So, this dude is claiming that AJ's girl, Rhiannon, inadverdently played a part in the demise of T, Carm, and AJ by revealing to Jason Parisi that the Sopranos would be dining at Halstons(sp?).

Without rehashing the entire theory, which is interesting (the significance of the cat/the Gervasi-Patrisi connection/the Last Supper references, blah, blah, blah) to say the least, he points out that Rhiannon was the only person outside of the family that knew about Carm changing the family's dinner plans. I see that, but I don't see any connect between Rhiannon and Jason.

What'd I miss? I know she used to kick it with/AJ's boy Hernan, and I guess it's possible that the Jasons were familiar w/that circle, but...she found out about Halstons, and for some reason revealed that to Jason, which he in turn revealed to his Dad, who in turn revealed that to New York in the course of a few hours?

no.

yupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupyupyup

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

and the Wire make me hate the Sopranos

and the wire has ruined the sopranos for me. i watch the show and im like, stop using a cell phone! get a burner. and why the fuck are you killing people with your bare hands? how the fuck is that part of the game? get your slim charles mofo in there and let him do the dirt.

jesus, couldn't tony afford hbo? just watch that shit, there are multiple shows that do what you do better than you do it.

pretend to be cats don't seem to know they limitations
exact replication and false representation

not even close. and not worthy of being mentioned along with the wire. that said, it is a good show. this season's been fire.

>that said, it is a good show. this season's been
>fire.

How many episodes into the current season did it start to get to that level?

started getting good towards the end of the first season. before that it was whatever. i'm enjoying the hell out of it, but it's still not worthy of being mentioned along side hbo's finest.

Damn. I should've binged on Season 1 in time for Season 2.

©


Dolby sound will be then top crowned, when I put the needle into your groove
I got a good thing...and in full swing

People are still trying to "explain" then ending that gave no explanation??

The show just ended.

The flashback...

the cat...

Silvio's brush w/death...

the use of POV at Halstens to set up the audience to ultimately see
Tony's death through his eyes...i.e., the black screen...

the choice of a song by Journey...

blah, blah, blah...it wasn't just David Chase pulling the plug.

Humans recognize patterns even when there are no patterns present.

u won't even bother to read a thorough analysis of the finale? and of the nature of the series as a whole? there's a link down there, click it. it helps explain things. but i think if u got a problem with the fundamental nature of how it ended (the blacking out), then no explanation is ever gonna satisfy you.

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayerâ„¢

There is no explanation needed. The show just ended. Period.

Nothing else happened.

You're a whiny-specualtiong-ass-fan-boy to come up with these complex "theories."

Believe what you want, but you only have theories. And each time a hole is brought to you attention you explain it away. jUst a a 9//1 "truther" or an Obama "birther" or a "moon landing fake"-er.


Now if Chase wants to "explain it" it may/may not change my thinking on this. But Rowlings "Dumbledore is gay" statements seems as bullshitty as the linked-to-dissertation length Wordpress post that basiclly says "Tony was killed because the screen - it went blank after a bell rang."

(Another example of this kind of thing: "Paul is dead.")

The theories aren't all that complex...no tri-lateral commission/Alex Jones/Behold A Pale Horse shit...

but it ended brilliantly...or at least interestingly...

A cat stares at the pic of Chris, even after Paulie moves it--the cat is associated w/murder--the cat follows Tony, so(enters the frame w/Paulie after T walks off)...murder is following Tony.

The flashback w/Bobby...a straight-forward description/foreshadowing of T's death...you won't hear anything...

Last Supper imagery w/the onion rings--Chase grew up catholic--not that much of a leap...the latin translation of the word for the eucharist/sacrament of the table/communion for those that are about to die is "Journey"...that's not a coincidence.

The POV pattern is clear if you just watch the ep--it is empirically verifiable...bell--what Tony sees--Tony's reaction--the pattern is evident, not a whole lot of imposition on the part of people looking for patterns...however, the fact that I was looking for one doesn't mean that Chase didn't put one in there...

Not all that deep...Tony got shot--hence the blackness.

It's the way that it was done that makes it so fascinating...at least to me.

Jesus Christ the fucking EUCHARIST????? Did the breading represent transubstantiation, or consubstantiation?? Did the ketchup the blood of Christ ?????!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?

M.C Paul Barman has this to say:
"Someone's psychotic. Someone took too much semiotics." "Furthermore," he thought, "Someone can tzuck my Tzadik"

But hey, if you thinks it's WAY clear and it makes sense to YOU , go for it.

"however, the fact that I was looking for one doesn't mean that Chase didn't put one in there..."

This is a logical fallacy. Just because YOU were LOOKING for one (the song playing is by a band named Journey , and death is a JOURNEY, so it means Tony is getting shot by the Member's Only Jacket guy - empirically - because epaulets look like a springboard - a spring board to the other side) doesn't mean that it is there.

But -don't stop believing.

IMHO - you can still keep yours (as long as you stop using the word EMPIRICALLY.)

Wow...empirically verifiable...



you can see a pattern...that's all that I'm saying...

If you watch the scene, you can see a particular sequence repeated...over...and over...again.

I really don't give a damn about the terminology...if my use of the term "empirical" is amusing to you...cool...swap it out...it happens over and over...whatever.

