the bathroom to pee and to get the gun in his hand. He
just wouldn't stand there and draw on Tony. He'd come out of the
bathroom fast, plug Tony twice in the head, drop the gun and walk away
quickly.
Gunz4me
thinking about the stool who ratted him out to the feds. Sheesh.....
ant
On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:32:54 -0500, Gunz4me <gun...@somewhere.com>
wrote:
There was no indication T was having a panic attack. He looked pretty
relaxed, popping quarters into the jukebox having dinner with his
family...he may have looked a bit worried about the indictments but
far from collapsing from panic.
Chase said "People get the impression that you're trying to (mess)
with them and it's not true. You're trying to entertain them."
If the suspicious "members only" guy was really nothing, then Chase
would have been messing with us in the final moments of the most
important episode of the all.
Instead, he was giving clues....clues that should not be ignored.
There's more to the scene than what you see. That's how Chase does
things. He drops clues and ties together themes, it's been that way
all throughout the series.
If the series ended with the family eating onion rings it would have
faded out like the end of Season 1 and there would be no debate.
The series finale...too many clues and drama for it to be just another
night at the diner.
FDR
Except that once Phil was gone, and he had been gone for a while. Tony was
more likely to have been hit at several different places and with much less
witnesses, the at Holsteins. Also, as far as we know, the dinner was
planned hours before and known to the family members only.
Chase gives us no strong reason why Tony is still the target if he is indeed
the target.
If the shooter is the guy that went to the bathroom, he could have easily
shot Tony well before going to the bathroom and made a quicker escape since
he was closer to the exit before going there. There sould be no need to
hide a gun in a stall. There was no security or metal detector at the
entrance of Holsteins.
>
> The afterlife is for the immortal soul, not for the mortal
> body. "T" was far from a saint, so the Light at the end of
> the tunnel for him was considerably further off than, say,
> for the first martyr Stephen, who viewed the Light clearly
> even before he was gnashed upon and stoned to death by the
> rabidly-angry mob. The discarnate soul of "T" has some Hell
> to pay! Whereas the dead body of Tony Soprano is likely to
> be a closed-casket affair. Since he got popped last Sunday,
> his funeral must already be over. Ashes to ashes, dust to
> dust. The character "Tony Soprano" is dead, and his body
> is reclaimed to the earth. May "he" R.I.P.
Before Tony is about to die he is about to join a dinner party at a house in
his "Kevin Finnerty" episode. So that tells me Chase was leading us to
believe he had/has a destination in the afterlife. Not a blank screen.
>
> And there were SO many other clues, like the "magic bullet"
> commercial when T is visiting comatose Syl, which says it
> can get any job done "in ten seconds or less". Ten seconds,
> which is *precisely* the time between blackout and credits.
> And that's just one of 100s of clues given throughout the
> sixth season. WS Burroughs reading from his Western Worlds
> for example, about the seven planets of the soul, based on
> the Egyptian Book of the Dead. I mean, that hearkens back
> to Genesis chapter 1 -- VERY esoteric material for an oft-
> gruesome television series about a New Jersey crime family.
So there is an afterlife. Where was Tony's then in those ten seconds?
>
> And Magic Man on the jukebox. The guy in the members-only
> jacket is the magic man with the magic bullet, one bullet.
Except that a hitman would put at least two in his victim (see Bobby's hit
at the beginning of the season and Phil's death...two bullets)
> We could go on and on about this all day long, but I hope
> you can see that "T" met his maker,
His maker is blank screen?
FDR
"Captain Bob" <ah...@matey.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:150620072302329673%ah...@matey.com.invalid...
> In article <467347b0$0$4671$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, FDR
> <_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> First: We see no reason for him getting shot. Who did it and what's the
>> motiviation? If there was a person that looked familiar that had a
>> grudge
>> we knew about, or some sort of foreshadowing then we would have a basis
>> in
>> him being shot.
>
> It was business. Phil Leotardo had already made the point that there
> were five families, and then there was this little shit operation in
> New Jersey taking money away from them. Phil's dead, but he's probably
> not the only one who felt that way ... and Tony's operation was as weak
> as it had ever been, with Sil out of it in the hospital, Chris and
> Bobby dead, and Carlo flipped. Phil's logic was still good.
Except there was no other rumblings talked about during the episode. So
Chase didn't really foreshadow that well if that was his intention.
>>
>> Second: What about the "afterlife" that his alternate Kevin Finnerty had
>> when he was dying? If in three episodes we are to believe he spent time
>> in
>> heaven, hell, purgaotory or whatever then why now would he just have a
>> black
>> (void) ending?
>
> Tony was in a coma then. He wasn't dead. He was hallucinating.
But he was dying and he was about to join a dinner party. Meadow calls him
back from the dead. So where is the dinner party instead of the blank
screen?
>
>> These two crucial things lead me to believe that he did not get shot in
>> the
>> final epsiode. And both would have to be successfullty addressed to make
>> me
>> think otherwise.
>
> Hope this helped.
It didn't.
FDR
"Captain Bob" <ah...@matey.com.invalid> wrote in message
Or he could walk up with his gun in his pocket and his hand wrapped around
it, pull it out and do it. But he didn't. Or walk behind him and shoot
him. Going to the bathroom doesn't make any more sense than the other ways.
In fact, it makes it harder for him to escape cleanly.
Gunz4me
It was the sight of Meadow that brought the panic attack on because he
is yet another Italian American being harassed by the Feds!
Of course, I am just being sarcastic because who knows what David Chase
was thinking in his feeble little mind. Well, come to think of it, he
probably did it to get back at HBO and the fans for making him drag out
the series when he really didn't want to end it quite some time ago.
The Wachowski brothers sold everyone out in their last installment of
The Matrix, and David Chase followed suit with the Sopranos.
Gunz4me
Okay, last one for the night. The guy in the members only jacket went
into the bathroom to spank it, get it to the point where he was ready to
pop, and when he came out of the restroom, he did a single man bukkake
on Tony. Tony, confused at being hit in the face with a hot load, had a
panic attack and blacked out, hence the silence and nothingness at the end!
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
><snips>
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Sorry, I didn't realize I was being trolled. Kind of like
it took me a few seconds to realize that the signal hadn't
really gone dead at the end of The Sopranos season finale.
You know, with the fade-to-heavenly-white credits against
the stark-black background and all...wink wink, hint hint;
like, please get a clue, go get your shine box, and watch
*every* episode from the beginning, uninterrupted, and try
to pay attention this time, okay? Is that too much to ask?
The Sopranos R.I.P.
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRnNwGZljD7YrHM/nEQK6bwCg5fMam2sfYbMm/TM+KyNjZwzUqogAn1he
lSg3pJFPjxGXd+C4rp9qC77N
=uU0N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Captain Bob
<_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "Captain Bob" <ah...@matey.com.invalid> wrote in message
> news:150620072302329673%ah...@matey.com.invalid...
> > In article <467347b0$0$4671$4c36...@roadrunner.com>, FDR
> > <_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> First: We see no reason for him getting shot. Who did it and what's the
> >> motiviation? If there was a person that looked familiar that had a
> >> grudge
> >> we knew about, or some sort of foreshadowing then we would have a basis
> >> in
> >> him being shot.
> >
> > It was business. Phil Leotardo had already made the point that there
> > were five families, and then there was this little shit operation in
> > New Jersey taking money away from them. Phil's dead, but he's probably
> > not the only one who felt that way ... and Tony's operation was as weak
> > as it had ever been, with Sil out of it in the hospital, Chris and
> > Bobby dead, and Carlo flipped. Phil's logic was still good.
>
> Except there was no other rumblings talked about during the episode. So
> Chase didn't really foreshadow that well if that was his intention.
He may not have done it well, but I noticed it, and the logic made
sense to me. Why wouldn't the five families move on Tony, especially
when he's weak? Phil even said he should have hit Tony first, leading
me to conclude that not doing that was his big mistake -- the idea was
good, but the execution was poor. Tony's organization has been thinned
out, and it's in shambles. Now would be the time to move on him.
Paulie Walnuts would be the last guy standing, and he'd do the deal.
> >> Second: What about the "afterlife" that his alternate Kevin Finnerty had
> >> when he was dying? If in three episodes we are to believe he spent time
> >> in
> >> heaven, hell, purgaotory or whatever then why now would he just have a
> >> black
> >> (void) ending?
> >
> > Tony was in a coma then. He wasn't dead. He was hallucinating.
>
> But he was dying and he was about to join a dinner party. Meadow calls him
> back from the dead. So where is the dinner party instead of the blank
> screen?
There's a big difference between a dying brain and a dead brain. We
never saw Tony with a dead brain. You're assuming (I think) that Tony
was having an actual spiritual experience, and I don't think he was.
There's nothing before us that says you're wrong; I just don't agree
that this was real, or even an allegory of whatever reality you find
yourself in after death, including the big black silent one.
> >> These two crucial things lead me to believe that he did not get shot in
> >> the
> >> final epsiode. And both would have to be successfullty addressed to make
> >> me
> >> think otherwise.
> >
> > Hope this helped.
>
> It didn't.
Regrettable.
Bob (but not THAT Bob)
The episode wasn't seen thru Tony's eyes, so why switch POVs at the
moment of his death?
Obviously the cameraman got whacked!
Tony Harding
Well, aren't you the smug, arrogant little twatwaffle!
Tony Harding
It also makes it really easy for him to be trapped in the men's room.
Tony Harding
<snip>
> Okay, last one for the night. The guy in the members only jacket went
> into the bathroom to spank it, get it to the point where he was ready to
> pop, and when he came out of the restroom, he did a single man bukkake
> on Tony. Tony, confused at being hit in the face with a hot load, had a
> panic attack and blacked out, hence the silence and nothingness at the end!
Hm, interesting little fantasy here, guy.
So how did Carmela, Meadow (who's perfect in every way sans that she's
not naked & waiting for me in my bed) & AJ (pass<g>) react to this?
Tony Harding
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Jun 2007 23:32:54 -0500, Gunz4me <gun...@somewhere.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> There was no indication T was having a panic attack. He looked pretty
> relaxed, popping quarters into the jukebox having dinner with his
> family...he may have looked a bit worried about the indictments but
> far from collapsing from panic.
