The Sopranos

by **PTOITWCFTPP** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 09:10:53

He's fucking dead. Leave the man alone

by **TenuredVulture** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:20:26

Chase left the ending ambiguous on purpose. In Chase's own mind Tony may be definitely alive or definitely dead, but I kind of doubt it. The important question to ask is, "why is the ending ambiguous?" The need for "closure" is something unsophisticated people impose on stories they read or watch, and most narratives oblige them.

by **Grotewold** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:22:59

TenuredVulture wrote:The need for "closure" is something unsophisticated people impose on stories they read or watch, and most narratives oblige them.

I generally agree but think that's unfair to the viewers in this case. If they just had a normal family meal before the credits rolled, fine. But that was an extremely tense scene that abruptly cut to black

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:23:25

it's not ambiguous and he's said it's not ambiguous

feel like most of the people who hang on to the idea that we don't know if he's dead or not just don't feel like taking the time to read the analyses

by **sydnor** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:34:17

I felt Sepinwall's answer on whether or not he was dead in the e-book he wrote (no, he's not dead because there's no one who wanted to kill him and the show never solely showed things from Tony's perspective so you can't just say it was something we weren't privy to) was way more compelling than the masters Sopranos thing. I take issue with the idea that this was "intentional allusions of death" as I feel that a lot of what was cited as intentional reads a horoscope or one of those personality tests where things are left vague that you can read it whichever way you're determined to read it to fit your theory.

Housh, I think he's not dead. But if Chase had said "Yeah, he's dead", I wouldn't have been surprised and said that was unsupported by the final scene. So, to me, that means it is kind of ambiguous.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:38:49

I haven't read Greenwald's book but... no one wanted to kill Tony? that's preposterous, right?

by **sydnor** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:45:49

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I haven't read Greenwald's book but... no one wanted to kill Tony? that's preposterous, right?

No, it's not at all. He had made peace with Butchie and New York, there was no internal candidates given most of his team was dead and anyone else would have been too duex ex machina in that they hadn't laid out the why (I mean when Phil decided to hit the Soprano's crew, there was a whole scene dedicated to it). I don't have a way to copy paste the relevant piece and I think any paraphrasing wouldn't do it justice and just get you more riled up. But Sepinwall is not a literal guy, very thoughtful and often goes to the artsy/foreshadowing side more often than not, so I found his explanation pretty credible.

edit: is Greenwald a typo or are we talking about two separate books?

by **Bucky** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:47:04

It's not ambiguous because the series quite literally ends with Tony still alive. The "foreshadowing" is just fuel for own own morality judgments. The point is not whether he lived not died after the cut (because neither happened) but rather the conflicts it creates within the viewers. So Chase has said that: 1- it's not ambiguous; 2- Tony is 'not dead'; 3- "that's not the point".

Pretty clear to me.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:53:34

I'm not riled up. Tony had screwed over dozens of enemies over the course of the show. many characters had gotten killed not knowing they were in any danger until they were killed. Ralph, Carmine Sr., and Johnny Sack all had moments where they were about to killed totally unknowingly - just because of the money concerns of other characters - before they were saved by a last minute phone call. we'd seen multiple times that "making peace" with someone only meant one or both parties discussing whether they would really kill them or not in the next scene. I'm sure Phil had other friends besides Butchie. and the guy in the Member's Only jacket is pretty much the archetype for the Italian assassin throughout the show. maybe a little less fat. heck, it makes a ton of sense to kill Tony and take over his turf when he has practically no family left

Greenwald was a typo

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:56:25

Bucky wrote:It's not ambiguous because the series quite literally ends with Tony still alive.

