Announcement

Collapse

The Rules of Pacers Digest

Hello everyone,

Whether your are a long standing forum member or whether you have just registered today, it's a good idea to read and review the rules below so that you have a very good idea of what to expect when you come to Pacers Digest.

A quick note to new members: Your posts will not immediately show up when you make them. An administrator has to approve at least your first post before the forum software will later upgrade your account to the status of a fully-registered member. This usually happens within a couple of hours or so after your post(s) is/are approved, so you may need to be a little patient at first.

Why do we do this? So that it's more difficult for spammers (be they human or robot) to post, and so users who are banned cannot immediately re-register and start dousing people with verbal flames.

Below are the rules of Pacers Digest. After you have read them, you will have a very good sense of where we are coming from, what we expect, what we don't want to see, and how we react to things.

Rule #1

Pacers Digest is intended to be a place to discuss basketball without having to deal with the kinds of behaviors or attitudes that distract people from sticking with the discussion of the topics at hand. These unwanted distractions can come in many forms, and admittedly it can sometimes be tricky to pin down each and every kind that can rear its ugly head, but we feel that the following examples and explanations cover at least a good portion of that ground and should at least give people a pretty good idea of the kinds of things we actively discourage:

"Anyone who __________ is a liar / a fool / an idiot / a blind homer / has their head buried in the sand / a blind hater / doesn't know basketball / doesn't watch the games"

"People with intelligence will agree with me when I say that __________"

"Only stupid people think / believe / do ___________"

"I can't wait to hear something from PosterX when he/she sees that **insert a given incident or current event that will have probably upset or disappointed PosterX here**"

"He/she is just delusional"

"This thread is stupid / worthless / embarrassing"

"I'm going to take a moment to point and / laugh at PosterX / GroupOfPeopleY who thought / believed *insert though/belief here*"

"Remember when PosterX said OldCommentY that no longer looks good? "

In general, if a comment goes from purely on topic to something 'ad hominem' (personal jabs, personal shots, attacks, flames, however you want to call it, towards a person, or a group of people, or a given city/state/country of people), those are most likely going to be found intolerable.

We also dissuade passive aggressive behavior. This can be various things, but common examples include statements that are basically meant to imply someone is either stupid or otherwise incapable of holding a rational conversation. This can include (but is not limited to) laughing at someone's conclusions rather than offering an honest rebuttal, asking people what game they were watching, or another common problem is Poster X will say "that player isn't that bad" and then Poster Y will say something akin to "LOL you think that player is good". We're not going to tolerate those kinds of comments out of respect for the community at large and for the sake of trying to just have an honest conversation.

Now, does the above cover absolutely every single kind of distraction that is unwanted? Probably not, but you should by now have a good idea of the general types of things we will be discouraging. The above examples are meant to give you a good feel for / idea of what we're looking for. If something new or different than the above happens to come along and results in the same problem (that being, any other attitude or behavior that ultimately distracts from actually just discussing the topic at hand, or that is otherwise disrespectful to other posters), we can and we will take action to curb this as well, so please don't take this to mean that if you managed to technically avoid saying something exactly like one of the above examples that you are then somehow off the hook.

That all having been said, our goal is to do so in a generally kind and respectful way, and that doesn't mean the moment we see something we don't like that somebody is going to be suspended or banned, either. It just means that at the very least we will probably say something about it, quite possibly snipping out the distracting parts of the post in question while leaving alone the parts that are actually just discussing the topics, and in the event of a repeating or excessive problem, then we will start issuing infractions to try to further discourage further repeat problems, and if it just never seems to improve, then finally suspensions or bans will come into play. We would prefer it never went that far, and most of the time for most of our posters, it won't ever have to.

A slip up every once and a while is pretty normal, but, again, when it becomes repetitive or excessive, something will be done. Something occasional is probably going to be let go (within reason), but when it starts to become habitual or otherwise a pattern, odds are very good that we will step in.

There's always a small minority that like to push people's buttons and/or test their own boundaries with regards to the administrators, and in the case of someone acting like that, please be aware that this is not a court of law, but a private website run by people who are simply trying to do the right thing as they see it. If we feel that you are a special case that needs to be dealt with in an exceptional way because your behavior isn't explicitly mirroring one of our above examples of what we generally discourage, we can and we will take atypical action to prevent this from continuing if you are not cooperative with us.

Also please be aware that you will not be given a pass simply by claiming that you were 'only joking,' because quite honestly, when someone really is just joking, for one thing most people tend to pick up on the joke, including the person or group that is the target of the joke, and for another thing, in the event where an honest joke gets taken seriously and it upsets or angers someone, the person who is truly 'only joking' will quite commonly go out of his / her way to apologize and will try to mend fences. People who are dishonest about their statements being 'jokes' do not do so, and in turn that becomes a clear sign of what is really going on. It's nothing new.

In any case, quite frankly, the overall quality and health of the entire forum's community is more important than any one troublesome user will ever be, regardless of exactly how a problem is exhibiting itself, and if it comes down to us having to make a choice between you versus the greater health and happiness of the entire community, the community of this forum will win every time.