>
> Chase said "People get the impression that you're trying to (mess)
> with them and it's not true. You're trying to entertain them."
>
> If the suspicious "members only" guy was really nothing, then Chase
> would have been messing with us in the final moments of the most
> important episode of the all.
>
> Instead, he was giving clues....clues that should not be ignored.
> There's more to the scene than what you see. That's how Chase does
> things. He drops clues and ties together themes, it's been that way
> all throughout the series.
>
> If the series ended with the family eating onion rings it would have
> faded out like the end of Season 1 and there would be no debate.
Maybe the point was how the family's fortunes had sunk so low over the
course of The Sopranos, e.g., they ended season 1 (IIRC) dining on fine
Italian cuisine at Artie's restaurant and now they're scarfing onion
rings at some fast food/ice cream place on Broad Street?
FDR
"Captain Bob" <ah...@matey.com.invalid> wrote in message
I'm sorry but there's just little to no evidence to support that they were
going to take on Tony. So if that was Chase's intentions it was very poorly
done.
If it was a good idea, Butchie would have never brokered a deal to save
Tony's ass. And the take-out of Phil, a strong NY boss by Tony's guys was a
clear indication that Tony's crew could do serious damage and had
connections. Do you think any one of them would try it after Phil's head
became a pancake?
> Phil even said he should have hit Tony first, leading
> me to conclude that not doing that was his big mistake -- the idea was
> good, but the execution was poor. Tony's organization has been thinned
> out, and it's in shambles. Now would be the time to move on him.
> Paulie Walnuts would be the last guy standing, and he'd do the deal.
>
>> >> Second: What about the "afterlife" that his alternate Kevin Finnerty
>> >> had
>> >> when he was dying? If in three episodes we are to believe he spent
>> >> time
>> >> in
>> >> heaven, hell, purgaotory or whatever then why now would he just have a
>> >> black
>> >> (void) ending?
>> >
>> > Tony was in a coma then. He wasn't dead. He was hallucinating.
>>
>> But he was dying and he was about to join a dinner party. Meadow calls
>> him
>> back from the dead. So where is the dinner party instead of the blank
>> screen?
>
> There's a big difference between a dying brain and a dead brain.
It's a matter of is there a soul or not. If there is a soul, then there is
no end of consciousness.
FDR
"Bob (but not THAT Bob)" <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:467384...@nowhere.com...
Or the editor
zaryza...@yahoo.com
<anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
> I mention this, because it seems that a lot of 'The Sopranos'
> fans just don't seem to appreciate the sophistication of the
> series.
I regret to say that you appeare to be one of those fans. The ending
was pretty obviously meant to be ambiguous. You talk as if it's
obvious that Tony was killed, when in fact there's no definitive
answer to that question because Cahse decided to end the series mid-
scene with that information unresolved.
FDR
<zaryza...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1181999856.1...@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
And with the possibility of having a Sopranos movie 5 years from now. Chase
and HBO aren't dumb.
tomcervo
> It was business. Phil Leotardo had already made the point that there
> were five families, and then there was this little shit operation in
> New Jersey taking money away from them. Phil's dead, but he's probably
> not the only one who felt that way ... and Tony's operation was as weak
> as it had ever been, with Sil out of it in the hospital, Chris and
> Bobby dead, and Carlo flipped. Phil's logic was still good.
True, but it's always been that way. The Decavilcante family, the real
Sopranos, are pretty much traffic cops for the New York and Philly
mobs. They keep them from colliding, and they have their own rackets,
so there's no end in eliminating them. Kill Tony and who takes over?
AJ? Take over Jersey and you get to go to war with the Philly mob--bad
for business. Tony is like Switzerland; nobody thinks it would last
two days in a real war but it suits everybody to let it stay neutral.
tomcervo
Anonymous Remailer) wrote:
> And there were SO many other clues,
Obviously you weren't around during the whole "Paul is dead" thing.
You want clues? "Turn me on, dead man."
tomcervo
> And with the possibility of having a Sopranos movie 5 years from now. Chase
> and HBO aren't dumb.
Five YEARS? With HBO's current lineup? You think people are going to
pay premium for Entourage or Big Love?
Try 5 months, tops.
chrissi...@sbcglobal.net
"tomcervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1182004069.3...@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Look how long it took people to figure out the song American Pie
>
>
FDR
I was thinking big screen, not tv.
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Much worse, I'm a devout, old-school Christian -- very old
school! But one thing auguably in my favor, I'm resolutely
ex-Republican. I even took down my "American" flag earlier
this year, carefully folded it up, and stored it away. And
I've made it a point to only wear black clothing in public.
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRnQXy5ljD7YrHM/nEQKXkwCgl52Z3TnGhRCGzwpp0B2VOMxu5HUAoLuW
aiTDhdU/4JmFIL7lKAb2xJzf
=MiXT
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
jgro...@hotmail.com
Funny, a couple of fundie, Idaho compound types were at a weighlifting
event
during the 1996 Atlanta "Clinton" Olympics dressed in all black. Cheer
Up, Pelosi is
on the wall. I bet Nancy has a 'Livia side. Remember Carmela totting
a M-16 in season 1?
zaryza...@yahoo.com
> I was thinking big screen, not tv.
I've heard the speculation about the movie, but I really don't think
they'll do it. My guess is that if Chase had wanted to have Tony
killed off at the end of the series, he would have done it. And if
they wanted to make a movie later, they'd make it a prequel or
something. I just can't see them making a Sopranos movie, though,
doesn't seem like it would fit.
Rev. Vegetable Lasagne
@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
I heard that if you listen to Rolling Stones records around 1969, there's a
lot of clues about Brian Jones dying
Ron
> comes to mind:
>
> "If you find yourself alone, riding in green fields
> with the sun on your face, do not be troubled; for
> you are in Elysium, and you're already dead!
> Brothers, what we do in life, echoes in eternity."
> --Maximus Decimus Meridius (played by Russell Crowe)
>
> I mention this, because it seems that a lot of 'The Sopranos'
> fans just don't seem to appreciate the sophistication of the
> series. They hear the denotations, but miss the connotations.
Oh please, you sound just like the "experts" in alt.tv.lost.
If it was such a clear cut ending, then it wouldn't be debated all
over the "news" and numerous online forums.
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
>> school! But one thing auguably in my favor, I'm resolutely
>> ex-Republican. I even took down my "American" flag earlier
>> this year, carefully folded it up, and stored it away. And
>> I've made it a point to only wear black clothing in public.
>
>Funny, a couple of fundie, Idaho compound types were at a weighlifting
>event
>during the 1996 Atlanta "Clinton" Olympics dressed in all black.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
That is funny. Some tizzuns were dressed in what looks like midnight
blue, but their gloves were black as the freakin' Ace of Spades:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_Salute
> Cheer
>Up, Pelosi is
>on the wall.
I'm a staunch right-wing Conservative. Pelosi is a fuggin left-wing
Liberal mezzofinook! Even so, I'm generally a gay and cheerful guy.
(Where I come from, "gay" means jovial, lively, merry, happy, etc.)
I wear black because I'm a captive attendant at America's funeral.
Death, Hell, Sin, Judgment, Ghosts, Hauntings, etc., have always
been my favorite subject. That's one reason I liked 'The Sopranos'
so much, with plenty of death and hell to go around for everybody.
Remember that episode with the James van Praagh look-alike? The
souls of guys Paulie had personally whacked gave him the creeps
worse than that Familiar tabby in the series finale! I love it. :)
Conservatives have no political party, no government to believe
in, no country with enforcible borders, hence, no flag to proudly
salute. Conservatives are partyless in America, or is it Amexica?
I still love the U.S. Military, but the Country I loved died, so
that's why I stand in mourning over her grave. Her epitaph reads:
America the Beautiful
DIIS MANIBVS
> I bet Nancy has a 'Livia side. Remember Carmela totting
>a M-16 in season 1?
Wasn't that the one with the bear tooling around in their backyard?
Or maybe that was from another episode, I don't remember. It's gone.
Speaking of funerals, I wonder if HBO is planning theirs? What with
'The Sopranos' dead, and 'Deadwood' dead, and 'Oz', and 'The Wire',
and 'Six Feet Under', and 'Rome', and 'Carnivale', and other long-
since deceased HBO original series, forever laid to rest; what's left?
A mormon soap opera, and a surfboard hallucination! I can't believe
this is from the same David Milch who created 'Deadwood'? I'll give
JFC one or two more chances, but that's it. Three strikes, histoire!
Ex-Republican,
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRnQ6EpljD7YrHM/nEQLEfwCfSPG/7AU86MtF5xxOZsa/RvTsQ2cAn2e+
sSqcC/SLJ5IKj98EvahArQks
=cYkl
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Luther Root
>
> Except that once Phil was gone, and he had been gone for a while. Tony was
> more likely to have been hit at several different places and with much less
> witnesses, the at Holsteins. Also, as far as we know, the dinner was
> planned hours before and known to the family members only.
Ordinarily this would be one of the strongest arguments against Tony
getting whacked. If they wanted to do him, it would have been at a
place he visits regularly or he'd be lured somewhere. But Baccala was
shot in a hobby store, how did they track him there?
And if it was payback for the Leotardo hit, then they would want to
whack him in front of the family.
~LR
Jim Beaver
"FDR" <_removespam...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4673e026$0$3245$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
>
> It's a matter of is there a soul or not. If there is a soul, then there
> is no end of consciousness.
Based on whose after-report?
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
>On Jun 15, 8:49 pm, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
>> This famous, much-beloved quotation from the film 'Gladiator'
>> comes to mind:
>>
>> "If you find yourself alone, riding in green fields
>> with the sun on your face, do not be troubled; for
>> you are in Elysium, and you're already dead!
>> Brothers, what we do in life, echoes in eternity."
>> --Maximus Decimus Meridius (played by Russell Crowe)
>>
>> I mention this, because it seems that a lot of 'The Sopranos'
>> fans just don't seem to appreciate the sophistication of the
>> series. They hear the denotations, but miss the connotations.
>
>Oh please, you sound just like the "experts" in alt.tv.lost.
