What did you think?
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.
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
-
Sopranos Finale
The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
RSS Feed
Subscribe via iTunes
Tags: None
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
Terrible. If you're going to end a show, end it the proper way. This is why mainstream America is annoyed by Hollywood. We wanted closure, not the selfish writer's convoluted artistic expression.
Some people are saying that they're setting it up for a movie, or that the "real" ending is only going to be available on DVD. They need to be a little bit more direct with the people and let us know what is going on.
The most annoying thing is that Steven Van Sandt (sp?), the guy that plays Sil, said that the ending of the show was going to be very direct, leave no question in the mind of the viewer the fate of all the characters. That simply wasn't true.
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
Originally posted by dcpacersfan View PostTerrible. If you're going to end a show, end it the proper way. This is why mainstream America is annoyed by Hollywood. We wanted closure, not the selfish writer's convoluted artistic expression.
Some people are saying that they're setting it up for a movie, or that the "real" ending is only going to be available on DVD. They need to be a little bit more direct with the people and let us know what is going on.
The most annoying thing is that Steven Van Sandt (sp?), the guy that plays Sil, said that the ending of the show was going to be very direct, leave no question in the mind of the viewer the fate of all the characters. That simply wasn't true.
Comment
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
Originally posted by Stryder View PostI believe they actually filmed 3 different endings.
It wasn't about being the team everyone loved, it was about beating the teams everyone else loved.
Division Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 1989, 1990, 2002, 2003, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008
Conference Champions 1955, 1956, 1988, 2005
NBA Champions 1989, 1990, 2004
Comment
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
I'm not telling how it DOES end but I guess I am mentioning how it DOESN'T end (in generalities) so stop reading if you're worried about having it spoiled for you.
I was very disappointed with the ending. Now, mind you, the long wait between 'seasons' caused me to lose interest in following the show closely in the first place. But I certainly was 'up' on the show and still liked it overall leading into this finale. I knew it well enough that I would have appreciated some closure or it could've ended with a obvious nod to a new life for Tony somehow. It could've even ended with T on the verge of getting whacked but cut away and went to black. But the last episode didn't leave me wanting more nor did it give me closure.
I guess we got closure in knowing Meadow finally got her car parked....
I'm still giving Newhart kudos for ending a show on a high note. Sopranos... it disappointed me as much as Seinfeld's finale. I believe both shows deserved better and had more possibilities that just went unexplored.
-BballLast edited by Bball; 06-12-2007, 10:52 PM.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
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
I hid my section just in case somebody hasn't seen it yet.
Spoiler:I am surprised that I was actually OK with the ending. Generally speaking I hate what I call "Hitchcock endings" because I hate the ambiguity of it all. In general, I feel, "What is the point?" it is kind of like reading an intriguing novel only to find out that there is no ending. I was really bummed out how Stephen King ended the Dark Tower series for example. Hours of reading and no real resolve.
There are a few reasons I wound up being OK with it. One is because there was no way they were going to tie up all of the loose ends in that episode. They might have had a shot if it were a two hour episode, but even then, it would have been crammed and probably wouldn't have flowed well. I also was glad to see that Philly got what he deserved...I hated that guy. I ideally wanted Tony and Silvio to live, and the way it was left, it seems like it was definitely possible that they did.
The other thing is that no matter how Chase ended the series, he was bound to be criticized for ending it the wrong way, being cliche', or ripping off something from another flick. There really was no perfect way to end the series in my opinion, and in a sense, he didn't. The way he ended it allows for everybody to kind of imagine their perfect ending, and it allows him the option to revisit these characters in a move or reprise of the series later. I kind of doubt that he will, but there will be an option.
I don't think Chase ever meant the focus of the Sopranos to be about organized crime. From what I have read, he meant it to be about family, and alot of the topics stemmed from issues in his personal life. He based Livia alot on his own mother, which is a pretty scary thought. The reason the show was endearing was that you could relate to Tony Soprano the average middle age suburbanite shlub in a McManshion, and his trials and tribulations with stress, his kids, infidelity, and finding a purpose in life. The mob piece was the hook that kept you watching.