Lastly, there are also some posters, who are generally great contributors and do not otherwise cause any problems, who sometimes feel it's their place to provoke or to otherwise 'mess with' that small minority of people described in the last paragraph, and while we possibly might understand why you might feel you WANT to do something like that, the truth is we can't actually tolerate that kind of behavior from you any more than we can tolerate the behavior from them. So if we feel that you are trying to provoke those other posters into doing or saying something that will get themselves into trouble, then we will start to view you as a problem as well, because of the same reason as before: The overall health of the forum comes first, and trying to stir the pot with someone like that doesn't help, it just makes it worse. Some will simply disagree with this philosophy, but if so, then so be it because ultimately we have to do what we think is best so long as it's up to us.

If you see a problem that we haven't addressed, the best and most appropriate course for a forum member to take here is to look over to the left of the post in question. See underneath that poster's name, avatar, and other info, down where there's a little triangle with an exclamation point (!) in it? Click that. That allows you to report the post to the admins so we can definitely notice it and give it a look to see what we feel we should do about it. Beyond that, obviously it's human nature sometimes to want to speak up to the poster in question who has bothered you, but we would ask that you try to refrain from doing so because quite often what happens is two or more posters all start going back and forth about the original offending post, and suddenly the entire thread is off topic or otherwise derailed. So while the urge to police it yourself is understandable, it's best to just report it to us and let us handle it. Thank you!

All of the above is going to be subject to a case by case basis, but generally and broadly speaking, this should give everyone a pretty good idea of how things will typically / most often be handled.

Rule #2

If the actions of an administrator inspire you to make a comment, criticism, or express a concern about it, there is a wrong place and a couple of right places to do so.

The wrong place is to do so in the original thread in which the administrator took action. For example, if a post gets an infraction, or a post gets deleted, or a comment within a larger post gets clipped out, in a thread discussing Paul George, the wrong thing to do is to distract from the discussion of Paul George by adding your off topic thoughts on what the administrator did.

The right places to do so are:

A) Start a thread about the specific incident you want to talk about on the Feedback board. This way you are able to express yourself in an area that doesn't throw another thread off topic, and this way others can add their two cents as well if they wish, and additionally if there's something that needs to be said by the administrators, that is where they will respond to it.

B) Send a private message to the administrators, and they can respond to you that way.

If this is done the wrong way, those comments will be deleted, and if it's a repeating problem then it may also receive an infraction as well.

Rule #3

If a poster is bothering you, and an administrator has not or will not deal with that poster to the extent that you would prefer, you have a powerful tool at your disposal, one that has recently been upgraded and is now better than ever: The ability to ignore a user.

When you ignore a user, you will unfortunately still see some hints of their existence (nothing we can do about that), however, it does the following key things:

A) Any post they make will be completely invisible as you scroll through a thread.

B) The new addition to this feature: If someone QUOTES a user you are ignoring, you do not have to read who it was, or what that poster said, unless you go out of your way to click on a link to find out who it is and what they said.

To utilize this feature, from any page on Pacers Digest, scroll to the top of the page, look to the top right where it says 'Settings' and click that. From the settings page, look to the left side of the page where it says 'My Settings', and look down from there until you see 'Edit Ignore List' and click that. From here, it will say 'Add a Member to Your List...' Beneath that, click in the text box to the right of 'User Name', type in or copy & paste the username of the poster you are ignoring, and once their name is in the box, look over to the far right and click the 'Okay' button. All done!

Rule #4

Regarding infractions, currently they carry a value of one point each, and that point will expire in 31 days. If at any point a poster is carrying three points at the same time, that poster will be suspended until the oldest of the three points expires.

Rule #5

When you share or paste content or articles from another website, you must include the URL/link back to where you found it, who wrote it, and what website it's from. Said content will be removed if this doesn't happen.

An example:

If I copy and paste an article from the Indianapolis Star website, I would post something like this:

http://www.linktothearticlegoeshere.com/article
Title of the Article
Author's Name
Indianapolis Star

Rule #6

We cannot tolerate illegal videos on Pacers Digest. This means do not share any links to them, do not mention any websites that host them or link to them, do not describe how to find them in any way, and do not ask about them. Posts doing anything of the sort will be removed, the offenders will be contacted privately, and if the problem becomes habitual, you will be suspended, and if it still persists, you will probably be banned.

The legal means of watching or listening to NBA games are NBA League Pass Broadband (for US, or for International; both cost money) and NBA Audio League Pass (which is free). Look for them on NBA.com.

Rule #7

Provocative statements in a signature, or as an avatar, or as the 'tagline' beneath a poster's username (where it says 'Member' or 'Administrator' by default, if it is not altered) are an unwanted distraction that will more than likely be removed on sight. There can be shades of gray to this, but in general this could be something political or religious that is likely going to provoke or upset people, or otherwise something that is mean-spirited at the expense of a poster, a group of people, or a population.

It may or may not go without saying, but this goes for threads and posts as well, particularly when it's not made on the off-topic board (Market Square).

We do make exceptions if we feel the content is both innocuous and unlikely to cause social problems on the forum (such as wishing someone a Merry Christmas or a Happy Easter), and we also also make exceptions if such topics come up with regards to a sports figure (such as the Lance Stephenson situation bringing up discussions of domestic abuse and the law, or when Jason Collins came out as gay and how that lead to some discussion about gay rights).

However, once the discussion seems to be more/mostly about the political issues instead of the sports figure or his specific situation, the thread is usually closed.

Rule #8

We prefer self-restraint and/or modesty when making jokes or off topic comments in a sports discussion thread. They can be fun, but sometimes they derail or distract from a topic, and we don't want to see that happen. If we feel it is a problem, we will either delete or move those posts from the thread.