I seriously doubt that. But who knows, I could have a doppelganger
out there somewhere in this great big world? As they say, everybody
has one. Perhaps mine is a regular "expert" on the a.t.l. group? :)
>
>If it was such a clear cut ending, then it wouldn't be debated all
>over the "news" and numerous online forums.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Kind of like they still "debate" whether or not our LORD & Saviour
Jesus Christ actually existed? Or is it like Big Pussy's imaginary
goomah in the episode where he vainly pleads "can I keep my eyes?"
Grow the fvck up! "T" sleeps with the fishes. He's gone, get over
it already. All that's left to debate now are all the obvious and
not-so-obvious clues David Chase gave us through the entire series.
Not only about T's fate to catch that "magic bullet" at Holsten's
(interesting reference to the preposterous Warren Commision "magic
bullet" that zigged and zagged and zooped and danced the freakin'
Watusi... morons like you are still "debating" that con job, too),
but all the ingenious and esoteric threads interwoven pretty much
throughout the series gave us plenty of food for thought & debate.
'The Sopranos' was a true work of art, a genuine masterpiece for
television. We who really appreciated it, really appreciated it.
Enjoy!
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBRnRM65ljD7YrHM/nEQIY/gCfZYv88c78vyekcb8Y2NLsF2F2BFIAoJqB
e804O+/qi19gRt8ZaK6AY5Xd
=b1op
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
zaryza...@yahoo.com
<anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
> Grow the fvck up! "T" sleeps with the fishes. He's gone, get over
> it already. All that's left to debate now are all the obvious and
> not-so-obvious clues David Chase gave us through the entire series.
You're like some faux intellectual who reads "Hamlet" and thinks the
only thing worth talking about is whether Hamlet wants to screw his
mother. The ending was deliberately ambiguous, you dolt. And if Chase
was trying to make it definitively clear that Tony was killed then he
clearly failed, because you would need to follow a silly stream of
"clues" to figure that out, as if it was a "Where's Waldo" book
instead of a great TV drama, which it was.
FDR
"Luther Root" <Luthe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1182023140....@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> On Jun 16, 2:52 pm, "FDR" <_removespamfilter_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> Except that once Phil was gone, and he had been gone for a while. Tony
>> was
>> more likely to have been hit at several different places and with much
>> less
>> witnesses, the at Holsteins. Also, as far as we know, the dinner was
>> planned hours before and known to the family members only.
>
> Ordinarily this would be one of the strongest arguments against Tony
> getting whacked. If they wanted to do him, it would have been at a
> place he visits regularly or he'd be lured somewhere. But Baccala was
> shot in a hobby store, how did they track him there?
By the size of Bobby's train collection, he must have been a pretty regular
customer.
FDR
"Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer" <anon...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote in
message news:6abff92e700e5076...@remailer.cyberiade.it...
Mmmm, just let us know when you're going to bomb a abortion clinic, ok?
FDR
<zaryza...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1182020852....@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
I don't think a prequel is going to happen. Too much work and what would it
reveal?
FDR
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, Ron <BigEL...@msn.com> wrote:
>>On Jun 15, 8:49 pm, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
>>> This famous, much-beloved quotation from the film 'Gladiator'
>>> comes to mind:
>>>
>>> "If you find yourself alone, riding in green fields
>>> with the sun on your face, do not be troubled; for
>>> you are in Elysium, and you're already dead!
>>> Brothers, what we do in life, echoes in eternity."
>>> --Maximus Decimus Meridius (played by Russell Crowe)
>>>
>>> I mention this, because it seems that a lot of 'The Sopranos'
>>> fans just don't seem to appreciate the sophistication of the
>>> series. They hear the denotations, but miss the connotations.
>>
>>Oh please, you sound just like the "experts" in alt.tv.lost.
>
> I seriously doubt that. But who knows, I could have a doppelganger
> out there somewhere in this great big world? As they say, everybody
> has one. Perhaps mine is a regular "expert" on the a.t.l. group? :)
>>
>>If it was such a clear cut ending, then it wouldn't be debated all
>>over the "news" and numerous online forums.
>
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Kind of like they still "debate" whether or not our LORD & Saviour
> Jesus Christ actually existed?
The doubt is not wether he existed, but if he was the son of God.
It's odd that you love the Sopranos, that is filled with sin, sex, and
killing, and yet are this "devout" Christian. Do you go to confession each
Saturday to get some absolution from watching it?
MZ
I think there are lots of possibilities for a prequel, at least story-wise.
The problem is that James Gandolfini couldn't be in it, because of his
physical condition. The guy is fatter, balder, and more older-looking than
ever, and it became especially apparent this season. So they wouldn't even
really be able to do a prequel that begins around the time Jackie Aprile was
boss, let alone something earlier.
And let's face it. Without Gandolfini, it would bomb.
David Oberman
the "arrogant little twatwaffle"? It made me laugh, & I'd like your
permission to use that expression at tomorrow's family get-together.
Members Only
>Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer wrote:
>> comes to mind:
>>
>> "If you find yourself alone, riding in green fields
>> with the sun on your face, do not be troubled; for
>> you are in Elysium, and you're already dead!
>> Brothers, what we do in life, echoes in eternity."
>> --Maximus Decimus Meridius (played by Russell Crowe)
>>
>> I mention this, because it seems that a lot of 'The Sopranos'
>> fans just don't seem to appreciate the sophistication of the
>> series. They hear the denotations, but miss the connotations.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Daniel Joseph Min
http://www.2hot2cool.com/11/danieljosephmin/
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Paul Duca
Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer at anon...@remailer.cyberiade.it wrote on
6/16/07 2:02 PM:
Especially with the horoscopes...
Paul
Ron
> Watusi... morons like you
Another pussy talking shit behind their computer screen, and "hiding"
behind an anonymous remailer.
In real life, someone would punch your teeth down you throat,
fucktard.
Gunz4me
> Gunz4me wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Okay, last one for the night. The guy in the members only jacket went
>> into the bathroom to spank it, get it to the point where he was ready
>> to pop, and when he came out of the restroom, he did a single man
>> bukkake on Tony. Tony, confused at being hit in the face with a hot
>> load, had a panic attack and blacked out, hence the silence and
>> nothingness at the end!
>
> Hm, interesting little fantasy here, guy.
>
> So how did Carmela, Meadow (who's perfect in every way sans that she's
> not naked & waiting for me in my bed) & AJ (pass<g>) react to this?
Well, since the show is shot from Tony's point of view, we will not know
how the family reacted until the movie comes out.
Of course I was just kidding because we can speculate all we want but
the only person who really knows is David Chase, and heaven forbid he
tell us fans of the series anything regarding what really happened to
Tony.
I tend to remember how his panic attacks occur out of nowhere and seeing
the dudes who tried to carjack him in a prior season as Meadow was
walking could have brought on the panic attack causing him to black out
as soon as he remembered who they were. Then again, he hasn't had a
panic attack in quite some time, so who knows.
Also, another theory is that a contracted hitman, already paid in full
by Phil since Phil was disgusted that no progress had been made on
finding Tony and taking him out, the guy in the Member's Only jacket,
could have hit Tony as he was coming out of the restroom.
Regardless of the theories, I believe David Chase left it open on
purpose just in case he were to receive some sort of multi-million
dollar deal from HBO to do a movie a few years down the road. If indeed
this is the case, I will NOT watch any Sopranos movie by Chase, period!
IMHO, I should have stopped watching in Season 5 because I wasted
precious hours of my life that I will never regain by watching the last
season!
Luther Root
> "Luther Root" <Luther.R...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1182023140....@a26g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Jun 16, 2:52 pm, "FDR" <_removespamfilter_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Except that once Phil was gone, and he had been gone for a while. Tony
> >> was
> >> more likely to have been hit at several different places and with much
> >> less
> >> witnesses, the at Holsteins. Also, as far as we know, the dinner was
> >> planned hours before and known to the family members only.
>
> > Ordinarily this would be one of the strongest arguments against Tony
> > getting whacked. If they wanted to do him, it would have been at a
> > place he visits regularly or he'd be lured somewhere. But Baccala was
> > shot in a hobby store, how did they track him there?
>
> By the size of Bobby's train collection, he must have been a pretty regular
> customer.
Except Bacala was followed. The guy with MO jacket enters at the same
time as AJ.
~LR
David Kaiser
The theme of some one close to Tony flipping to the Feds has been a major
one since the first season, and it often took at least a whole other season
to get the answer (e.g. Big Pussy.) Christopher was threatening to do it
this time. And frequently there's a lesser guy who flips (the fat guy in
season 1--Carlo this time) who is basically a distraction.
The obviously suspicious guy for the last two years has been Paulie.
Tony was thinking about killing him on the boat early this season. Paulie
had played footsie with the New York mobsters. I haven't rewatched the
episode, but wasn't it rather suspicious that New York did not put Paulie on
the hit list--Bobby instead? Wasn't there in fact some dialogue about that?
So the question is whether there's anything to suggest a connection
between Paulie and Members Only. I won't be surprised if something turns up.
Last question--when A. J. and girlfriend were parked in the woods, was
I the only viewer expecting the Russian to pop out?
DK
"Ron" <BigEL...@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1182052543.2...@n2g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
Luther Root
> I hope this thread is still continuing. I have a different theory.
>
> The theme of some one close to Tony flipping to the Feds has been a major
> one since the first season, and it often took at least a whole other season
> to get the answer (e.g. Big Pussy.) Christopher was threatening to do it
> this time. And frequently there's a lesser guy who flips (the fat guy in
> season 1--Carlo this time) who is basically a distraction.
>
> The obviously suspicious guy for the last two years has been Paulie.
> Tony was thinking about killing him on the boat early this season. Paulie
> had played footsie with the New York mobsters. I haven't rewatched the
> episode, but wasn't it rather suspicious that New York did not put Paulie on
> the hit list--Bobby instead? Wasn't there in fact some dialogue about that?
Yeah somethinng about the rest not being important enough.
> So the question is whether there's anything to suggest a connection
> between Paulie and Members Only.
Except Paulie didn't have the initiative to organize a lap-dance at
the Bing. That and he was a peacenik.
> I won't be surprised if something turns up.
