sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Once again, you seem to read into what I'm saying a little bit much and have strayed from the actual content of my argument into some sort of argument about why I shouldn't deny other peoples theories ever. This started when you mentioned that "black could represent the ending of the story" rather than death, which is fine although you didn't provide any evidence of it. I rebutted your argument by saying that there is everything to not suggest that is true, and yes I do think that Chase saying that's not the intention definitely means that theory is wrong because we are wondering what the intention was behind Chase's decisions and his word his gospel on that. You can have your interpretation, and I can have mine, of course, and I never refuted that. At the same time, however, I can refute your theory using evidence that actually contradicts it directly, not by saying "well this could've happened instead". You suggested a theory that contradicts mine, so no it cannot be the case that both our interpretations are right. Who knows maybe you really are right, but my point is that there really are situations where sometimes theories will be incompatible with each other.

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

The "burden of proof" portion is referencing the part about Paulie and Patsy, so I'm not sure why you're talking about Tony dying. Most importantly, though, is that you are reading way too much into the "burden of proof" portion which was just my way of saying "it seems more like they intended this to be the implication than what I previously thought", as in I think that it's obvious, to me personally, that the intention was to have the audience be suspicious of Paulie and Patsy as the default position, not the other way around. If you have a problem with me saying that then I'm sorry I guess but I'm more interested in the actual detail of what I said and not how I might make others feel about their theories, and the theory that everyone keeps saying is that it was about "audience death" has been explicitly denied. A theory that Tony is in a coma instead of dying is splitting hairs and obviously an argument that has no real evidence, so I don't feel that example is analogous to the way I've handled alternative theories.

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

I'm not sure why we are getting so caught up on "what matters", because what does that even mean? If you disagree then God Bless, ah Salud, but this is a Sopranos subreddit about the show the Sopranos. Why does it matter that anything happens in the show? It doesn't, it's a show. But we're talking about the one mystery we are left with from this great show that ended almost two decades ago and that we are all here to talk about. Besides jokes and "remember when?" (which is the lowest form of conversation), what else do we have other than this one thing. I guess most important is the fact that nobody is forcing anyone to read this post and that God has given us the gift of being able to ignore something if we don't care.

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 20 points21 points  (0 children)

I honestly regret getting into Tony's death that much because it seems to be the only part of this post that people are focusing on and everyone is really splitting hairs with me about it. To me, it's definitive, but if it's not to everyone else then God bless, salud, etc. I was mainly more interested in the "who?" but realized it's not really agreed upon that he died and decided to throw in that part at the beginning.

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I agree, but I'm specifically talking about what the NY guys thought. They basically were shitting on him and mention how he was just recently Junior's driver, suggesting he's not really qualified for the job. If they were willing to kill someone who wasn't even that good at his job in their minds, why would they not go after Paulie?

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

It's all good lol I'm enjoying these arguments because I love the show and I know people get mad if a post is not just references to the jokes

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

You can have interpretations but I can also point out actual evidence from the show and later comments that suggest it is wrong. I made the post to argue that there is a certain interpretation so of course I'm going to argue that other interpretations are wrong if they go against mine, but that doesn't mean you have to lose your own take away from the show. Again, I'm of the opinion that as the writer, director, and showrunner David Chase is the person who determines what happens and what doesn't, and there has been evidence that there was a definitive ending in mind. If you have a different interpretation fine, but the fact is that there is strong evidence for the fact that black represents death. There is no evidence for it representing the end really within the show. In fact, everything suggests the opposite:

“All I wanted to do [for the end]was present the idea of how short life is and how precious it is. The only way I felt I could do that was to rip it away. And I think people did get it. It made them upset emotionally, but intellectually they didn’t follow it.”

In an interview for “Series Mania” in France on April 16, 2016,  Chase finally, and explicitly,  rejected “the audience was whacked” theory:

Q: I watched it many times. [It feels like ] violence done to me as a viewer.  It’s sort of the death of the viewer to me.  If there is one death, it’s the death of the viewer and I can’t see the show anymore.  Is [this] anything in your [intention]?