Rule #9

Generally speaking, we try to be a "PG-13" rated board, and we don't want to see sexual content or similarly suggestive content. Vulgarity is a more muddled issue, though again we prefer things to lean more towards "PG-13" than "R". If we feel things have gone too far, we will step in.

Rule #10

We like small signatures, not big signatures. The bigger the signature, the more likely it is an annoying or distracting signature.

Rule #11

Do not advertise anything without talking about it with the administrators first. This includes advertising with your signature, with your avatar, through private messaging, and/or by making a thread or post.
See more
See less

Sopranos Finale

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Re: Sopranos Finale

    Sorry about perpetuating the rumor.

    Even if Tony lives, I thought the episode did an excellent job of keeping up high tension and letting the viewers understand that Tony will have to live in this constant state of suspicion and paranoia till the end of his days.

    You can think that he died or you can think that he doesn't.

    Either way, I never before had quite that feeling of what it must be like to be a family man in a world of perpetual violence. It was a whole episode of EXPECTING something to happen. The tension at the end was palpable. THAT's the feeling that the creators wanted us to remember. Not an event, but a feeling. Add an event at the end, and the episode just becomes "Meadow is shot in the head. The End."

    They at least were successful at what they wanted, whether you agree with the decision or not.
    “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

    “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

    Comment


    • #17
      Re: Sopranos Finale

      Originally posted by Los Angeles View Post
      They at least were successful at what they wanted, whether you agree with the decision or not.

      I agree that that is a great idea to end the episode with, but what I disagree with is the execution. There isn't anything in that find scene that you can point to and say, "There. This shot/line/plot development proves that David Chase intended this to end this way."

      It doesn't have to be a big, flashing sign. Let me give an example:

      If indeed the point was to explain the state of constant fear Tony will live in for the rest of his life, they could have shown Tony looking concerned at the doorway. Then we see that it is his daughter walking in. He is visably (yet subtley) relieved, and he burries his face into his hands. End of series.

      That would be subtle enough to be cool, but clear enough to be satisfing.

      Instead, we get an ending that is impossible to definitively peg down. This makes critics feel smart for figuring it out, and makes them praise Chase in return for making them feel smart.

      Most people feel like they are pretty smart. If someone fools them, and they think they are pretty smart, then the guy who fooled them must be a genius, right?

      I think Chase made this impossible to truly peg so that people would have to be fooled on first viewing. Then, upon further review, people started to understand it enough to feel like they 'get it', they proclaim Chase a genius. And anyone who doesn't get it just isn't smart.

      Anyway, I just realized that I basically made the same long post twice, so I'll retire my thoughts unless someone asks a question.

      My final thought:

      The ending was manipulative, self indulgent, and unnecessarily obtuse. We all deserved better.
      The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
      http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
      RSS Feed
      Subscribe via iTunes

      Comment


      • #18
        Re: Sopranos Finale

        http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19236576/?GT1=10056
        “Success is not final, failure is not fatal: it is the courage to continue that counts.” - Winston Churchill

        “If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to serve as a horrible warning.” - Catherine Aird

        Comment


        • #19
          Re: Sopranos Finale

          It's funny, I haven't even seen the episode but from everything I've heard, I feel I can comment on one thing. Why would a guy get clipped in front of his entire family? I always rent the Sopranos videos once they go to the video store and my wife and I try to get them all in in about 3 days lol.

          The reference to the Godfather is somewhat understood as the very scene was re-visited in one of Tony's dreams in a prior episode. He says he wants to make sure "he has more than just his d--k in his hand" which is directly from the Godfather. But in that scene, Michael Corleogne whacks 2 pubilc officials in a public place.

          As humanly unjust as mobsters are, they still seem to have a certain code of ethics. One would think that whacking a guy in front of his family at a restaurant would just not make sense. Had Tony walked outside, or been by himself... it just would have made more sense to me. Feds arresting him in front of his family would make total sense... they tend to like to do that sort of thing in the movies.
          Last edited by brichard; 06-17-2007, 09:33 AM.
          “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
          motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
          Reggie Miller

          Comment


          • #20
            Re: Sopranos Finale

            I need to watch the ending again...
            I wonder if it wasn't Tony that got whacked, or the viewers, but the show itself?

            -Bball
            Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

            ------

            "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

            -John Wooden

            Comment


            • #21
              Re: Sopranos Finale

              Actually I was ok with the ending.

              Frankly I don't look at it as we got whacked or that Tony got whacked.

              I just take as the family having dinner and basically it was anti-climatic.

              However, ***** at chase as much as we want, there was not going to be an ending that pleased everybody or even one that pleased one more than the other.

              If Tony had flipped and gone to the FBI half of the audiance would have been ****ed. If Tony got whacked as the ending I think several people would have been ****ed. The fact that it appears Tony just gets away and life goes on will upset some, but I think not everybody.

              Truthfully I don't think this was self indulgent on Chase's part as it was cowardly. I say cowardly and I don't mean that, maybe it was the safest path to take.

              Viewers can almost make up thier own ending with this. You can believe Tony got whacked, that we the viewers got whacked or in my case life goes on and you really can't be proven wrong.

              But I will absolutely echo Bball's sentiment, the two years between episodes really killed my major enthusiasm in the show and frankly when it came back it was weak anyway IMO.

              But to each thier own. I thought the ending was ok.