Like what? An 18 page typed confession?
~LR
MZ
news:46753c35$0$4871$4c36...@roadrunner.com...
> I hope this thread is still continuing. I have a different theory.
>
> The theme of some one close to Tony flipping to the Feds has been a major
> one since the first season, and it often took at least a whole other
> season to get the answer (e.g. Big Pussy.) Christopher was threatening to
> do it this time. And frequently there's a lesser guy who flips (the fat
> guy in season 1--Carlo this time) who is basically a distraction.
>
> The obviously suspicious guy for the last two years has been Paulie.
> Tony was thinking about killing him on the boat early this season. Paulie
> had played footsie with the New York mobsters. I haven't rewatched the
> episode, but wasn't it rather suspicious that New York did not put Paulie
> on the hit list--Bobby instead? Wasn't there in fact some dialogue about
> that?
They (correctly) realized that he wasn't a potential successor to Tony.
They took out the top three guys that would have been likely to ruin their
plan of making the NJ crew leaderless.
> So the question is whether there's anything to suggest a connection
> between Paulie and Members Only. I won't be surprised if something turns
> up.
I will be. There aren't supposed to be any more episodes.
> Last question--when A. J. and girlfriend were parked in the woods, was
> I the only viewer expecting the Russian to pop out?
I don't see how that makes any sense. So if he's still alive, people are
thinking that he's been living in the woods for all these years? And that
the south jersey woods are contiguous with the north jersey woods? Clarify
this one for me, because I'm lost.
What's with the fascination everyone has with the russian anyway?
Rev. Vegetable Lasagne
news:1_Kdnbci4rITzejb...@giganews.com:
>
>> So the question is whether there's anything to suggest a
>> connection
>> between Paulie and Members Only. I won't be surprised if something
>> turns up.
>
> I will be. There aren't supposed to be any more episodes.
>
>
>> Last question--when A. J. and girlfriend were parked in the
>> woods, was
>> I the only viewer expecting the Russian to pop out?
>
> I don't see how that makes any sense. So if he's still alive, people
> are thinking that he's been living in the woods for all these years?
> And that the south jersey woods are contiguous with the north jersey
> woods? Clarify this one for me, because I'm lost.
>
> What's with the fascination everyone has with the russian anyway?
>
>
>
"Supposed to be?" that's what HBO wants you to believe. I have it on good
authority from a source at HBO that in a future episode, the Russian will
be hired as an interior decorator in one of Carmella's new spec houses.
Bill Anderson
>
> What's with the fascination everyone has with the russian anyway?
>
>
You mean the character from the episode usually cited as the fans'
number one favorite? That's easy. Everybody loves an ambiguous ending.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
FDR
You don't know this for sure. In the previous scene Tony says that the crew
has to break routine, chnage collections and routes. To me that says that
they would be going to places frequently visited.
> The guy with MO jacket enters at the same
> time as AJ.
Actually ahead of AJ by a couple steps.
>
>
> ~LR
>
>
Tony Harding
<snip>
> Funny, a couple of fundie, Idaho compound types were at a weighlifting
> event
> during the 1996 Atlanta "Clinton" Olympics dressed in all black.
"Clinton" Olympics - huh?
Tony Harding
<raises hand>
Feel free to use it anytime, anywhere>
Tony Harding
Sounds as though you've never heard of "Butch & Sundance: The Early
Years". :)
Tony Harding
> On Jun 16, 5:18 pm, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> <anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
>
>> Grow the fvck up! "T" sleeps with the fishes. He's gone, get over
>> it already. All that's left to debate now are all the obvious and
>> not-so-obvious clues David Chase gave us through the entire series.
>
> You're like some faux intellectual who reads "Hamlet" and thinks the
> only thing worth talking about is whether Hamlet wants to screw his
> mother.
IIRC Hamlet was balling Ophelia. Are you confusing Hamlet with Oedipus?
Tony Harding
But not a dweeby twatwaffle like you, though.
Tony Harding
Really? I thought his house looked like shit!
Frank R.A.J. Maloney
You're out of here.
*PLONK*
--
Frank in Seattle
____
Frank Richard Aloysius Jude Maloney
"Millennium hand and shrimp."
Satori
"Tony Harding" <ToH...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
news:FJddi.29$In3...@newsfe12.lga...
Some scholars believe that Hamlet has an Oedipus complex.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_%28Hamlet%29#The_Oedipus_Complex
Ford T. FreezerClown
"Bill Anderson" <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:CtGdnbTQvKnpy-jb...@rcn.net...
> MZ wrote:
>
>>
>> What's with the fascination everyone has with the russian anyway?
>
> You mean the character from the episode usually cited as the fans' number
> one favorite? That's easy. Everybody loves an ambiguous ending.
I never had a problem with the Russian disappearing and us not knowing if he
was dead or alive. That episode marked Paulie's downfall from trusted
captain to bumbling idiot. He took a routine collection stop and turned it
into a catastrophe. *That* was the point of the episode IMO and the unknown
status of the Russian just emphasized it.
zaryza...@yahoo.com
> "Tony Harding" <ToH...@nowhere.org> wrote in message
>
> news:FJddi.29$In3...@newsfe12.lga...
>
> >> On Jun 16, 5:18 pm, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> >> <anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
>
> >>> Grow the fvck up! "T" sleeps with the fishes. He's gone, get over
> >>> it already. All that's left to debate now are all the obvious and
> >>> not-so-obvious clues David Chase gave us through the entire series.
>
> >> You're like some faux intellectual who reads "Hamlet" and thinks the
> >> only thing worth talking about is whether Hamlet wants to screw his
> >> mother.
>
> > IIRC Hamlet was balling Ophelia. Are you confusing Hamlet with Oedipus?
>
> Some scholars believe that Hamlet has an Oedipus complex.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gertrude_%28Hamlet%29#The_Oedipus_Complex
That's correct. My point isn't that some people don't think that
Hamlet had an Oedipus Complex, just that people who read "Hamlet" and
decide that the only thing worth talking about is that are faux-
intellectuals, generally speaking.
jgro...@hotmail.com
Prrreety Much, He even hung around for the entire swim session with
the whole gang, even the nuclear codes briefcase
officer was there. Most venues had a "commoners" seating and a
separate VIP section. In case of the swimming, we were in the west
stands, VIPs in the east...JG
jgro...@hotmail.com
<anonym...@remailer.cyberiade.it> wrote:
> On Sat, 16 Jun 2007, jgrov...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >On Jun 16, 1:02 pm, Cyberiade.it Anonymous Remailer
> >> ex-Republican. I even took down my "American" flag earlier
> >> this year, carefully folded it up, and stored it away. And
> >> I've made it a point to only wear black clothing in public.
>
> >event
> >during the 1996 Atlanta "Clinton" Olympics dressed in all black.
>
>
> That is funny. Some tizzuns were dressed in what looks like midnight
> blue, but their gloves were black as the freakin' Ace of Spades:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1968_Olympics_Black_Power_Salute
>
> > Cheer
> >Up, Pelosi is
> >on the wall.
>
> I'm a staunch right-wing Conservative. Pelosi is a fuggin left-wing
> Liberal mezzofinook! Even so, I'm generally a gay and cheerful guy.
> (Where I come from, "gay" means jovial, lively, merry, happy, etc.)
>
> I wear black because I'm a captive attendant at America's funeral.
> Death, Hell, Sin, Judgment, Ghosts, Hauntings, etc., have always
> been my favorite subject. That's one reason I liked 'The Sopranos'
> so much, with plenty of death and hell to go around for everybody.
> Remember that episode with the James van Praagh look-alike? The
> souls of guys Paulie had personally whacked gave him the creeps
> worse than that Familiar tabby in the series finale! I love it. :)
>
> Conservatives have no political party, no government to believe
> in, no country with enforcible borders, hence, no flag to proudly
> salute. Conservatives are partyless in America, or is it Amexica?
> I still love the U.S. Military, but the Country I loved died, so
> that's why I stand in mourning over her grave. Her epitaph reads:
>
> America the Beautiful
> DIIS MANIBVS
>
> > I bet Nancy has a 'Livia side. Remember Carmela totting
> >a M-16 in season 1?
>
> Wasn't that the one with the bear tooling around in their backyard?
> Or maybe that was from another episode, I don't remember. It's gone.
IIRC, AJ was trying to climb in a second story window and Carm pulled
the rifle out a wall nook. This is a side of Carm that they never
further expanded, her Bonnie and Clyde participation.
robert underhill
Captain Bob <ah...@matey.com.invalid> wrote:
> In article <Xns9950F0FAAD...@207.217.125.201>, Rev. Vegetable
> Lasagne <v...@plonk.com> wrote:
>
> > tomcervo <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in news:1181956116.083043.169760
> > @q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
> > >
> >
> > why is everybody so obsessed with the need for the gun behind the tank?
> > That was a totally different situation. Today, they guy would have just
> > carried it in. There's no metal detector or frisking in this restaurant
>
>
> He went into the bathroom to pee and to get the gun in his hand. He
> just wouldn't stand there and draw on Tony. He'd come out of the
> bathroom fast, plug Tony twice in the head, drop the gun and walk away
> quickly.
Plus coming out of the men's room, he hits Tony from the side where he
isn't looking. Tony was sitting with his face to the door, while the
corridor to the men's room was 90 degrees to his right. So a guy
coming fast down that corridor hits Tony on the right side of his head,
while Tony is looking straight forward, since the chime that rings for
the door's opening, which is the last thing we see or hear before the
blackout, has just rung for Meadow's entrance.
--
Bob Underhill
Delete everything in CAPS to reply by email
Audie Murphy's Ghost
<jgro...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Where else would you expect the nuclear codes guy to be?
If you want to talk presidents and Olympics, how about the "Reagan"
Olympics in Los Angeles in 1984, where the president of the United
States and his entourage scurried to a secret, secure location (in the
face of no known threat) to open the Games, which he did out of sight
of all the participants and attendees. Then, his work quickly done,
the president scurried away again, choosing not to attend the Games.
With this stunning example of courage before him, how dare Bill Clinton
attend Games being held in his own country? And, worse, how dare he
enjoy himself? Let's impeach him again!
