No

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The fans booing the ending is awesome.

How is that greatness?

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

So, why have a show at all?

That's great :)

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

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

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

Even Hillary Clinton's in on the parody rampage:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man, that is ambiguous.

Its also not art.

Everything is art. And art is everything.

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

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

My favorite summation of The Sopranos finale:

Wanting people to feel stupid=Awesome!

People like you are funny.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't think everything is ever truely linear.

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

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

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

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

I missed this the first time around...

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

(spoilerized due to some specific Season 4 of The Wire discussion)

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

who knows?

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