              Basketball isn't played with computers, spreadsheets, and simulations. ChicagoJ 4/21/13

              Comment


              • #22
                Re: Sopranos Finale

                Alright Spoiler Alert ahead - but I thought this was a rather good take...

                I finally got around to watching the much-debated Sopranos finale last night. I haven’t seen the show much in years; it’s brilliant and all, but I gave up around season four. Just had things to do, and the show got a little, I dunno, slow for a while. You know. But after all the hullaballoo, I decided to take a look again for myself.

                After looking closely at the final episode, I’m reminded of people who left the film American Beauty wondering who had actually shot Kevin Spacey, just because face of the killer was offscreen when the trigger was pulled, despite the fact that his identity couldn’t have been clearer. This is a lot like that.

                I should add, incidentally, that I was a TV writer myself for a while. Not a particularly accomplished one. Mostly small stuff nobody ever saw. I wrote for CSI: Crime Scene Investigation for most of the third season, but I got tired of all the death, frankly. Some people might have loved the job, and the money was great, and I still respect the folks there for being so incredibly good at what they do, but it just wasn’t a good fit for me. Anyway, my point: not my own expertise -- which is questionable at best, and for you to judge, in any case -- but during the year of my life that I helped devise ways to hang dwarfs, make parasailers go Icarus, and poison poker players with lead-filled candies, I saw first-hand just how meticulously the little details could be fussed over for the cameras – and that was on a show with a breakneck production schedule and no particular auteur nursing his vision through every single shot.

                So.

                Keeping in mind that Sopranos creator David Chase wrote and directed this episode himself after months of planning – and that he has already told interviewers that “it’s all there,” let’s take him at his word. So, starting with the two most blatant clues and working outward until we stumble into what may be Tony’s own weirdly implied funeral rites:

                The sensation of imminent death – “you probably don’t even hear it when it happens, right?” – was now-famously discussed in an episode called “Soprano Home Movies.” This same episode was reportedly repeated, out of sequence, the week before the finale. And the same exact scene – this same discussion of how death would be experienced – was also apparently excerpted in flashback in the second-to-last episode.

                [UPDATED: The song titles given close-ups on the jukebox also point directly to "Soprano Home Movies." See the end of the post.]



                This is called hitting the audience in the face with a two-by-four, hoping they notice. We have been instructed as to what to expect from first-person death, as clearly as any self-respecting dramatist would allow.

                (Incidentally, you probably would hear the shot from a pistol at short range, but that hardly matters; this is fiction, and the only thing that matters is its own reality.)

                Also, Tony got shot once before – in an episode called “Members Only.” And sure enough, a guy in a Members Only jacket – an unlikely fashion choice, unless David Chase is showing us the ending in enormous letters – walks in, looks repeatedly in Tony’s direction, and moves to a spot that would give him an unimpeded line of fire.




                A few seconds later -- and much as described in advance -- things suddenly, silently end.

                Members Only Guy, incidentally, is listed in the credits not as “Furtive Man Drinking Coffee” or “Guy Who Gets Up To Pee” or “Weak-Bladdered Fellow With Strange Fashion Sense.” He's "Man in Members Only Jacket." The chosen wording of the credit itself is a big freakin’ arrow.

                Another strikingly obvious bit of information: shortly before his death, David Chase very briefly frames Tony in a shot that visually quotes the Last Supper (one-point perspective, special holy light from above (more obvious in the footage than the grab), a long horizontal base supporting triangular composition on both sides of the subject, etc.).



                We’ll get back to this imagery shortly. Hardly surprising, then, that Tony’s last conversation with Carm mentions his own personal Judas. And we all know what happened after the Last Supper.

                Clear enough yet? We’re just getting started.

                Remember, the show is largely (albeit not completely) told from Tony’s POV. Long stretches of Tony's dreams, fantasies, and passing perceptions have been presented as the show’s reality. Now look again at the sequence. Members Only Guy enters, holding his left arm with an odd stiffness; there’s even a small, visible bulge in the bottom of his left jacket pocket. (Out of frame in the grab below, unfortunately. On the tape, this looks more to me like a roll of quarters than the barrel of, say, a Glock 36, but hey, it’s there. Make of it what you wish.) But all this is only visible for about a second before Tony’s son A.J. emerges from behind him, and Tony’s (and our) focus shifts to Tony’s son.



                The restaurant, incidentally, is manifestly not filled with people gunning for Tony, despite the online rumor. There's literally nothing in the sequence that indicates such a thing. Instead, the restaurant is simply filled with a strangely color-desaturated vision (more on that shortly) of ordinary middle-class Americana: Cub Scouts, kids on dates, etc.

                David Chase shows us Members Only Guy almost continuously from the time he enters, although this may not be immediately obvious – he’s often not in focus, but he’s in the background behind A.J., at center frame in the over-the-shoulder shot used conventionally to show Tony’s POV in a conversation.



                Members Only Guy is thus directly in Tony’s eyeline throughout.



                We have this put directly in our face, front and center. But Tony's focus is on his son.

                David Chase, who has complete control of the seating and camera angles, seems to be directly showing us that Tony’s not paying attention to Members Only Guy. Whether that’s wise of Tony is another issue.

                We could ignore Members Only Guy ourselves, but Chase also shows him in repeated clear-focus medium shots, with his left side remaining away from the camera – which is to say, from Tony’s POV. And Chase shows us that Members Only Guy is doing nothing in the entire scene but turning and looking directly at Tony – and no one else in the restaurant – over and over in a highly suspicious way.