Geoff Miller
Tony Harding <ToH...@nowhere.org> writes:
> IIRC Hamlet was balling Ophelia.
"Balling?" Now *there's* an expression I haven't heard in awhile!
> Are you confusing Hamlet with Oedipus?
I saw a cartoon years ago (in the New Yorker, IIRC) depicting a man
in greasy bib overalls standing next to a new sign on the fence in
front of his junkyard; it read "Oedipus Wrecks." He was asking his
companion, "You don't think it's too cutesy, do you?"
Geoff
--
Global Warming Denier
John Doherty
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> ...I mention this, because it seems that a lot of 'The Sopranos'
> fans just don't seem to appreciate the sophistication of the
> series. They hear the denotations, but miss the connotations.
> Like the classic S&G tune, "people hearing without listening".
>
> A most glaring example of hearing-impaired viewers, are those
> who didn't understand that "T" got whacked, ergo cut to black.
This is a most glaring example of a fan wanting certainty when Chase
offered ambiguity.
>
> For some it took hours, even days, to figure it out, but most
> of them have subsequently conceded that "Tony" got his brains
> splattered all over the table, by the guy in the members-only
> jacket, coming heavy out of the Men's room. T was distracted
> by Meadow's synchronous, last-second entrance into Holsten's,
> bell ringing--one magic bullet--another angel gets its wings.
Most of who? regtulars here on ATS seem to be leaning to the ambiguity
of the ending in my reading.
>
> But for those who still believe that "Tony Soprano" is still
> alive after the finale, look at the bright side. Whatever you
> misunderstood during this mortal incarnation of yours, you'll
> still have eternity to figure things like this out (again) in
> your immortal soul's future incarnations.
Your smugness is showing.
Gandolfini himself has said he doesn't know if Tony got whacked or not.
Too bad your smug self-satisfaction is not available to speed him along
on his karmic journey.
> The seeds have been
> planted by the brilliant David Chase. And he's right, when he
> recently said: "Anybody who wants to watch it, it's all there."
The seeds he planted are representative of one of the biggest
signature differences of the show: ambiguity.
Those who insist on a neat ending have not been watching very closely.
But that's offered as my opinion, not a universal truth.
justanothe...@yahoo.com
So John, how's life in Beverly?
Bill Anderson
>
> The seeds he planted are representative of one of the biggest signature
> differences of the show: ambiguity.
>
> Those who insist on a neat ending have not been watching very closely.
>
In my estimation the end is whatever David Chase says it is. The
Sopranos is his creation, after all.
If, on this subject, he keeps his lips sealed to his grave, then without
a doubt the fans can keep debating the outcome as long as there are fans
around who care.
But suppose someday he comes clean and says, "Look folks, I gave you all
the clues you needed, all the foreshadowing, all the signs. I laid it on
thick. It was THE LAST SUPPER, you dumbasses, complete with communion!
And to top it all off, I didn't just cut to the credits -- I gave you
eleven seconds of darkness and silence! Does that mean NOTHING to you?
What are you, dense or something? I have to show you brains spattered
everywhere for you to get it? What part of black silence don't you
understand? He's morally, ethically, spiritually, physically,
positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably DEAD!"
So what do you do then -- argue with David Chase? Tell him he didn't
make himself clear? Feign surprise and tell him you watched it all ten
times and still didn't notice any signs and portents? Tell him that if
he wanted people to understand what he was saying, he should have
spelled it out in plain English? Face it: if Chase says he intended for
people to conclude Tony got whacked, a lot of people are going to be
saying, "Yeah, I figured that out, sorta, but I wanted to hold out hope
for a movie." Or something like that.
But suppose Chase says, "You people are hilarious. Where are you coming
up with all these phony baloney DaVinci Code dramatic auguries? You're
carrying on like a Kennedy assassination convention collided with a
UFOlogists retreat. Trust me, all this crazy stuff you're seeing is a
figment of your imagination. Sure, there was a little Last Supper
imagery right there at the end, but that's simply because it was THE END
-- the end of the show! Food was a theme for the entire series and I
thought it would be nice to show the family getting together right there
at the end, problems still abounding, but life going on. Carmela is
preoccupied with her real estate, AJ is the loser he always has been,
Meadow wants to get away from the family but she keeps coming back, and
Tony presides over it all. Like the song said, they just DON'T STOP!
Why don't you get it, you dumbasses?"
So what do you do then -- argue with David Chase? Tell him he cruelly
confused you? Tell him you watched it ten times and every time it all
got more complicated in your mind? Tell him you expected more from him
than just a simple non-conclusion that left any outcome to the viewer's
imagination? Face it: if Chase says he intended to leave his conclusion
open-ended, a lot of people are going to be saying, "Yeah, I figured
that out, sorta, but I needed to find more than was actually there. I
expected more. I want more. I demand more, and if you're not going to
give it to me, well, I prefer inventing it myself over allowing the best
TV show that's ever been to fizzle into nothing."
I come down courageously on both sides of the argument. I think the
silent darkness indicates Tony got whacked. I also think the ending is
deliberately ambiguous about who did it and how and why. To me that
part doesn't matter and is best left unexplained. I don't need to know
whether the guy in the Members Only jacket found a gun hidden in the
toilet or whether the Cub Scouts were packing heat and I certainly don't
need to know whether Paulie was involved. I just don't care. Tony led
a dangerous life and it caught up with him, just as he'd always
suspected in the back of his mind that it would.
Great ending -- ambiguous and neat at the same time. And if someday
David Chase denies that that's what he had in mind, well....
Mike Lepore
that the rest of us don't exist, we're only part of dream that he's having.
(And he writes books to persuade us that he's correct about this.
Why bother? :o)
Then the discussion about the final episode, "what really happened
after the camera stopped rolling", etc., began to merge with my
thoughts about the solipsist.
[Music from The Twilight Zone, please ....]
Wouldn't it be creepy if the characters in a TV show didn't
really exist, and they were only the result of actors reading
scripts?
Rev. Vegetable Lasagne
cogitosam
> On 2007-06-15 20:49:43 -0400,Daniel Joseph Min said:
>
> > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> > ...I mention this, because it seems that a lot of 'The Sopranos'
> > fans just don't seem to appreciate the sophistication of the
> > series. They hear the denotations, but miss the connotations.
> > Like the classic S&G tune, "people hearing without listening".
>
> > A most glaring example of hearing-impaired viewers, are those
> > who didn't understand that "T" got whacked, ergo cut to black.
>
> This is a most glaring example of a fan wanting certainty when Chase
> offered ambiguity.
I agree there is no absolute certainty in art, but there are degrees
of ambiguity, and the level of ambiguity can arguably be reduced by
sound arguments about what the artist likely meant. To reject that
task is to reject the point of art, which is that the mind of the
audience member attempts to become, to whatever degree possible,
temporarily congruent with the mind of the artist.
> > For some it took hours, even days, to figure it out, but most
> > of them have subsequently conceded that "Tony" got his brains
> > splattered all over the table, by the guy in the members-only
> > jacket, coming heavy out of the Men's room. T was distracted
> > by Meadow's synchronous, last-second entrance into Holsten's,
> > bell ringing--one magic bullet--another angel gets its wings.
>
> Most of who? regtulars here on ATS seem to be leaning to the ambiguity
> of the ending in my reading.
My impression is that many of the more angry and hostile members think
that, and I'm quoting, "Chase whacked the audience." This has no
meaning, and should most often likely be best translated, "I did not
get the ending I wanted, so Chase meant nothing with the ending." I
reject this, and strongly.
> > But for those who still believe that "Tony Soprano" is still
> > alive after the finale, look at the bright side. Whatever you
> > misunderstood during this mortal incarnation of yours, you'll
> > still have eternity to figure things like this out (again) in
> > your immortal soul's future incarnations.
>
> Your smugness is showing.
>
> Gandolfini himself has said he doesn't know if Tony got whacked or not.
> Too bad your smug self-satisfaction is not available to speed him along
> on his karmic journey.
Well if consideration of such sources applies to this answer, one must
now ask you, did you see the interview with Matt Servitto after the
screening for the cast and crew? Do you know what he said on the
subject?
> > The seeds have been
> > planted by the brilliant David Chase. And he's right, when he
> > recently said: "Anybody who wants to watch it, it's all there."
>
> The seeds he planted are representative of one of the biggest
> signature differences of the show: ambiguity.
>
> Those who insist on a neat ending have not been watching very closely.
It's not a neat ending at all. But it is overwhelmingly brilliant.
And devastating.
> But that's offered as my opinion, not a universal truth.
That's good. Always keep an open mind to better arguments that might
come along, and arguments that might seem better on further learning
and reflection.
justanothe...@yahoo.com
Paranoid much, kid? This is a kid who can't even post a real email
address and requests that google not archive his posts after six days.
Don't blame me if people are too stupid to post personal info on the
net.
John Doherty
> John Doherty wrote:
>
>>
>> The seeds he planted are representative of one of the biggest
>> signature differences of the show: ambiguity.
>>
>> Those who insist on a neat ending have not been watching very closely.
On 2007-06-26 22:43:18 -0400, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> said:
>>
>
> In my estimation the end is whatever David Chase says it is. The
> Sopranos is his creation, after all.
>
> If, on this subject, he keeps his lips sealed to his grave, then
> without a doubt the fans can keep debating the outcome as long as there
> are fans around who care.
>
> But suppose someday he comes clean and says, "Look folks, I gave you
> all the clues you needed, all the foreshadowing, all the signs. I laid
> it on thick. It was THE LAST SUPPER, you dumbasses, complete with
> communion! And to top it all off, I didn't just cut to the credits --
> I gave you eleven seconds of darkness and silence! Does that mean
> NOTHING to you? What are you, dense or something? I have to show you
> brains spattered everywhere for you to get it? What part of black
> silence don't you understand? He's morally, ethically, spiritually,
> physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably DEAD!"
There were plenty of hits that Tony might get hit, but never on the
history of the show have we had a hit that ended with hints of it.
There is nothing to prevent Chase from revisiting the character if he
has a sea change about it (creatively and/or financially;-).
>
> So what do you do then -- argue with David Chase? Tell him he didn't
> make himself clear?
