|
kippa posted:
I ave to ask, what the gently caress did you think it meant?
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 14:27
|
|
Aaaaaaaaaaand I only just got that lines meaning. Holy poo poo.
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:I ave to ask, what the gently caress did you think it meant? Yea thats one of those lines that makes you think about it the first time you hear it, curiosity would kind of force you to figure it out or look it up. Seems weird to just go "oh well, must just be some gangster talk that makes no sense to a regular citizen like me!" Overall I'd say The Sopranos went pretty light on the Mafia speak like "sleeps with the fishes" or "this thing of ours". You'd hear something like that maybe once an episode or so. They probably used old Italian grandma stuff like gabagool more often than gangster talk. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 14:38 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 14:35
|
|
|
Gabagool will never not be funny to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:I ave to ask, what the gently caress did you think it meant? I didn't really think it meant anything, just that Tony was ill and dreaming weird poo poo. e: yes, I know what sleeping with the fishes means, I just never put together that "These guys either side of me? They're asleep" was meant to mean that. kippa fucked around with this message at 14:51 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 14:41
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea thats one of those lines that makes you think about it the first time you hear it, curiosity would kind of force you to figure it out or look it up. Seems weird to just go "oh well, must just be some gangster talk that makes no sense to a regular citizen like me!" You have seen Godfather right? Its pretty obvious that the way they act sometimes is due to the way the media has portrayed the Mafia. The casting of the show even shows that with actors from Goodfellas and Godfather in main roles.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 14:42
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:You have seen Godfather right? Its pretty obvious that the way they act sometimes is due to the way the media has portrayed the Mafia. The casting of the show even shows that with actors from Goodfellas and Godfather in main roles. It's fun to spot the Sopranos actors in the classic Mob films. Just the other day I noticed that Tony Sirico shows up in the credits of Goodfellas, playing "Tony Stacks". Now I'll have to try to find that character the next time I see the film.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 14:44
|
|
|
ZekeNY posted:It's fun to spot the Sopranos actors in the classic Mob films. Just the other day I noticed that Tony Sirico shows up in the credits of Goodfellas, playing "Tony Stacks". Now I'll have to try to find that character the next time I see the film. If you haven't seen it, check out the HBO film "Gotti". It's from a couple of years before The Sopranos started and seems to have most of the cast in it. It's not a bad watch either.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
Basebf555 posted:Yea thats one of those lines that makes you think about it the first time you hear it, curiosity would kind of force you to figure it out or look it up. Seems weird to just go "oh well, must just be some gangster talk that makes no sense to a regular citizen like me!" I think he is saying that he never got the connection between "Pussy is a talking fish that is asleep" and the phrase "sleeps with the fishes". Which is still crazy, but less so. Sakarja posted:That's my take on it, but I don't think that it's the only acceptable answer or anything. I like this guy and his reasonable approach to discussion. *points with two fingers at Sakarja*
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 14:49
|
|
|
ZekeNY posted:It's fun to spot the Sopranos actors in the classic Mob films. Just the other day I noticed that Tony Sirico shows up in the credits of Goodfellas, playing "Tony Stacks". Now I'll have to try to find that character the next time I see the film. From what I remember he's in the movie fairly early on. IIRC, it's from when Henry is still a kid, maybe just before/after the cigarette bust.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 14:59
|
|
|
I don't wanna see you flopping around down there!