                It’s true that there are plenty of other people in the restaurant. None of them are staring at Tony this way. And it’s true that Members Only Guy is a character no one has ever seen before. But certainly some of the show’s victims never recognized their attackers, either. Eventually, Members Only Guy, named for the episode in which Tony gets shot, gets up, sidles near, is discounted by Tony as a threat…

                And the series ends within seconds, in precisely the sudden full-stop manner repeatedly (and in repeats) described in advance.



                [UPDATED: The New York Times reports that David Chase wanted the blackness to last a full 30 seconds, which certainly is an even stronger implication of death.]

                Need more? There are dozens of other hints throughout the episode, starting from the very first frame.

                The episode actually opens with a harbinger of Tony’s funeral, plain as day. Remember, David Chase personally directed for the first time since the series premiere. And David Chase’s very first shot in eight years is of Tony Soprano lying flat on his back, viewed from above, much as if we are looking down on him in his coffin.



                There is a literal moment of silence.

                Then, when the clock radio kicks on, the first bars of the song are funereal organ music.

                Tony stirs, the music starts to rock, and Tony begins his day. But about five minutes in, Tony’s eating an orange. This is a specific reference both to the Godfather series and to earlier Sopranos episodes: in simplest, familiar form, Orange = Death. That’s so well-established and on the nose that I was surprised to see it. It’s almost cliché. [If you need an explanation, see the updates at end of the post.]



                Speaking of which, there’s a lot of fuss about the big orange cat (note the color; to a writer as careful as Chase, this would not have been arbitrary). There’s really no need to debate its meaning. This is carefully-crafted fiction, so as a rule, things generally mean what the characters anticipate they mean; that’s how harbingers and foreboding often work. Otherwise, we'd have only our own prior cultural references to know what to fear. And Paulie could not be clearer that the creature is a Bad Omen. Of what? Through the episode, the cat is literally focused on a reminder of death – specifically, Tony’s murder of Christopher, who was almost a surrogate son.

                Yeah, sure, but the orange cat doesn’t actually show up when Tony supposedly dies, does he? Sure he does – in an almost laughably large way. David Chase chose to shoot the final scene in a dessert shop in Bloomfield, New Jersey, where the actual mascot of the town’s real high school football team is the same as that of nearby Princeton University -- an orange tiger. In the Last Supper shot, guess what David Chase shows us, beyond Tony’s right shoulder?



                A bigass orange cat three feet high, that’s what. The framing is actually pushed slightly to that side, favoring the cat.

                David Chase could have shot that scene in any restaurant in Jersey. He chose that one. And he didn’t have to frame the giant orange cat over Tony’s shoulder. He chose to. Does it work as art? Eh. He’s a genius, but it’s not the most brilliant bit of symbolism I’ve ever seen. But it’s there on the tape, coincidence or whatever it is. See for yourself.

                Not that it matters. Death is already palpable everywhere anyway. By this point, almost everyone in Tony’s world outside his immediate family is either emotionally dead to him (Dr. Melfi, Carlo), physically dead (Christopher, Bobby, etc.), or incapacitated (Junior, Silvio, etc.). Even Paulie speaks fearfully of the afterlife and the Virgin Mary… before agreeing to a job he believes will lead to a premature death. Hardly surprising that the entire family is wearing black at the end.



                What else stands out about the restaurant? Not tons – but it’s orange as hell, right down to the orange neon and the orange vinyl and the orange trim on the jukebox cards. Plus, looking in from the doorway, it sure sets up a subtle Last Supper, and it’s got a nice geography for a Godfather-inspired post-****-break cap job. (Remember, Chase could have stuck Tony in a corner booth with his back to the wall, something we’ve all seen before. He chose not to.)

                Also worth noting: the restaurant’s servers and customers and even the Members Only Guy are in muted tones and lots and lots of gray. The USA hat on the coffee-drinking trucker doesn’t have the bright red-white-&-blue you’d expect. Even the Cub Scouts’ kerchiefs are quite notably gray, not bright golden yellow. [UPDATED -- see the end of the post.]



                You don't get lighting and costuming this uniform in color scheme by random accident; the colors could also have been manipulated in the editing room. In any case, the only obvious colors in the entire sequence are various shades of orange and black. Death, death, death.

                We are also directly told that both Tony and his milieu are at an end. As a tour bus passes, we hear a disembodied guide explaining – in an announcement unrelated in any way to the plot – that Little Italy is rapidly vanishing. And Tony himself actually tells Meadow that “my chances are flying by me,” a phrase close enough to “my life is flashing before my eyes” to be virtually the same thing. (Compare this with Phil Leotardo’s “bye bye” to the children in the very same episode, shortly before death from a point-blank gunshot he, too, never saw coming; Chase seems to delight in these cues, where a line of dialogue turns out to mean more than the character realizes.)

                So, finally, Tony enters the restaurant. There is a bell on the door, and the rest of the scene involves Tony (and us) taking note of the occasions that the bell rings. The ringing of bells is not essential to the story in any way, and these characters have met in public places hundreds of times with no bell present, but Chase makes a meal of it here. This might veer into The Walrus Was Paul territory, but the repeated ringing of a bell, in a different context, is called a knell; it’s a well-known sign of mourning.

                Weirdly, the door is also glimpsed opening and closing silently; still, the bell rings only and exactly six times. It sure seems like a conscious part of the sound design. “Six bells” is also a traditional call to Mass, and in the Catholic church, a Mass is said at a funeral.