Of course not. If Chase later says he meant to imply Tony's death, that
carries a lot more weight that the proclamations of Mr. Min.
Then we can argue why he rolled it into such a layered mess of ambiguity. ;-)
But frankly, I don't expect him to go on record to resolve the
ambiguity, since he has stated repeatedly that ambiguity is the soul of
what he's up , in part.
> Feign surprise and tell him you watched it all ten times and still
> didn't notice any signs and portents? Tell him that if he wanted
> people to understand what he was saying, he should have spelled it out
> in plain English? Face it: if Chase says he intended for people to
> conclude Tony got whacked, a lot of people are going to be saying,
> "Yeah, I figured that out, sorta, but I wanted to hold out hope for a
> movie." Or something like that.
Whatever he intended was not "clear" to much of thoise people involced
in its production.
>
> But suppose Chase says, "You people are hilarious. Where are you
> coming up with all these phony baloney DaVinci Code dramatic auguries?
> You're carrying on like a Kennedy assassination convention collided
> with a UFOlogists retreat. Trust me, all this crazy stuff you're
> seeing is a figment of your imagination. Sure, there was a little Last
> Supper imagery right there at the end, but that's simply because it was
> THE END -- the end of the show!
There was also a "Last Supper" earlier this season with Nacy Sinatra- a
far more traditional looking one, at that.
>
> I come down courageously on both sides of the argument. I think the
> silent darkness indicates Tony got whacked. I also think the ending is
> deliberately ambiguous about who did it and how and why. To me that
> part doesn't matter and is best left unexplained. I don't need to know
> whether the guy in the Members Only jacket found a gun hidden in the
> toilet or whether the Cub Scouts were packing heat and I certainly
> don't need to know whether Paulie was involved. I just don't care.
> Tony led a dangerous life and it caught up with him, just as he'd
> always suspected in the back of his mind that it would.
>
> Great ending -- ambiguous and neat at the same time. And if someday
> David Chase denies that that's what he had in mind, well....
He's always been great for holding two opposing viewpoints in his head.
John Doherty
>
>> On 2007-06-15 20:49:43 -0400,Daniel Joseph Min said:
>>
>>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>
>>> ...I mention this, because it seems that a lot of 'The Sopranos'
>>> fans just don't seem to appreciate the sophistication of the
>>> series. They hear the denotations, but miss the connotations.
>>> Like the classic S&G tune, "people hearing without listening".
>>
>>> A most glaring example of hearing-impaired viewers, are those
>>> who didn't understand that "T" got whacked, ergo cut to black.
> On Jun 26, 7:53 pm, John Doherty <jgnospamdohe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> This is a most glaring example of a fan wanting certainty when Chase
>> offered ambiguity.
On 2007-06-27 02:56:58 -0400, cogitosam <cogi...@earthlink.net> said:
>
> I agree there is no absolute certainty in art, but there are degrees
> of ambiguity, and the level of ambiguity can arguably be reduced by
> sound arguments about what the artist likely meant. To reject that
> task is to reject the point of art, which is that the mind of the
> audience member attempts to become, to whatever degree possible,
> temporarily congruent with the mind of the artist.
What if "the point of art" is ambiguity itself? Chase has repeatedly
said it is in "The Sopranos". some things happen, and sometimes we
don't know why they happened. Other things might and might not happen,
and we never find out if they did.
That is a much more close parallel to our everyday lives than the
standard "Law & Order" script, for instance.
>
>>> For some it took hours, even days, to figure it out, but most
>>> of them have subsequently conceded that "Tony" got his brains
>>> splattered all over the table, by the guy in the members-only
>>> jacket, coming heavy out of the Men's room. T was distracted
>>> by Meadow's synchronous, last-second entrance into Holsten's,
>>> bell ringing--one magic bullet--another angel gets its wings.
>>
>> Most of who? regtulars here on ATS seem to be leaning to the ambiguity
>> of the ending in my reading.
>
> My impression is that many of the more angry and hostile members think
> that, and I'm quoting, "Chase whacked the audience." This has no
> meaning, and should most often likely be best translated, "I did not
> get the ending I wanted, so Chase meant nothing with the ending." I
> reject this, and strongly.
I've found many of the people who were distrubed by the ending have
come around (sometimes grudgingly) to accepting it, and even admiring
it.
>
>>> But for those who still believe that "Tony Soprano" is still
>>> alive after the finale, look at the bright side. Whatever you
>>> misunderstood during this mortal incarnation of yours, you'll
>>> still have eternity to figure things like this out (again) in
>>> your immortal soul's future incarnations.
>>
>> Your smugness is showing.
>>
>> Gandolfini himself has said he doesn't know if Tony got whacked or not.
>> Too bad your smug self-satisfaction is not available to speed him along
>> on his karmic journey.
>
> Well if consideration of such sources applies to this answer, one must
> now ask you, did you see the interview with Matt Servitto after the
> screening for the cast and crew? Do you know what he said on the
> subject?
I heard him say that there was more that happened, that Chase did not
show. But that's akin to saying there's a face beneath another in an
old painting. It's interesting in a a scholarly way, but the painting
we see on the wall is the one we must judge for what it's worth.
I enjoy encountering Beatle bootlegs (& the new Love soundtrack , for
that matter), for instance, but the versions they released during their
careers are the official ones.
>
>>> The seeds have been
>>> planted by the brilliant David Chase. And he's right, when he
>>> recently said: "Anybody who wants to watch it, it's all there."
>>
>> The seeds he planted are representative of one of the biggest
>> signature differences of the show: ambiguity.
>>
>> Those who insist on a neat ending have not been watching very closely.
>
> It's not a neat ending at all. But it is overwhelmingly brilliant.
> And devastating.
>
>> But that's offered as my opinion, not a universal truth.
>
> That's good. Always keep an open mind to better arguments that might
> come along, and arguments that might seem better on further learning
> and reflection.
I try to. Chase's Sopranos is the gift that keeps on giving, if you
keep on watching.
Bill Anderson
>
>
>> John Doherty wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> The seeds he planted are representative of one of the biggest
>>> signature differences of the show: ambiguity.
>>>
>>> Those who insist on a neat ending have not been watching very closely.
>
> On 2007-06-26 22:43:18 -0400, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com>
> said:
>>>
He's morally, ethically, spiritually,
>> physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably DEAD!"
>
Well, OK. But does that constitute some sort of rule? Since it's never
happened before, you think it's just impossible for it to happen at the
end? Why are you so sure?
>
> There is nothing to prevent Chase from revisiting the character if he
> has a sea change about it (creatively and/or financially;-).
A "sea change," eh? So we do agree the implication is that Tony got
whacked and any deviation from that would be a reversal?
You do raise an interesting point, in my mind anyway. How would I react
to an announcement a year or two from now that Chase and the entire cast
(the ones who haven't been whacked, anyway) have been lured back to the
Sopranos by some ungodly huge gazillion-dollar offer from an HBO
desperate to regain viewership? I'll tell you how I'd react -- I'd feel
cheated. I'd feel like Chase didn't give a crap about me or you or his
masterpiece. I'd be figuratively sickened. Maybe even literally, a
little bit. I feel confident Chase will never ever revisit the
Sopranos. I think he has enough integrity (and enough money) to leave
his Sopranos legacy intact. Conan Doyle gave himself enough wiggle room
at Reichenbach Falls to resurrect Sherlock Holmes believably. But David
Chase ENDED the Sopranos in that 10 (11?) second blackout. That was it.
It was over. Done. Finished. Kaput. And a mighty fine end it was.
Now be honest -- after all the Last Supper and other death imagery in
the final episodes of the Sopranos, would you, John Doherty, welcome a
subsequent scene in which Tony, Carmela, AJ and Meadow chow down on
cheeseburgers and the rest of the onion rings and pay the check and walk
out of Holsten's to continue life where they left off? Would that be
acceptable to you? Wouldn't you rant as I would that the show is no
longer worth my time; that it cheats; that it's become a joke; that it's
at least as shallow as the saga of Paris Hilton?
>
> Whatever he intended was not "clear" to much of those people involved
> in its production.
Well, I hope somebody asks them again, now that they've had a couple of
weeks or more to think about it as we have. I suspect (somebody correct
me if I'm wrong) that most of those people involved in its production
saw the final product at exactly the same time the rest of us did. My
interpretation of the end has morphed just a little bit since the
evening of June 10, and I suspect yours has too. Why not the people
involved in its production?
>>
>> Great ending -- ambiguous and neat at the same time. And if someday
>> David Chase denies that that's what he had in mind, well....
>
> He's always been great for holding two opposing viewpoints in his head.
Apparently more was filmed there at the end. Meadow got hit by a car or
something. Maybe Chase filmed that just to throw the people involved in
the show's production off the scent. Or maybe he's saving that scene to
start a new season someday, if he ever goes broke. I dunno. But if he
does that, I'll be pissed. I can't say I'll be so pissed that I won't
watch, but I really will be pissed. Something tells me that you will be
too. C'mon, admit it.
Rich DellaRosa
Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Conan Doyle gave himself enough wiggle room
> at Reichenbach Falls to resurrect Sherlock Holmes believably.
Whoa. Doyle killed off Holmes because he was tired of writing the short
stories for the Strand Magazine. At that point he vowed never to write
another one. He was interested in writing other novels and short stories
(e.g. The Lost World). However, the public reaction to him killing off
Holmes at Reichenbach Falls overwhelmed him and he gave in and resumed
the Holmes stories. I have never read that Doyle intentionally left
himself any wiggle room. I suppose if Doyle were alive today perhaps he
would recover by having Watson dream the whole episode in Switzerland.
I still believe that David Chase brought us 86 episodes of the Sopranos
and we followed the family through their many travails. But -- at the
end the family would continue on -- we just would no longer be able to
watch them. So instead of some sappy ending or some climactic arc he
simply pulled the plug abruptly -- turn out the lights, the party's over!
Tony is still running the Jersey mob, Meadow is still whining, AJ has
sold his principles and has become materialistic, and Carmela -- well
she continues to pretend she doesn't notice any of it.