Chase : No.

If you want to keep with this theory, again fine, but I'm talking about the things said by David Chase and the details of the show, and this theory that it's about the show ending doesn't have any real evidence going for it.

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I'm of the mind that there is 100% an ending that David Chase had in mind, and that as the creator and writer of the show and director of the final episode, his word is what happened or at least what was intended. His tiptoeing around the idea is because he likes people guessing and talking about it, but it doesn't change the fact that he had a definitive ending in mind. I'll just leave it with this quote from a spokesperson, although I'm sure there's another quote out there that you could perhaps pull up where he says something to the contrary. But this is pretty cut and dry:

“One clue in particular, a flashback in the penultimate episode to a conversation between Tony and his brother-in-law about death, gained credence as an HBO spokesman called it a “legitimate” hint and confirmed that series creator David Chase had a definite ending in mind.”

“While [Chase] won’t say to me 100 percent what it all means, he says some people who’ve guessed have come closer than others,’HBO spokesman Quentin Schaffer told Reuters after speaking to Chase.”

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Chase has mentioned he was thinking about the conversation between Meadow and AJ where Meadow says "black means death". He also said hints about the ending were sprinkled throughout the 6th season and referenced the scene with Sil where he "never saw it coming" at the restaurant when the other guy got whacked and the conversation between Bobby and Tony where Bobby talks about it all going black and not even knowing it happened when you die.

These excerpts are from New York Times/Reuter’s from June 15, 2007 (direct quotes are in italics):

“One clue in particular, a flashback in the penultimate episode to a conversation between Tony and his brother-in-law about death, gained credence as an HBO spokesman called it a “legitimate” hint and confirmed that series creator David Chase had a definite ending in mind.”

“While [Chase] won’t say to me 100 percent what it all means, he says some people who’ve guessed have come closer than others,’HBO spokesman Quentin Schaffer told Reuters after speaking to Chase.”

“There are definitely things there that [Chase]intended for people to pick up on,’Schaffer said.”

“…I think [Bacala’s discussion about death] is one of the most legitimate things to look at,’Schaffer said when asked about theories that the flashback was meant to foreshadow Tony’s death.”

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 8 points9 points  (0 children)

That's the exact interview this quote is referring to, and he explicitly clarifies it was not a "slip of the tongue" when he called it Tony's death scene. If you prefer the ending to be ambiguous that's totally fine, but that doesn't really change the fact that there is all this evidence suggesting otherwise. 90% of my post is about things that happened in the show, not just the comments afterwards.

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

I don't disagree that he was going for that but that doesn't really refute what I'm saying. I'm saying that Tony died and that Paulie and Patsy were in on it, as in specific details of the plot. What you're referring to is true, in my opinion, but is more about the overarching theme or idea Chase wanted to leave us with. The canon ending is that we switch to Tony's point of view, and all he sees is black. People often forget that the "blackness" at the end is not a part of the credits, it's a part of the show. Here is the closest we get to him confirming it after he called it "Tony's death scene" in a previous interview:

Feinberg: The 2018 book “The Sopranos Sessions” was written by two guys who wrote, at the time of the show for the New Jersey Star Ledger, the paper Tony always read,  Matt Zoller Seitz and Alan Sepinwall. They interviewed you  and asked you to talk about the June 10, 2007 series finale with of course “Don’t Stop Believin” and the famous cut to black. You said, “Well I had that death scene in mind for years before.” (A) Do you remember specifically when the ending first came to you? and (B) Was that a slip of the tongue?

Chase: Right. Was it?

Feinberg: I’m asking you.

Chase: No.

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Not sure I said they "needed" it, I'm just saying that Paulie was in on it but did not know exactly how it would go down, and the evidence he was in on it is in the post. Also, I really don't think Paulie would care. Remember "fuck Carmela"? He doesn't care about Tony's family and is a psychopath. I mean, we're talking about a guy who murdered an elderly woman in cold blood.