If you think this dude did 86 shows just to end it w/no explanation, then fine...that makes sense to you...go w/that...he is a writer, and all of a sudden, he just abandons the use of foreshadowing, symbolim, metaphor...and just ends it...fuck it...years and years of work...fade to black for no reason...okay.

You're right, that does make a whole lot more sense.

And of course, for me to say that my attempt to find an observable sequence of events doesn't necessarily negate the existence of such a sequence is a fallacy...gotcha...If I'm looking for logical connections then surely they can't be there...I'm imposing them where there are none.

You're right, that is airtight logic.

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20152845,00.html

Pull quote:
------
You know there were many people who thought the end was brilliant.

Sure. But I must say that even people who liked it misinterpreted it, to a certain extent. This wasn't really about ''leaving the door open.'' There was nothing definite about what happened, but there was a clean trend on view — a definite sense of what Tony and Carmela's future looks like. Whether it happened that night or some other night doesn't really matter.
------

I'm now convinced that DAVID CHASE doesn't know what the end meant exactly. I actually think he'd have killed Tony on screen if he didn't think the blood thristy fans of the show would have loved it. But he admits to leaving it open in that quote.

This was his way out WITHOUT having to actually write an ending.

Another quote:
------
You've said that you knew what the final scene would be for several years before it happened. What was the seed of the idea?

As I recall, it was just that Tony and his family would be in a diner having dinner and a guy would come in. Pretty much what you saw.
------

But I still don't by the POV stuff, and that Tony was killed at the moment the screen went black. The point-of-view roved through-out that scene and should have moved to someone else if Tony got whacked.

And the theories presented in the word-press post rely entirely too much on semiotics and assorted "pulled out of ass" examples. If it was 95% shorter I might have bought it - but the way it is now it's much like the "Paul is dead" stuff. They really really relied on symbolism and intellectual masturbation (which can be fun) with no "empirical" evidence - and they miss the fact (it's a fact absed on this interview) that the ending was meant to be ambiguous.

Can I say for a fact that Tony didn't get killed? No. But you have to prove your theory, and you haven't done it with the wordpress blog and the parallels between onion rings and the Eucharist. It's speculation dressed up as a theory.


Alternate theories :
It was called "The Sopranos" and not just "Tony" (thank you Mr. Danza) so I can't see how if Tony was killed they'd have stayed with that POV.

Unless all them them were killed at the exact same instance, like in this alternate ending posted on youtube:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EwUG2nSLdw

>But I still don't by the POV stuff, and that Tony was killed
>at the moment the screen went black. The point-of-view roved
>through-out that scene and should have moved to someone else
>if Tony got whacked.

moved to any of the other characters. every other shot was just a regular shot, most of which framed whether you were seeing through Tony's POV or not.

the wordpress blog was long, but it does offer (in my opinion, very good) explanations for the other disputes you have with this theory.

--------

said this about the final episode:

"I wasn't going to do this," Chase says, "but somebody said it would be a good idea if we said something about that ending. I really wasn't going to go into it, but I'll just say this...when I was going to Stanford University's graduate film school and was 23 , I went to see Planet of the Apes with my wife. When it was over, I said, 'Wow ... so they had a Statue of Liberty, too.'"

I assume he means that the ending of the Sopranos was obvious and that people are missing it due to overanalysis, lack of attention, wanting a different ending...whatever.

I get that, but my question is, what is the "Statue of Liberty" in the final episode? It seems to me that it can only be one of two things...1) The show just ended--Chase simply pulled the plug--no resolution--no real "ending" at least in the dramatic sense--just a literal "end"--hence the screen going black. The "Statue of Liberty" is the TV going off, stupid!...okay.

or 2)Tony was killed...he sees black b/c he got popped in the back of the head, stupid!

Both positions are reasonable, but I think it is clear that the POV pattern was established. The camera roved in the scene to distinguish what was Tony's POV from what wasn't--the bell-T's reaction-what T sees--his reaction--that is the standard definition of a POV shot--no shot is intrinsically POV--it's the shots that come before and after that make it POV--character--what he sees(POV)--reaction--this was done so much that it's difficult for me to think that it was just a lead up to Chase pulling the plug/an ending w/o an ending.

The onion rings/eucharist could very well be a coincidence that some dude desperate for meaning pulled out of his ass as a result of an Alex Jones style fervor for finding connections. If this is the case, though, it is a very interesting coincidence. I think the Viaticum/Journey connection does seem a tad far-fetched but not impossible--and really, I just can't see any other way that the song connects to the final scene.

jesus

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayerâ„¢

http://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/the-sopranos-definitive-explanation-of-the-end/

>http://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/the-sopranos-definitive-explanation-of-the-end/

http://i.imgur.com/vPqCzVU.jpg

had a whole lot of down time.

Says the person who actually read down-time boy's entire breakdown--which means that by definition I must have even less of a life.

He's dead on about that POV stuff, though.

V.

---
http://confessionsofacurlymind.com
https://soundcloud.com/confessionsofacurlymindredux
https://soundcloud.com/generic80sbadguy
https://soundcloud.com/miles_matheson

DROkayplayerâ„¢

thanks for the read

--------

am I missing a link or something? What are you referring to?