                [UPDATE: I should be clearer here that I'm skeptical of this idea about the bells myself, but just sharing what I do see in the episode and what it might mean.]

                Before you discard this as seeing ten guys on the Grassy Knoll -- and I'm sure as hell tempted myself -- we’ve already been shown a coffin shot, an orange, an orange restaurant, two orange cats, and a three-second Last Supper shot, referencing the very center of the rite of the Eucharist. So it's at least reasonable to ask: besides the Last Supper and a half-assed bell thingy, are there other unusual things going on here indicating that Chase may have been trying (successfully or not) to subtly invoke a Catholic Mass?

                Yes. A bunch.

                This isn’t a particularly Catholic idea, but one big point of Mass in many churches is communion with the Holy Ghost. And after Carmela sits down, Tony says something truly odd, using a nickname for A.J. which makes little obvious sense: “Where’s the ghost?” [UPDATED -- this is just incorrect; see the end of the post.]

                Carmela doesn’t miss a beat: “He just called. He’s on his way.”

                Okaaaaaaay. Maybe the Walrus is Paul.

                [UPDATED -- when A.J. first sits down, Tony's description of the onion rings ("the best in the state") pretty directly references the Godfather scene in which Sollozzo is shot by a man coming out of a bathroom. See the end of the post.]

                A.J. arrives, and Tony awkwardly takes A.J.’s hand with the same sort of overhand non-shake grip you see in church when people join hands in the Sign of Peace. [UPDATE: Eh... on second thought, this is a serious reach. Withdrawn. I've seen people in church try to join hands a lot of ways, often awkward, but often not -- and there's enough other stuff going on that after a second look, I don't see this as more than an awkward attempt at bonding between the characters. My bad.]



                Soon, onion rings appear. (Yes, still more orange food. And I feel like I’m being hit by a hammer at this point.) And then something else truly odd happens – all three consume the onion rings not the way that ordinary human beings eat onion rings – bite off a chunk, chew, swallow, etc. – but by sliding the whole rings onto their tongues. Like communion wafers.



                Honest, it’s right there on the film. It's really odd. Look at it again. And just so we don’t miss it, David Chase even highlights this strange series of actions with three separate close-ups.



                It’s so blunt and unwieldy a symbol that I’d be tempted to dismiss it. I mean, come on -- onion rings? But it's either intentional, or three different actors all made the same bizarre choice, framed by individual shots that took time to set up and light, without it all somehow being the director’s intent.



                Weird.

                [UPDATE: Many readers insist that the onion rings aren't exactly orange. They're a pale orange on my screen, but whatever, OK, whatever color you've got on your screen, then. I'm still waiting for a better explanation of what's up with three separate Catholic characters using their own mouths like giant CD insertion trays, all highlighted in close-up, in the weighted final moments before the long-planned climax of an eight-year show. Maybe onion rings are just onion rings. In which case, well, pretty strange onion rings.]

                What else happens at a funeral? You eulogize the dead – “eulogy” from “good words” in Greek – remembering them in the best light possible. The last thing Tony's son ever gets to tell his father? “Focus on the good times,” A.J. says.

                He’s quoting Tony, back to him. Tony responds by speaking of himself in past tense, suddenly showing little more self-awareness than Junior has just shown in the previous scene. “I said that?” Tony asks, genuinely and pleasantly surprised. The last moments show a developing bond between Tony and A.J. Which is interesting. Given the death of Christopher, A.J. is the only potential male heir left in Tony’s life.

                Hmm. Right about here I paused the DVR and thought for a minute. David Chase chose a literal reference to A.J. himself to invoke the Ghost image. [UPDATED -- not so much; see the end of the post.] I wonder about another possibility in addition to Tony’s death: A.J.’s.

                Farfetched? Maybe. But this episode has also contained repeated suggestions of A.J.’s mortality. The giant fireball at the SUV might have been the first clue. His reaction in therapy. His desire to run off to a war zone. And, um, the urgent attention his parents have been giving to the issue of keeping him not very dead of late.

                And, say, from Tony's POV, Members Only Guy physically blots out A.J. while entering (much more notably in the footage than in the grab, below) – something which was probably intentional, since you don’t send actors willy-nilly into frame during even a minor scene.



                Still, I’m less than 50-50 on this idea. But if Members Only Guy shot when he emerged from the bathroom, the only person in position to react – as Chase himself has designed it, remember – would have been A.J. Alternate endings, anyone?

                If we have been set up for both Tony and A.J. to die [a big if, just supposing] this would end the Soprano male bloodline. The finale would be absolute. Carm would be destroyed (whether physically wounded or not) and Meadow, the only one with a real chance to go straight, would be literally on the outside, watching from afar.

                In any case, Tony’s swallowing of his greasy orange wafer ring is his last act on this earth (or at least on our TV screens). But do we have any more evidence that this is, indeed, Dead Man Communing? Yup. In the soundtrack.



                In Catholicism, administration of the Eucharist in the moments before death is known as Viaticum, derived from the Latin word for… “Journey.”


                [Loud throat clearing noise.]



                Which brings us to the final songs:

                One thing seemingly missing from the Catholic Mass references described above is the lack of a visual shout-out to holy water at the outset, the ritual reminder of damp divine purification. However, when Tony enters the restaurant, the background music is 1975’s “All That You Dream” by Little Feat. And David Chase has it cued up to this specific lyric:


                All, all that you dream... it comes through shining, silver lining and
                Clouds, clouds change the scene... rain starts washing all love’s caution...