By the way, the ending has been, and will continue to be interprested a million different ways (unless Chase ever says anything), but there is an intriguing interpreatation of the ending that I have seen in a few different forumns. Many people believe that Tony really was whacked in the end because you are seeing things from his perspective when everything fades to black (which is basically how Tony explained what it would be like to get whacked when he talks to Bobby in the boat earlier this season...which was flahsed back to in the last episode). He sees each member of his family come in, and then you hear chimes, except when Meadow comes in. The thought is that this is the last image that he sees before he is whacked.
Now, there are other theories out there that the suspicious guy going to the restroom (aka the Godfather) is related to Leotardo and was at a sit down in a previous episode, that the African-American men are hit men in a previous episode, and that the trucker guy is relevant to the truck hitchhiking episode where Christopher killed somebody early on in the series. I have also heard that this is not true, and this has been refuted. Who knows? Others have said that the mysterious guy being focused on is of Mid-Eastern descent, and this is all related to the information that Tony has passed on to the FBI.
While intriguing, that is not how I interpreted it. I interpreted it that this is Tony's life. There will always be fear from being killed or arrested...it goes with the territory. He will always be paranoid and nervous about protecting his family, although with his occupation, he and his family will always be at risk. I think the majority of people will hate the ending now, but over time, I would guess it will be heralded as a great ending to his masterpiece.
As a side note...as much as I loved the series...it didn't age well. I particularly thought the entire Johnny Cakes episodes were weak. I personally wasn't bothered by the subject at hand (I am sure others were), I just thought it was too weak of a story line to drag out that long. They should have been able to tell that story in one or two episodes tops.Last edited by brich; 06-12-2007, 06:01 PM.When you're playing against a stacked deck, compete even harder. Show the world how much you'll fight for the winners circle. If you do, someday the cellophane will crackle off a fresh pack, one that belongs to you, and the cards will be stacked in your favor.
-Pat Riley
Comment
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
Spoiler:So a few episodes ago there's this conversation about how when you get hit, you don't see it coming and all that happens is sudden blackness.
Then this happens to Tony.
And then in the credits the man in the restaurant (going to the bathroom) is given the same last name as the guy killed earlier in the finale.
2+2=OMG math is hard and stuff.“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
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
Originally posted by Los Angeles View PostSpoiler:So a few episodes ago there's this conversation about how when you get hit, you don't see it coming and all that happens is sudden blackness.
Then this happens to Tony.
And then in the credits the man in the restaurant (going to the bathroom) is given the same last name as the guy killed earlier in the finale.
2+2=OMG math is hard and stuff.
OK... I'm starting to appreciate the episode more. Not seeing that lead up episode hurt I guess.
-BballNuntius 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
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
Actually, it was speculation that the guy in the diner looking over at him, that walked into the bathroom, was Phil Leotardo's nephew.
But in the credits, it only says, 'Man in Member's Only Jacket'
So, I don't think 2+2=4 there, because it's not verified fact that the guy in the diner, in the member's only jacket was in fact related to Phil, so he must have shot him.
I just didn't see it that way.
I did see some posts on the HBO board talking about it, but I've seen the episode, and credits 5x now, and I'm pretty confident that regarding the shady diner guy, it says Man in Member's Only jacket, in the credits.
As for the episode itself, I thought it was weak as hell. I've been watching since the first season, and outside of a few instances of symbolism in the final one, I thought they just left too much unresolved, just as they've been doing since season 3.Last edited by burnzone; 06-12-2007, 11:10 PM.
Comment
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
I don't know how to do the spoiler thing SO DON'T READ IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE ENDING!!!!
I really believe in the theory that Tony didn't die, but we as the viewer did. There really wasn't a reason for Tony to get whacked. If he did, it was because of one of the outside families that we never have heard of. New York had backed Tony killing Phil and they were sorry about trying to kill Tony.
So, that leaves me with the viewers were killed. 1.) As it's been stated, there was that flashback in the 2nd to last episode of Bobby and Tony talking about killing people. Bobby says something close to this: "You probably don't even feel or hear it. Probably just goes black."
This episode was the ending. Tony's life stays the same. He deals with his family, THE Family, therapy...it all goes on. But we don't get to watch anymore. We don't see his ups and downs. We were unexpectedly whacked. I really do feel that's what the ending was supposed to play.