the ending is preceded by ten seconds of visual and audio blackout from Tony's point of view. maybe he just fainted

by **sydnor** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 10:58:36

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I'm not riled up. Tony had screwed over dozens of enemies over the course of the show. many characters had gotten killed not knowing they were in any danger until they were killed. Ralph, Carmine Sr., and Johnny Sack all had moments where they were about to killed totally unknowingly - just because of the money concerns of other characters - before they were saved by a last minute phone call. we'd seen multiple times that "making peace" with someone only meant one or both parties discussing whether they would really kill them or not in the next scene. I'm sure Phil had other friends besides Butchie. and the guy in the Member's Only jacket is pretty much the archetype for the Italian assassin throughout the show. maybe a little less fat. heck, it makes a ton of sense to kill Tony and take over his turf when he has practically no family left

Greenwald was a typo

Like I said, ambiguous, or a rorschach test. Those people who tend to see the art in tv shows (MadMen fans) tend to think he's dead, those who like plot-driven shows (24?) tend to think he's alive. Whatever.

by **momadance** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 11:48:52

Houshphandzadeh wrote:I haven't read Greenwald's book but... no one wanted to kill Tony? that's preposterous, right?

He took out a hit on the head of a NY family without permission. There's no way there wasn't a contract on his head.

by **Bucky** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 12:11:51

Houshphandzadeh wrote:
Bucky wrote:It's not ambiguous because the series quite literally ends with Tony still alive.

the ending is preceded by ten seconds of visual and audio blackout from Tony's point of view. maybe he just fainted

what we saw is exactly what happened...nothing. It was a palette & canvas for the viewer's imagination.

Maybe someday Chase will pull a carly simon and do a full explanation for charity auction or something

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 13:01:37

guess you think Shane lives at the end, too

by **Bucky** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 13:13:50

of course. He's on the DL now though so it's sort of a moot point

by **kopphanatic** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 21:43:40

Didn't he have Butchie's permission to whack Phil? Maybe Butchie got pissed about the way Phil died in front of his family. I always thought that the last episode gave glimpses about the possible different ends for Tony. We see Junior in the nut house, old, pretty much forgotten by most of his "friends". Tony could end up like that. There's the implication that Tony is about to be indicted and face serious jail time. And of course, there's the final scene that implies that Tony is about to be killed. If I had to pick a side, I would say T. died in the restaurant, but I think ambiguity is the best explanation.

by **EndlessSummer** » Thu Aug 28, 2014 22:22:46

I've always thought the ambiguity was the point. From the first episode, the show really seemed to be about how and why Tony had panic attacks and was so conflicted. And I think the entire series was constructed to put us in his POV for that final scene. On the surface, it's a scene the show normally wouldn't have even shown--it's a seemingly nice moment of a wealthy man with this family in a restaurant listening to a Journey song. But from everything we know of Tony, it instead puts us all in his headspace of anxiety and mistrust. I remember my heart racing the first time watching that scene, and I think it was made to show us that this awful conflict and anxiety is how every moment of Tony's life felt to him. To me, it's less about if he lives or dies in that scene, and more about the hell he endures pretty much every moment that he is alive.

Or shit, I dunno, maybe the Member's Only guy waxes him.

by **TenuredVulture** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 14:47:21

Tony's as dead as Paul McCartney.

by **Philly the Kid** » Sat Aug 30, 2014 15:06:57

EndlessSummer wrote:I've always thought the ambiguity was the point. From the first episode, the show really seemed to be about how and why Tony had panic attacks and was so conflicted. And I think the entire series was constructed to put us in his POV for that final scene. On the surface, it's a scene the show normally wouldn't have even shown--it's a seemingly nice moment of a wealthy man with this family in a restaurant listening to a Journey song. But from everything we know of Tony, it instead puts us all in his headspace of anxiety and mistrust. I remember my heart racing the first time watching that scene, and I think it was made to show us that this awful conflict and anxiety is how every moment of Tony's life felt to him. To me, it's less about if he lives or dies in that scene, and more about the hell he endures pretty much every moment that he is alive.

Or #$!&@, I dunno, maybe the Member's Only guy waxes him.

Wow. Great share.

by **Houshphandzadeh** » Wed Dec 03, 2014 11:40:37

thoughts on Bobby Bacala's dunk?

Archived

The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Re: The Sopranos

Quick Reply