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 15:27
|
|
|
ZekeNY posted:It's fun to spot the Sopranos actors in the classic Mob films. Just the other day I noticed that Tony Sirico shows up in the credits of Goodfellas, playing "Tony Stacks". Now I'll have to try to find that character the next time I see the film. Once you see him now you’ll always wonder who you missed it. His hair doesn’t have any gray in it but listen for the voice and you’ll hear it. When they guys are play fighting in front of the cab stand and Paulie sticks his head out and a guy says, “It’s your fault”. That’s him. He’s also one of the guys that kidnaps the mailman and puts his head in a pizza oven. I think he’s also shown in the background when Paulie says, “You broke your cherry!” after Henry comes out of court.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 15:36
|
|
|
I have to chime in about the ending being "ambiguous". There is absolutely nothing ambiguous about the ending. The Sopranos in no way suggests that "life goes on" or "Tony is always going to be looking over his shoulder". Like David Chase said, it's all there. It's not a Da Vinci code or a riddle you have to figure out. A hard cut to black is in no way ambiguous. It is clearly meant to suggest something specific- it's not a traditional cinematic technique. It was done deliberately, with meaning. If The Sopranos wanted an ambiguous "life goes on, we don't know what happens to these characters but we know that family is the most important" ending, you would think they would do a slow fade to black on the family eating dinner or hanging out - like how Season 1 ended, or season 6A. If The Sopranos wanted us to feel like our time in Tony's lives is over, a jarring hard cut to black is the worst way to evoke that. A far better way would be exactly how Melfi's last session with Tony ended, with the shot of the door closing. I'm not going to break down that Masters of Sopranos essay, but it's very obvious that the last scene establishes a pattern of Tony's POV when he looks up at the door, not to mention that the show constantly does Tony's POV shots - even the opening credits is mostly Tony's POV. The hard cut to black can only be Tony's quick and sudden death, which, like Bobby said "you never see coming." It's not some big puzzle you have to figure out. It's just one piece of foreshadowing and some POV shots. I'll also add that it's entirely irrelevant whether Tony lives or dies - the Sopranos makes no bones about the fact that Tony will end up dead one way or another. He gets killed or he ends up in prison. Or maybe he gets away with it and dies of natural causes. It doesn't matter. He refused to change. The moments that were good in life - the little things, as AJ reminds us in the last lines of dialogue in the show - he briefly enjoyed, but ultimately ignored. He was unhappy, depressed, and alienated from even his own family. Carmela said he was going to hell, and whether you want to take this literally (I've always loved how the Sopranos flirts with the idea of ghosts, spirits, and hell) or if you believe it's a hell of his own making (a life of material prosperity, but filled with loneliness, anger, and death) - Tony is going to hell. I'm not some genius, I'm not saying "I'm right and your interpretation is wrong." It's just that the ending isn't ambiguous or vague - it's not up for interpretation. It's honestly not that interesting (though it's a spectacularly well done scene). We all know Tony is going to die - does it really matter when?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 16:15
|
|
|
Everything you just wrote isn't some kind of revolutionary key to everything, it's all been completely covered ad nauseum during the debates of the last 6 years (or the 2nd last page of the thread) and won't change anyone's mind.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 16:24
|
|
|
Sigh.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
TheRationalRedditor posted:Everything you just wrote isn't some kind of revolutionary key to everything, it's all been completely covered ad nauseum during the debates of the last 6 years (or the 2nd last page of the thread) and won't change anyone's mind. That's the point, so why are people still debating/saying the ending is ambiguous and open to interpretation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 16:30
|
|
|
Satire Forum Mom posted:That's the point, so why are people still debating/saying the ending is ambiguous and open to interpretation?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 16:35
|
|
|
TheRationalRedditor posted:It's not the objectively correct interpretation of the finale and there never will be one revealed, as David Chase has guaranteed, repeatedly. Everyone who's deep enough into the show has come to grips with that over time - WHY CAN'T YOU The last point I will make on this - because I agree it is a nauseating discussion - is that David Chase said that the ending is clear cut and that everything is all there, and that he won't talk about it because it's not something he needs to talk about. It's not an ambiguous ending, we don't need David Chase to tell us what happened because they show us what happens, there is only one objectively correct interpretation because there is nothing to interpret.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 16:45
|
|
|
Satire Forum Mom posted:That's the point, so why are people still debating/saying the ending is ambiguous and open to interpretation? Because the ending is ambiguous and open to interpretation, as is clear from the fact that we are all still debating it after 6 years. Satire Forum Mom posted:The last point I will make on this - because I agree it is a nauseating discussion - is that David Chase said that the ending is clear cut and that everything is all there, and that he won't talk about it because it's not something he needs to talk about. It's not an ambiguous ending, we don't need David Chase to tell us what happened because they show us what happens, there is only one objectively correct interpretation because there is nothing to interpret. You are the latest and most obnoxious in a line of wrong people.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 16:46
|
|
|