                “Rain starts washing” – an explicit description of water providing cleansing from the heavens – plays during the Last Supper shot. Those three words, only those three words, and only that one time.



                Either Chase really had this in mind – and by all accounts he makes extremely careful decisions about music – or this is one mind-blowingly cool coincidence.


                As to the final song, the Viaticum -- sorry, Journey -- power ballad so widely debated: it begins at the precise instant that Carmela is shown entering the restaurant. Not a frame before, not a frame later. Literally on the cut. This, again, is not the sort of thing that happens by accident. It's a choice you make in the editing room.



                So the music seems symbolically intended for Carmela, the most likely survivor of any post-onion-ring gunplay at the table. (This notion is reinforced by the way the lyrics "just a small-town girl" and "livin' in a lonely world" are both matched to insert close-ups of Carmela's face, interrupted by a shot of Tony.)

                Why would Carmela need her own song when at least one person she loves is apparently about to practically die in her lap?

                The purpose of most Christian funeral music is to reassure the mourners of the presence of God, express the hope that Christ will take the deceased to Himself, and provide comfort in the faith that the loved ones will all one day be reunited in the afterlife.

                For the survivors, in other words -- and really quite precisely:


                Ohh, doooon’t stop… belieeeeevin’…




                I've probably screwed up some of this. Religiously, I'm a lapsed agnostic, so I don't even remember what I don't care about. And maybe it’s all wild happenstance. This could be so utterly, buffoonishly wrong. Which would be cool, too. I like a good laugh at myself as much as anybody.

                [UPDATE: See what I originally just said there? Can I possibly be clearer about the idea that I'm not presenting this with any certainty, just a bunch of thoughts about stuff on the screen, trying to figure it out like everyone else?]

                But look again at what's actually on the screen and in the soundtrack.

                David Chase did, after all, insist: “Anybody who wants to watch it, it’s all there.”


                UPDATE: The line attributed to Tony above, "Where is the Ghost" is incorrect. According to the Closed Captioning, which I didn't initially think to check, the exact words are "Where is Googootz," pronounced like "guh-goats." While "Googootz" looks like an infectious crusty buildup caused by the overuse of search engines, it's actually a real Italian nickname that I simply didn't recognize and therefore misheard. This resets the meaning of both that piece of dialogue and any implication it might have had about A.J.'s possible doom. The rest still makes sense. So far. Recalibrate your credulity to taste.

                I also mistyped Phil Leotardo's name as "Paul," which I've corrected directly in the text because it could lead to confusion with Paulie.

                One weird apparent implication of imminent death explained away beautifully; at least a dozen or more to go.

                UPDATE again: The Scouts are apparently Bear Scouts, who do wear pale kerchiefs. My bad. Still, the point about the choice of a washed-out color spectrum, save for mostly orange hues, seems self-evident from the sequence. Editors in post-production can jack colors around quite a bit, about as easily as you once turned the Tint control on an old color TV. And there's a whole lot of neutral tone in that restaurant, right down to the choice of the gray Members Only jacket, which kinda blends right in.

                That, in fact, may have been the useful point of the color scheme in there, and not so much the orange tone of the room per se.

                But the thingy about oranges being a hint of death -- this is extremely well-known to fans of the Godfather series. Don Corleone buys oranges and immediately gets shot; much later, he finally dies with a piece of orange in his mouth. Michael Corleone also dies with an orange in his hand. There are also many minor examples, where the color orange itself becomes a hint that something bad is coming for that character. In the Sopranos, Tony had orange juice in the episode where he was shot, a fairly obvious wink to the Godfather. And now he eats an orange in the beginning of the final episode...

                UPDATES never end: I swear to you, I actually noticed this only while typing the words "try the veal" in the joking Godfather reference at the top, welcoming the flood of new traffic. However, in their last conversation, Tony oddly tells A.J. that the onion rings are "the best in the state." It's a fairly strange comment. However, it makes absolute sense if Chase is deliberately referencing the famous Sollozzo shooting scene ("Try the veal. It's the best in the city.") in the Godfather. Sollozzo famously dies just after commenting on the veal, so much so that it's a common in-joke among fans to drop the phrase "try the veal" into conversation.

                Moments later, the speaker of these words is shot by Michael Corleone, who is emerging from a nearby bathroom.

                YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Lots of folks have been puzzling over the significance of the handful of song titles given close-ups when Tony first sits down and fools around with the jukebox.

                Notably, "This Magic Moment" appears near the center of the frame when Tony first flips the titles; "This Magic Moment" also appears again, moments later, as the card directly behind Tony's final selection, "Don't Stop Believin'" by Journey.

                According to the HBO website, "This Magic Moment" is is the song playing as Bobby returns to the lake house in "Soprano Home Movies."

                As far as I can determine, none of the other songs briefly shown on the jukebox have previously appeared on the show. So while you can take some face value meaning in some of the other titles, and perhaps they reference other things in other ways, the mysterious jukebox titles seem at minimum to be another in-your-grill pointer to Bobby's description of death in that episode.

                Also, I'd like to thank several emailers for providing various screengrabs illustrating the points. This post was originally all text; I've been adding grabs as people have kindly filled in the blanks. Much appreciated.