Bill Anderson
> In article <5KOdnT4aY7uScB_b...@rcn.net>,
> Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> Conan Doyle gave himself enough wiggle room
>> at Reichenbach Falls to resurrect Sherlock Holmes believably.
>
> Whoa. Doyle killed off Holmes because he was tired of writing the short
> stories for the Strand Magazine. At that point he vowed never to write
> another one. He was interested in writing other novels and short stories
> (e.g. The Lost World). However, the public reaction to him killing off
> Holmes at Reichenbach Falls overwhelmed him and he gave in and resumed
> the Holmes stories. I have never read that Doyle intentionally left
> himself any wiggle room. I suppose if Doyle were alive today perhaps he
> would recover by having Watson dream the whole episode in Switzerland.
OK, Doyle didn't leave himself any wiggle room. He killed Holmes
definitively -- so thoroughly dead he could never come back.
Wait, that's not right ....
>
> I still believe that David Chase brought us 86 episodes of the Sopranos
> and we followed the family through their many travails. But -- at the
> end the family would continue on -- we just would no longer be able to
> watch them. So instead of some sappy ending or some climactic arc he
> simply pulled the plug abruptly -- turn out the lights, the party's over!
>
> Tony is still running the Jersey mob, Meadow is still whining, AJ has
> sold his principles and has become materialistic, and Carmela -- well
> she continues to pretend she doesn't notice any of it.
That either.
Rich DellaRosa
Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Rich DellaRosa wrote:
> > In article <5KOdnT4aY7uScB_b...@rcn.net>,
> > Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Conan Doyle gave himself enough wiggle room
> >> at Reichenbach Falls to resurrect Sherlock Holmes believably.
> >
> > Whoa. Doyle killed off Holmes because he was tired of writing the short
> > stories for the Strand Magazine. At that point he vowed never to write
> > another one. He was interested in writing other novels and short stories
> > (e.g. The Lost World). However, the public reaction to him killing off
> > Holmes at Reichenbach Falls overwhelmed him and he gave in and resumed
> > the Holmes stories. I have never read that Doyle intentionally left
> > himself any wiggle room. I suppose if Doyle were alive today perhaps he
> > would recover by having Watson dream the whole episode in Switzerland.
>
> OK, Doyle didn't leave himself any wiggle room. He killed Holmes
> definitively -- so thoroughly dead he could never come back.
>
> Wait, that's not right ....
Consider it damage control. Unless you can cite a reference that Doyle
killed off Holmes with a plan to bring him back at a later time. The
books I've read indicate otherwise. BTW I'm not trying to be hostile --
I meant no offense. Honest.
Rev. Vegetable Lasagne
1DBDD5.222...@johnf2.biosci.ohio-state.edu:
>
> Consider it damage control. Unless you can cite a reference that Doyle
> killed off Holmes with a plan to bring him back at a later time. The
> books I've read indicate otherwise. BTW I'm not trying to be hostile --
> I meant no offense. Honest.
>
>
You don't have to apologize. This is usenet.
John Doherty
> John Doherty wrote:
>>
>>
>>> John Doherty wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The seeds he planted are representative of one of the biggest
>>>> signature differences of the show: ambiguity.
>>>>
>>>> Those who insist on a neat ending have not been watching very closely.
>>
>> On 2007-06-26 22:43:18 -0400, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> said:
>>>>
> He's morally, ethically, spiritually,
>>> physically, positively, absolutely, undeniably and reliably DEAD!"
>>
>> There were plenty of hints that Tony might get hit, but never on the
>> history of the show have we had a hit that ended with hints of it.
>
> Well, OK. But does that constitute some sort of rule? Since it's
> never happened before, you think it's just impossible for it to happen
> at the end? Why are you so sure?
But that's the thing-- I'm not.
I say the ending is intentiionally ambiguous.
The people who advocate he definitely got killed or he definitely lived
are the ones who are "so sure".
>
>>
>> There is nothing to prevent Chase from revisiting the character if he
>> has a sea change about it (creatively and/or financially;-).
>
> A "sea change," eh? So we do agree the implication is that Tony got
> whacked and any deviation from that would be a reversal?
no. see above.
If he ever revisits the Sopranos, I bet it will be because he has
something new to say about these characters, something he has not said
yet.
If he does, let's hope it's not Godfather 3 redux.;-)
But I won't feel cheated, in that he left the end of the series
ambiguous. Maybe the more sure you are that he got whacked, the more
you will feel cheated if Time & Chase allows a film of some kind.
Can I presume you wouldn't feel cheated by a prequel that dealt with
Johnny Boy & Junior in their heyday?
cogitosam
> >> On 2007-06-15 20:49:43 -0400,Daniel Joseph Min said:
>
> >>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> >>> ...I mention this, because it seems that a lot of 'The Sopranos'
> >>> fans just don't seem to appreciate the sophistication of the
> >>> series. They hear the denotations, but miss the connotations.
> >>> Like the classic S&G tune, "people hearing without listening".
>
> >>> A most glaring example of hearing-impaired viewers, are those
> >>> who didn't understand that "T" got whacked, ergo cut to black.
> > On Jun 26, 7:53 pm, John Doherty <jgnospamdohe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >> This is a most glaring example of a fan wanting certainty when Chase
> >> offered ambiguity.
>
>
>
>
> > I agree there is no absolute certainty in art, but there are degrees
> > of ambiguity, and the level of ambiguity can arguably be reduced by
> > sound arguments about what the artist likely meant. To reject that
> > task is to reject the point of art, which is that the mind of the
> > audience member attempts to become, to whatever degree possible,
> > temporarily congruent with the mind of the artist.
>
> What if "the point of art" is ambiguity itself? Chase has repeatedly
> said it is in "The Sopranos". some things happen, and sometimes we
> don't know why they happened. Other things might and might not happen,
> and we never find out if they did.
>
> That is a much more close parallel to our everyday lives than the
> standard "Law & Order" script, for instance.
I agree with these points. There may indeed be intentional ambiguity,
and it's very much a part of Chase's work, and his genius, in this
series. But not every subtle flourish is intended to remain in the
limbo of >permanent< ambiguity. Chase's challenge seems to ask us to
work the problem. Think. You don't say, "It's all there," without it
being a challenge with a purpose.
> >>> For some it took hours, even days, to figure it out, but most
> >>> of them have subsequently conceded that "Tony" got his brains
> >>> splattered all over the table, by the guy in the members-only
> >>> jacket, coming heavy out of the Men's room. T was distracted
> >>> by Meadow's synchronous, last-second entrance into Holsten's,
> >>> bell ringing--one magic bullet--another angel gets its wings.
>
> >> Most of who? regtulars here on ATS seem to be leaning to the ambiguity
> >> of the ending in my reading.
>
> > My impression is that many of the more angry and hostile members think
> > that, and I'm quoting, "Chase whacked the audience." This has no
> > meaning, and should most often likely be best translated, "I did not
> > get the ending I wanted, so Chase meant nothing with the ending." I
> > reject this, and strongly.
>
> I've found many of the people who were distrubed by the ending have
> come around (sometimes grudgingly) to accepting it, and even admiring
> it.
That's often the case with great art. People angrily stormed out of
the first performances of "The Rite of Spring" and "2001: A Space
Odyssey." The anger over Chase not making easy plot points, and over
his flourish of an ending, seem to be similar reactions that turn
around for many.
> >>> But for those who still believe that "Tony Soprano" is still
> >>> alive after the finale, look at the bright side. Whatever you
> >>> misunderstood during this mortal incarnation of yours, you'll
> >>> still have eternity to figure things like this out (again) in
> >>> your immortal soul's future incarnations.
>
> >> Your smugness is showing.
>
> >> Gandolfini himself has said he doesn't know if Tony got whacked or not.
> >> Too bad your smug self-satisfaction is not available to speed him along
> >> on his karmic journey.
>
> > Well if consideration of such sources applies to this answer, one must
> > now ask you, did you see the interview with Matt Servitto after the
> > screening for the cast and crew? Do you know what he said on the
> > subject?
>
> I heard him say that there was more that happened, that Chase did not
> show. But that's akin to saying there's a face beneath another in an
> old painting. It's interesting in a a scholarly way, but the painting
> we see on the wall is the one we must judge for what it's worth.
True, and in a sense it might be analogous (to me at least) to
Leonardo reducing the smile on the final brush strokes of "La
Gioconda," and then our reading an account of someone who saw the
earlier version. In a very real way I was saddened to actually hear
what Servitto had to say. I couldn't overstate how happy I am that I
formed my own conclusion (bullet, not Junior's "boot," in Tony's ear)
long before hearing his words. I'd eliminate that tape from the world
if I could, actually, because for those who want to be spoon-fed,
who'd rather not experience art, think, and find the truth hidden
inside, his unfortunate words could give them what they want. I'd
much rather people think about the ambiguous words, "It's all there"
and see them as a challenge to find their own answer.
> I enjoy encountering Beatle bootlegs (& the new Love soundtrack , for
> that matter), for instance, but the versions they released during their
> careers are the official ones.
I appreciate that point.
>
> >>> The seeds have been
> >>> planted by the brilliant David Chase. And he's right, when he
> >>> recently said: "Anybody who wants to watch it, it's all there."
>
> >> The seeds he planted are representative of one of the biggest
> >> signature differences of the show: ambiguity.
>
> >> Those who insist on a neat ending have not been watching very closely.
>
> > It's not a neat ending at all. But it is overwhelmingly brilliant.
> > And devastating.
>
> >> But that's offered as my opinion, not a universal truth.
>
> > That's good. Always keep an open mind to better arguments that might
> > come along, and arguments that might seem better on further learning
> > and reflection.
>
> I try to. Chase's Sopranos is the gift that keeps on giving, if you
> keep on watching.
I strongly agree. As I've said, in terms of film art (I know that
it's "TV" but it's cinema to me) the only thing I can compare it to
is the density of symbolic and motific content of the work of
legendary directors like Kubrick.
Bill Anderson
The Reverend is right as always. But Usenet does resemble real life in
a few ways, so I'll just say that if I seemed hostile I assure you I
meant no offense either. I just stated the obvious -- Doyle left the
door open to bring back Holmes. He didn't put Holmes in a coffin; he
didn't describe the lifeless body washing up downstream; he didn't
describe the death of Holmes unequivocally. Those are just facts. I
wonder if Holmes fans a century ago were universally delighted to learn
Sherlock Holmes wasn't as dead as they'd been led to believe? My guess
is that they were simply appreciative.