Honestly I just think Chase is kind of bitter about how the finale was received and likes to be purposely ambiguous in interviews when the actual scene in question really isn't. At the very least you have to admit that its constructed in such a way as to make you think Tony's about to buy it. The fact that you don't get to actually see it happen is where the ambiguity is, we don't get to observe it or the aftermath of it like we did everything else in the series. When Chase says theres "no Da Vinci code", he could easily just mean that he feels the scene is obvious enough in what its telling you, theres no need for any deep interpretation. A shady guy walks into the diner and goes to a bathroom conveniently placed at Tony's back. 30 seconds later the screen abruptly cuts to black. Nothing complicated about it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 17:11
|
|
|
Why would he be bitter? You're still talking about it over half a decade later, and it's in the cultural consciousness. You literally cannot ask for a better expression of having a piece of creative work being immortalized than never being forgotten. His interviews from like 2008 said that poo poo, the one from 2011 and 2012 say essentially it actually doesn't matter at all and if you think it does you're missing the forest from the trees. Alan Sepinwall interviewed him for his book a few years back and he actually claimed that he had read a single interpretation of his ending that made him say "this guy got what I was going for". He unequivocally stated that it was not MoS. TheRationalRedditor fucked around with this message at 17:23 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 17:21
|
|
|
TheRationalRedditor posted:His interviews from like 2008 said that poo poo, the one from 2011 and 2012 say essentially it actually doesn't matter at all and if you think it does you're missing the forest from the trees. Well again, that is a vague answer. I mean yea, we all get that it doesn't really matter if he's alive or dead. The themes of the series have played out and theres no need for a definitive ending one way or the other. We're just analyzing this one specific scene, and when you do that certain things stand out that pretty clearly indicate the guy shot him. I wasn't one of the people complaining afterwards that we didn't get to see what happened because I do realize its not that important. At the same time I think we do pretty much know what happened. As for him being bitter, I remember him not being crazy about the fanbase of the show and the fact that so many people really didn't understand that Tony is not a good person.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 17:25
|
|
|
WeAreTheRomans posted:Gabagool will never not be funny to me. It's embarassing, as a white southerner, to order cappicola somewhere and having to call it gabagool because you don't have the faintest idea what the correct pronunciation is. Satire Forum Mom posted:I have to chime in with some of the same nonsense people have been throwing around since 2007
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 18:01
|
|
|
ZekeNY posted:Chase has been pretty clear that the ending is ambiguous. Not sure I agree with your quoting there, or your interpretation of it. It's worth reading the full interview, rather than just a few sentences of it. That said, I agree with the school of thought that once an author releases their work, their interpretation is just one of many. Although arguably, their opinion comes with a lot more evidence behind it. Perdido posted:A lot of the dream sequences in the show deal with commonly accepted interpretations of symbols and images, although there are times when that gets subverted. Really enjoyed reading your post, thanks! The various dream sequences have also been a bit of an enigma to me, and I'll give that article you linked a proper read now I'm off work. Aertuun fucked around with this message at 18:17 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 18:14
|
|
|
Satire Forum Mom posted:That's the point, so why are people still debating/saying the ending is ambiguous and open to interpretation? I wasn't even aware there was a debate until Ishamael started posting and called the thread "stupid horseshit". I'm relatively new to this thread (started reading page 45) so have no idea what the past history is. When I first finished watching the series, I remember reading up on some forums and some interviews and it all seemed pretty clear cut. There's an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting the "hitmen takes a shot at Tony, though it doesn't matter if he gets him or not" school of thought. From what I've read over the past two pages, there's little to no evidence supporting the idea that Tony lives happily ever after. It's really fun hearing people discussing their own theories and the evidence behind them. I'd never heard the "guardian angel" theory about Meadow before, and the little details like that are what makes the show really special. But then there's people who say, without apology, "I've believed what I've believed for six years. Nothing anyone can say can change my mind now!" They then belittle, insult, or tell to shut up anyone who thinks differently to them. It's not a great mindset to come to a discussion with. I'd suspect the "debate" has gone on so long precisely because of those reasons. There just doesn't seem to be much ambiguity in the ending to me. And then Seams, along the same lines, "It doesn't matter how much evidence you present, I'm not changing my mind." Unless that was a really awesome reference to visual evidence in relation to me talking about Othello, in which case hats off to you  Why even come to a discussion forum if you're going to call an interesting discussion "stupid horseshit"? I'm really interested to hear about alternative theories as to what the ending means, but they need to be backed up by evidence. As an example of how well that can go, look at all the stuff people have picked up about the Game of Thrones series over the years. If all you have to back up your interpretation is belief, all that leads to is a lot of anger when people don't believe you. Saying there's only one interpretation of the ending just means someone hasn't presented a good enough argument yet. As far as I can tell, tonally the final season of the Sopranos is the "Mostly Harmless" of the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy series. Aertuun fucked around with this message at 18:51 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 18:40
|
|
|
e: I'm dumb and got a few posters confused with each other so I'll reduce this to I don't get how anyone can say after seven years of argument that this "isn't open to interpretation", and this is a not very interesting conversation in a thread that is usually fun, cordial and insightful.