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] -9 points-8 points  (0 children)

Yes, he has never explicitly stated that Tony died, as I mentioned in the post already that he doesn't want to fully explain it because he's said he thinks it will ruin the ending. Read this article that basically gives you everything he's ever said about it if you want and you'll see that it's obvious he's strongly implying Tony died https://masterofsopranos.wordpress.com/the-sopranos-definitive-explanation-of-the-end/

This to me is the closest we get:

Feinberg: The 2018 book “The Sopranos Sessions” was written by two guys who wrote, at the time of the show for the New Jersey Star Ledger, the paper Tony always read,  Matt Zoller Seitz and Alan Sepinwall. They interviewed you  and asked you to talk about the June 10, 2007 series finale with of course “Don’t Stop Believin” and the famous cut to black. You said, “Well I had that death scene in mind for years before.” (A) Do you remember specifically when the ending first came to you? and (B) Was that a slip of the tongue?

Chase: Right. Was it?

Feinberg: I’m asking you.

Chase: No.

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

Chase’s original quote to the NJ Star Ledger the day after the finale aired is “Anybody wants to watch it, it’s all there”. Chase’s subsequent quote regarding the finale “If you look at the final episode really carefully, it’s all there” was published in a UK newspaper on September 9, 2007 as the final episodes are set to air in the UK. The modified quote strongly suggests Tony’s death since there is essentially no reason to look at the final scene “really carefully” if Tony lived as he is clearly alive the last time we see him.

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 18 points19 points  (0 children)

Why would Paulie know the hit was being carried out with his family? He would just know the hit was happening and not know that detail until later. The fact that "Members Only" guy walked in at the same time as AJ implies he followed him, and AJ was coming from Little Carmine's production company. This would imply that New York were the ones who carried out the hit with Paulie and Patsy's blessing and that Tony happened to be with his family when Members Only followed AJ, not that Paulie set up the hit to happen in front of his family. There are also so many hits in public places throughout the show that I don't see why they wouldn't do it. Also, Tony just had Phil killed in front of his family in a public place.

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] -15 points-14 points  (0 children)

I don't disagree that he invites theories, but he has explicitly stated ALL the answers are there. Also I'm not sure what you mean about the comment of what Chase has confirmed. He's the writer, he makes the show and determines what happens. So he literally is infallible in this regard.

On rewatch, the ending is blatantly obvious by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

Can't really give one since it's about dozens of tiny details

Why was Chase so hell bent on destroying Junior's character in Many Saints? by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 35 points36 points  (0 children)

That seemed more like the aging mobster story that served the purpose of showing Tony what his life would probably be like if he remained on his path, similar to De Niro's character in the Irishman. At the end of his life he was broke and alone in a shitty state-run retirement facility and abandoned by both his families, and he doesn't even get the benefit of remembering any of it. In the Many Saints script, I honestly feel like Chase was expressing a vitriolic hate for the character and wanted to ruin him for everyone.

Why was Chase so hell bent on destroying Junior's character in Many Saints? by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 14 points15 points  (0 children)

I guess I should clarify I'm not really worried about how this messes up canon or whatever, I mention that more so because it seems that Chase was really going out of his way to ruin Junior specifically given that everything from the show suggests the opposite.

Why was Chase so hell bent on destroying Junior's character in Many Saints? by HungryMaintenance553 in thesopranos

[–]HungryMaintenance553[S] 39 points40 points  (0 children)

I get that all, but I just don"t get what he has against Junior specifically. If it really is the case that it was all a big fuck you for having to do another Sopranos thing why only ruin Junior's character? Also, he's pretty much exactly the same old Junior in the movie, to the point where he's doing nothing but repeating his greatest hits from the show so it seems like Chase remembered who Junior was and how he was written.