                OK, I'm gonna go resume my life for a while. (I actually have one, honest.) Please, everybody, one thing I beg of you to remember: it's a TV show. It's fun. It's nothing else. And I'm not presenting the above as, er, gospel. It's a list of things which actually happen on the screen, and a series of opinions as to what they mean, if anything, based on a limited amount of experience. As I've said throughout: every single word could be wrong. I am certain that at least some of them are. Some of them may not be. I don't know which ones. Do your own thinking. Have fun.

                Leave the gun, people. Take the cannoli.
                http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1406/1/

                Comment


                • #23
                  Re: Sopranos Finale

                  Originally posted by bellisimo View Post
                  Alright Spoiler Alert ahead - but I thought this was a rather good take...



                  http://www.bobharris.com/content/view/1406/1/
                  WOW!!!!!

                  I had been pretty much of the same opinion as Brich about the whole show in that it's really about the American family and that that is the clear message of the final scene...

                  "Enjoy the good times, the family times, because no one ever knows what might happen in the future, especially Tony who had just been distinctly reminded in the previous few scenes that his end will probably be in prison (from his lawyer), attached to a breathing tube (Sil), shot in the head (Phil, though Tony wasn't actually there for that one), alone (Paulie), or senile (Junior). So, really, the only thing that matters is your family and even though a lot of bad things will happen, you gotta remember and enjoy the good times. Again, especially for Tony, who if not headed to prison, is gonna be facing a trial likely for lifetime incarceration in the near future. So enjoy your loved ones while you can because that's really all there is in life."


                  But after reading this Bob Harris dude, it seems pretty clear that dude in the bathroom was coming out firing. The Godfather references and the opening coffin scene of the episode seem especially clear.

                  Time to watch for the 6th time now, I guess.
                  Read my Pacers blog:
                  8points9seconds.com

                  Follow my twitter:

                  @8pts9secs

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Re: Sopranos Finale

                    I know most folks have long since forgotten this subject, but even after reading the well thought out theory from Bob Harris, I'm still not completely sold on it. One of the biggest problems I have is that folks mention that the show is largely told from Tony's POV, and I simply disagree with that. If you want to see a show from a first person POV, watch The Wonder Years with Fred Savage.

                    There aren't just some scenes, there are lots of scenes where Tony isn't involved at all. We even had quite a bit of one Episode showing the Heroin-fest Christopher was having with Julianne Margiluisse. The only odd first person moments we get are Tony's hallucinations of "Big Pu--y" and his odd dream sequences. So I would argue that those moments are the exception rather than the norm for the series.

                    And although he points out many things pointing to a final end, the oranges, the color of the cat, the Last Supper Pic. and the communion eating of oninon rings, those things could also be metaphors to an end ie. the series instead of being a clear demise of Tony Soprano. And I'll never be comfortable thinking that anybody gets whacked in front of their family. That is just sloppy and Wise Guys typically are far more careful.

                    You watch a guy until he is alone. You follow his patterns and when he least expects it you whack 'em. The original attempt on Tony's life hired by Uncle Jr. is more of a classic hit. There is no reason for the guy to go to the bathroom b/c in the Godfather Pacino needs to get a gun. This guy wasn't frisked by a policeman walking in, so if you are going to do it in broad daylight, why not walk over and start firing? Or walk just behing him, turn around, and kablam.

                    The words of the song "The movie never ends it goes on and on" also suggests to me that is exactly what Chase is saying. Tony and his life/movie keep going on.

                    The comparison to American Beauty is terrible. Right after Kevin Spacey is killed, we shortly see a guy take off his bloody T-shirt. That my friend is hitting you in the head with a 2 by 4. This ending is as clear as mud. I look forward to Chase revealing at some point his Davinci Code like handling of this final episode. But until then I will simply be puzzled. I did watch the ending on youtube and it didn't help me one bit. lol
                    “Seventy percent of me talking on the court is personally for me to get me
                    motivated and going. Thirty percent is to see if I can get into the opponent’s head.”
                    Reggie Miller

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Re: Sopranos Finale

                      After rewatching it the other night, I tend to think the show itself got 'whacked' and went to silence and blackness...

                      Bball
                      Nuntius was right for a while. I was wrong for a while. But ultimately I was right and Frank Vogel has been let go.

                      ------

                      "A player who makes a team great is more valuable than a great player. Losing yourself in the group, for the good of the group, that’s teamwork."

                      -John Wooden

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Re: Sopranos Finale

                        Well, I'm watching the old Soprano's Epi's on A&E, and I get bored. I remember reading the episode guide of 'Made in America' and wanting to read what it said about the ending of the episode. Here's what is said the Monday, after it originally aired:

                        Finally parking the car, Meadow runs inside to join her family, just in time for ...

                        It had me freaked out because it left all the possibilities of different endings. 1.) Tony got whacked 2.) We the viewers got whacked 3.) The show itself got whacked

                        I just happened to get bored and rechecked the Episode Guide again. To my surprise here's what is says now:

                        Finally parking the car, Meadow runs inside to join her family, just in time for DINNER.

                        Dinner?!? So obviously, Tony doesn't die now. That silences that question. But it still leaves up the two next possibilities... Did we die or the viewers?


                        Here's the link:
                        http://www.hbo.com/sopranos/episode/...pisode86.shtml

                        What do you all think?
                        Last edited by Mr. Pink; 06-28-2007, 02:30 AM. Reason: typo's
                        AKA Sactolover05

                        Comment

                        Working...
                        X