KICK BAMA KICK fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 19:01
|
|
|
Edit: Before the post went away, A Violence Gang pointed out that Alan Sepinwall has written about alternative theories on the ending, and that I should check them out. Aertuun fucked around with this message at 19:33 on Jul 17, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 19:21
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the Russian killed Tony, end of discussion
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 19:22
|
|
|
Aertuun posted:Err, thanks, but you're quoting me as saying stuff that another poster said? I never said, "It's just that the ending isn't ambiguous or vague - it's not up for interpretation." Ugggh, my bad there. Conflated a few people and got mixed up trying to multiquote so I'm just gonna wtihdraw this entirely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 19:29
|
|
|
A Violence Gang posted:Alan Sepinwall Are these the two blog posts you were talking about? David Chase speaks! Sopranos Rewind - Made in America Are there any others you'd recommend? I first watched the Sopranos several years after it had finished, so didn't get any of the commentary at the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 19:52
|
|
|
You know what scene irrationally irritates me every time I see it. It's when Tony comes home and Carmela hasn't made dinner (awful person), but she picked up a submarine sandwich for Tony. He looks annoyed and then when he goes to unwrap it, he does this mannerism like the wrapping is hot or unwieldy, and he drops the sub back on his plate and looks around even more frustrated. It's a loving sub, why are you having a hard time and acting confused. Stop being a bitch. Who behaves like that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 20:16
|
|
|
Aertuun posted:Are these the two blog posts you were talking about?
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 20:17
|
|
|
Obviously the ending was implying that the Large Hadron Collider was powered up and created a black hole. Even with a shot to the head you'd still hear the gunshot. In this instance, the whole world went to black, including the music. Only a black hole could do that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 20:20
|
|
|
I just now realised both Dominic Chianese and Tony Sirico had roles in The Godfather II. And Dom didn't just have some random extra part, he played Johnny Ola. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 20:46
|
|
|
My favorite dream sequence will always be Jr.'s " Aginge mobster cured of cancer, weds Angie Dikinson".
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 22:06
|
|
|
ulvir posted:I just now realised both Dominic Chianese and Tony Sirico had roles in The Godfather II. And Dom didn't just have some random extra part, he played Johnny Ola. Johnny Ola? Who? We've never met. Anyway this one time, Johnny Ola took me to this great nightclub! 
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 22:23
|
|
|
Aertuun posted:Really enjoyed reading your post, thanks! The various dream sequences have also been a bit of an enigma to me, and I'll give that article you linked a proper read now I'm off work. No problem. I've watched the Sopranos a significant number of times and keep finding new things to appreciate about the show when I do re-watches. Another thing about the dreams (mostly Tony's and Melfi's) is that they're usually discussed in therapy sessions, so you can pick up some insight there. I think the episode Calling All Cars has some pretty solid analysis about some dreams Tony has regarding Ralph.
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 22:28
|
|
|
That was a really great article. I only realised right at the end credit it's actually written by the same guy that A Violence Gang recommended as well. Hearing how the "sleeping with the fishes" sequence came about was fascinating. He seemed to assemble the scene by intuition almost. Think that really is an indication how they were able to keep the quality so high across all the years; I never really felt in any of the episodes that the story was being railroaded in a certain direction. That could easily be a biproduct of this writing approach; not really settling on things until they feel "right".
|
|
#
?
Jul 17, 2013 22:51
|
|
|
Knightmare posted:Obviously the ending was implying that the Large Hadron Collider was powered up and created a black hole. Even with a shot to the head you'd still hear the gunshot. In this instance, the whole world went to black, including the music. Only a black hole could do that. This is the only correct answer. Aertuun posted:I wasn't even aware there was a debate until Ishamael started posting and called the thread "stupid horseshit". I am not calling this thread "stupid horseshit", I love this thread. I started it many years ago and have been impressed with its staying power and the passion people still have for this show. I love it just like I loved all the other Sopranos threads I started back when the show was on. These threads have been a constant source of interesting discussion and appreciation for many years. My frustration comes from the fact that sometimes it feels like a majority of the discussion revolves around the ending, which was purposefully left unfinished. It is a strong stylistic choice, it is very evocative, and obviously gets people very involved in terms of debate. It was one of the tensest scenes I have ever watched, and has kept people talking for years. However, there was so much more to the show than that, and it all gets buried under an avalanche of people claiming that they have figured out the One True Meaning of the last shot. That being said, Knightmare has the One True Meaning down pat. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7EwUG2nSLdw EDIT: finally replaced most of the broken images in the OP Ishamael fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Jul 18, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 03:16
|
|
|
Game of Tones. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 03:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 04:36 |
|
|
Was Junior ever married? If not, did they say why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 18, 2013 04:47
|
|
Tater Love 