For me, though, the end of the Sopranos is another matter entirely.
I've read the tea leaves, consulted the oracle, and sifted through the
evidence provided. And I've concluded Chase is telling us through
allegory that Tony is dead. If he turns up alive someday, it'll mean
David Chase was just messing with my head, and I was wasting my time by
giving him too much credit for a brilliant series conclusion. And as I
mentioned before, I'll be pissed.
John Doherty
>
> .... I've read the tea leaves, consulted the oracle, and sifted through
> the evidence provided. And I've concluded Chase is telling us through
> allegory that Tony is dead. If he turns up alive someday, it'll mean
> David Chase was just messing with my head, and I was wasting my time by
> giving him too much credit for a brilliant series conclusion. And as I
> mentioned before, I'll be pissed.
But accepting the ending as ambiguous does not in any way detract from
its brilliance for me.
Plenty of people are grasping at straws to insist that Chase clearly
meant that Tony's life ends there, in a way that people can see the
Virgin Mary on a tortilla chip. ;-)
I'll grant he put plenty into that last scene that ratcheted up the
tension, and made us think "surely some revelation is at hand". ;-)
But then, whoomp! There it wasn't...
show's over , and life goes "on and on and on and on" as the song says.
Or maybe it didn't?
And that's fine for the world he showed us.
He said repeatedly he did not want to show the standard arc of criminal
life, as per Movies 101: the Rise & Fall of the Gangster. What you
insist must have happened is the ending he always said he would never
do.
Crime does pay sometimes, and good people die long before bad ones many
times. scumbags like Ralphie (yes, and Tony!) go on forever because
they're "good earners". Remember it wasn't Ralphie's arbitrarily
killing Tracee that got him killed, but because Tony thought he had
killed defenseless animal.
Rich DellaRosa
John Doherty <jgnospa...@comcast.net> wrote:
Absolutely correct IMO. Additionally Melfi discovered that the hardcore
criminals often display affection for babies and pets to convince
themselves that they are basically "good guys" in their own minds. So
Tony felt affection initially for the ducks and then later for the
horse. Cooking Pie-oh-my was all the reason Tony needed to whack
Ralphie -- and when he was doing it I'll bet no one was rooting for
Ralph -- he was so despicable.
--
_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/
http://www.jfkresearch.com
Bill Anderson
> On 2007-06-30 21:54:17 -0400, Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com>
> said:
>
>>
>> .... I've read the tea leaves, consulted the oracle, and sifted
>> through the evidence provided. And I've concluded Chase is telling us
>> through allegory that Tony is dead. If he turns up alive someday,
>> it'll mean David Chase was just messing with my head, and I was
>> wasting my time by giving him too much credit for a brilliant series
>> conclusion. And as I mentioned before, I'll be pissed.
>
>
> But accepting the ending as ambiguous does not in any way detract from
> its brilliance for me.
>
> Plenty of people are grasping at straws to insist that Chase clearly
> meant that Tony's life ends there, in a way that people can see the
> Virgin Mary on a tortilla chip. ;-)
No, no, no. I hope I can make my case below.
>
> I'll grant he put plenty into that last scene that ratcheted up the
> tension, and made us think "surely some revelation is at hand". ;-)
>
> But then, whoomp! There it wasn't...
>
> show's over , and life goes "on and on and on and on" as the song says.
>
> Or maybe it didn't?
>
> And that's fine for the world he showed us.
>
> He said repeatedly he did not want to show the standard arc of criminal
> life, as per Movies 101: the Rise & Fall of the Gangster. What you
> insist must have happened is the ending he always said he would never do.
>
> Crime does pay sometimes, and good people die long before bad ones many
> times. scumbags like Ralphie (yes, and Tony!) go on forever because
> they're "good earners". Remember it wasn't Ralphie's arbitrarily killing
> Tracee that got him killed, but because Tony thought he had killed
> defenseless animal.
>
John, I hope you'll take what I'm about to say as a compliment, because
that's how it's intended, no matter how backhanded it may seem.
Of all the people I've encountered on this newsgroup over the past few
years, you are the person I'd consider most likely to embrace the final
episode (really, the final series of episodes) as a delightful and
challenging puzzle to be solved. I am astonished that you of all people
are willing to accept the end as ambiguous -- so ambiguous in fact that
you think the door has actually been left open for the return of Tony
Soprano.
I'm almost embarrassed to tell you how much I looked forward to your
weekly summaries because I could always count on you to spot literary
and pop culture references that had sailed right over my head. You
regularly pointed out that the Sopranos was a rich banquet of allusion
and double meanings -- so much more than just another entertaining tale
of the mob.
So now we have the culmination of all that's gone before, and you seem
to be resisting acknowledgment of what I genuinely believe is right
there before our eyes. No need to list all the signs and portents again
-- you know what I'm talking about.
Obviously Tony Soprano neither lived nor died -- he's a fictional
character. When we talk about his supposed "death," we're using
shorthand to discuss what Chase had in mind; what, if anything, he
wished to imply about Tony's fictional future or lack of it.
I contend that Chase really is as brilliant as you've always said he is.
I think it's perfectly conceivable that he would enjoy crafting an
ending that's satisfyingly ambiguous for those who enjoy the Sopranos on
a superficial level for its intrigues and violence, but satisfyingly
conclusive for those who enjoy digging deeper.
So sure, I understand that I've just affirmed there's more than one way
to interpret the ending of the Sopranos. Maybe that's what you have in
mind when you argue that the end is ambiguous? Well, I agree -- of
course; on a superficial level the ending of the Sopranos is ambiguous.
But I also argue that Chase didn't throw in all his Last Supper
allusions just for funsies. I think he threw them in to satisfy people
who like to dig, who actually enjoyed the dream episodes, who liked to
ponder deeper meanings for the beacons and the bells and the ducks and
all the rest. People like you.
Chase gave me an ending I've been able to wallow in for, what is it now,
three weeks already? What a rich reward he has given me for investing
so much time over the years in this show. I am grateful to him for the
Holsten's sequence and everything that led up to it. I love a puzzle.
I liked "Carnivale" almost as much as the Sopranos because of the
central puzzle. I enjoy the Jeremy Brett "Sherlock Holmes" stories
because they just revel in puzzles. I enjoyed "Memento." I enjoyed
"The Usual Suspects." "Angel Heart." "Rear Window." You name it -- if
there's an intriguing puzzle, I want to get involved.
But a puzzle is no good unless there's a solution. I think Chase gave
people like me a solution. If anybody is happier without one, well, he
accomodated those people too. It's an ambiguous ending. It's not
ambiguous at all. Take your pick.
I gotta admit, though, that you've surprised me with what you've picked.
cogitosam
That's a great post, and I agree with almost every point made. On the
subject of whether Tony's sudden death completes a story arc, as to
tie it up with a bow, I don't think that is the case. It's more a
case of pulling the rug out from under the story, just as can happen
in the life of a criminal, just as described by Bobby. It also, as
depicted, takes a hammer and nicely shatters Tony's self-aggrandizing
notions of an afterlife (from the coma or from peyote).
Tony Harding
> Tony Harding wrote:
>
> You're out of here.
>
> *PLONK*
Plonk away shit for brains. :)
John Doherty
>
> John, I hope you'll take what I'm about to say as a compliment, because
> that's how it's intended, no matter how backhanded it may seem.
I'm never offended by a different take.
>
> Of all the people I've encountered on this newsgroup over the past few
> years, you are the person I'd consider most likely to embrace the final
> episode (really, the final series of episodes) as a delightful and
> challenging puzzle to be solved. I am astonished that you of all
> people are willing to accept the end as ambiguous -- so ambiguous in
> fact that you think the door has actually been left open for the return
> of Tony Soprano.
Here's the rub: you grant that I am an intelligent and careful observer
of this show, and yet you have convinced yourself that Chase has
pointed the way to only one semi-obvious implie ending, for careful
observers of the show.
I beg to differ, and that sort of belies your point, no?
> I contend that Chase really is as brilliant as you've always said he
> is. I think it's perfectly conceivable that he would enjoy crafting
> an ending that's satisfyingly ambiguous for those who enjoy the
> Sopranos on a superficial level for its intrigues and violence, but
> satisfyingly conclusive for those who enjoy digging deeper.
This is where your wrong- the conclusion you reach is not limited to
those who watch on a deeper level. There's plenty of "surface swimmers"
who feel that Tony got whacked.
And there are plenty of careful observers who feel that it's
intentionally ambiguous on Chase's part, though he did put in plenty of
signs pointing toward doom.
>
> But I also argue that Chase didn't throw in all his Last Supper
> allusions just for funsies. I think he threw them in to satisfy people
> who like to dig, who actually enjoyed the dream episodes, who liked to
> ponder deeper meanings for the beacons and the bells and the ducks and
> all the rest. People like you.
Yes, but, the most obvious "Last Supper" reference was Phil's
coronation, and Pop Pop did go Bye Bye. The Holstens' ones were less
obvious, IMO.
>
> Chase gave me an ending I've been able to wallow in for, what is it
> now, three weeks already? What a rich reward he has given me for
> investing so much time over the years in this show. I am grateful to
> him for the Holsten's sequence and everything that led up to it. I
> love a puzzle. I liked "Carnivale" almost as much as the Sopranos
> because of the central puzzle. I enjoy the Jeremy Brett "Sherlock
> Holmes" stories because they just revel in puzzles. I enjoyed
> "Memento." I enjoyed "The Usual Suspects." "Angel Heart." "Rear
> Window." You name it -- if there's an intriguing puzzle, I want to get
> involved.
>
> But a puzzle is no good unless there's a solution. I think Chase gave
> people like me a solution. If anybody is happier without one, well, he
> accomodated those people too. It's an ambiguous ending. It's not
> ambiguous at all. Take your pick.
There's plenty of stuff in the Sopranos deeper meaning that is just
there for what it is-- it doesn't lead elsewhere, or to a neat
conclusion.