Either way if I'm right or wrong...the ending did its job. It got EVERYONE talking. I even heard it made headlines on the New York Times. I heard it all over the radio, on the news, ESPN. David Chase got us. But that ending was smart, in my opinion. I hated it at first, but the more I think about it, and all the options of what happened...I like it more and moreAKA Sactolover05
Comment
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
Spoiler:I know it wasnt the dramatic emphatic finish that would usually be what i would want but i think there was something almost classy about the finish, i was slightly disappointed in some ways but i think they could have got it a lot more wrong!
Not really much of a spoiler but still used it just incase that would ruin it for someone.'All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.'
Animal Farm, by George Orwell
Comment
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
If it was meant to portray the viewers getting 'whacked' then that sucked in my critique.
That would go back to what dcpacerfan was saying about 'selfish artistic impression'. Of course they have the right to do it, but to me that would miss the mark.
I like LA's version better.
-BballNuntius 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
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
First, I think the spoilers thing is not needed, because if you are reading a thread about the Sopranos finale, you obviously are gonna see spoilers.
Second, LA made reference to the 'Nikki Leotardo' thing. Someone made that up and spread the rumor through the internet. There is no 'Nikki Leotardo' or any other Leotardo besides Phil in the credits.
Now, my take:
I don't like it. I think this was either a cop-out or a big 'screw you' to the viewers, and I don't like it either way.
-If Tony was shot, why didn't we hear a snip of a gun shot? Or hear a little gasp from someone in the restaraunt who saw the gun being drawn? And why was the last song 'Don't Stop Believing'?
-If Tony lives, why was the final shot an image of Tony looking up at his daughter coming through the door? What could that possibly mean in the grand scheme of the show? Granted, if there is a brilliant answer to this question, that might make the ending cool, but I sure as hell don't know what that is. If some mysterious threat was in the doorway, why didn't we see it? Even if it was a guy in a ski mask, that would still be mysterious but fitting.
-The 'viewers got whacked' thing is so silly that I would like to think it isn't a possibility.
-If the end was just 'Life Goes On', why end on that shot? The song makes sense, the suspecious people throughout the diner make sense, but ending with Tony looking out the door at his daughter doesn't. If the family just kept on living, why not end with a shot of the family eating dinner? Because that wouldn't be genius.
And this is the key here. If David Chase stuck with a definitive ending, the audience would like it, a few critics would like it, and we would move on. If he made a narrow but ambiguous ending (like a masked gunman who enters the place but doesn't fire), that would have has us talking for a few days, and then we would move on.
Instead, he crafted an ending with a million possibilities and contradictory evidence so that it is impossible to logically subscribe to any ending. Now the critics think he is an even bigger genius than he was before, and we the people will debate this for decades, possible. This serves one person and one person only: David Chase.
He just cemented his place in the pantheon of TV history. He ****ed everyone off for his own gain.
And that, to me, is the epitome of self indulgence.
And I wouldn't even care except that every good TV show for the next decade will end like this and that is really, really gonna suck.The Miller Time Podcast on 8 Points, 9 Seconds:
http://www.eightpointsnineseconds.com/tag/miller-time-podcast/
RSS Feed
Subscribe via iTunes
Comment
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
...no sense using spoiler alert at this point I guess.
I have spoken to a few people who have read interviews from Chase that hint Tony lives. I can't verify or refute...but something else to murky the waters.When you're playing against a stacked deck, compete even harder. Show the world how much you'll fight for the winners circle. If you do, someday the cellophane will crackle off a fresh pack, one that belongs to you, and the cards will be stacked in your favor.
-Pat Riley
Comment
-
Re: Sopranos Finale
There was an AP article written about this today that basically has a bunch of stuffy college professors at film schools saying that "in our societies we are so used to all loose ends being tied up in a tidy fashion" and Chase did the right thing by refuting that popular notion by ending the Sopranos on the note that he did.
But, I mean, we all die right? And in today's day and age almost everyone's cause of death is known, or it at least know that the person is dead. I still don't get it.
Comment
Comment