s/o If you just watched or rewatched The Sopranos, let's talk about the ending

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no "right" or "wrong" here, it was never fully defined at the time, so you can interpret the ending as it suits you and leave others to do the same (or do the same but differently).

It's like having a room of 1st graders, squabbling. Jesus.

You new to DCUM?

10 years here and counting, baby.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I thought it was brilliant. Interesting theory that the son & wife died, never thought about that! But I think it was limited to Tony.

It wouldn’t have been wife and kids. Code wouldn’t let someone kill them, just Tony.

Agree. Have you *ever* heard of a mob wife being killed along with the husband? It's not how it happens. They do have their "code" because it's what separates them from your regular drug gang, for whatever it's worth. Carmela and AJ are innocents and not involved in the mob activity. They were not killed. It's not some drug lord film where everyone is brutally killed.

Here's a wife that was killed and it was acknowledged that there is no longer a code: https://www.cbc.ca/amp/1.6845655

Wives rarely targeted in Mafia attacks, says policing expert. That's from the link you posted, which admitted it's highly unusual. It also happened in 2023 and the Sopranos ended in 2007. Very confident the show's writers had absolutely no concept of having Carmela and AJ gunned down. You've been watching too many movies about drug lords.

Where does this confidence come from? Are you David Chase?

Why would David Chase, a stickler for accuracy re the mafia culture, do something so drastic and out of the blue as to kill off Carmela and AJ while sparing Meadow? There is no logic to it. Ask yourself that question. I wouldn't be surprised if you're the poster who wrote that long blog theory.

Killing off Carmela and AJ would be someone turning up at Downton Abbey and killing the family. It defies plausibility and turns the Soprano from an intelligent program to cheap soap opera of the worst kind. We can safely rule this out.

I think David Chase was pissed off by all the fans gleefully looking forward to Tony's death that he tricked everyone, including the suspense shots that he knew would have people endlessly agonizing over them for clues, when the actual death was just very mundane. Heart attack or brain aneurysm.

[Anonymous]

There’s just no way Carmela and AJ get hit . A real mafia hit wouldn’t even kill a boss in front his family at a diner. That’s why I don’t understand when people are so sure he died. The end was just a cut off . It could’ve been a seizure or he passed out. It’s not obvious he died. The setting being a family meal doesn’t invite the idea of it being a mafia hit. Any man who killed a boss like Tony in front of his wife and kids would be severely punished and killed as well. They wouldn’t have hit the boss Tony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Some posters are being too superficial. I highly recommend this in-depth analysis of what happened by Mike Cole http://mikecole.org/the-sopranos-ending-made-in-america/

To summarize the ending:

"However, The Sopranos is first and foremost a work of fiction. And as such, it is likely subject to all the plot development devices commonly employed by authors of fiction including: dramatic irony, symbolism, and meaningful scene sequencing. Using an understanding of these techniques to glean clues from the final two episodes, we can clearly conclude the following:

Tony was indeed "whacked"
Carmela and AJ also were killed
Meadow lived
Patsy Parisi betrayed Tony
AJ inadvertently facilitated the murders
Rhiannon was an unwitting accomplice for the murders"

Definitely worth your time if you are a Sopranos fan!

Ok Mike, I read your blog. You came up with an intriguing theory for the ending and why AJ and Carmela were also killed based on the idea that they're eating onion rings as the equivalent of the Eucharist, aka the Last Supper. The problem with the theory is that only one person died following the Last Supper: Jesus. If the dinner at the restaurant was supposed to be an allegory of the Last Supper, it doesn't work, and that's leaving aside the whole problematic issue of comparing Tony to Jesus.

Noticed that people commenting on your blog pointed out all the flaws with this theory, of which not least is David Chase apparently commenting that AJ ends up a low level producer (therefore he didn't get whacked). There is also the danger of overanalyzing a story and finding allegories where the writers never meant to be allegories. Sometimes people just die. They just die. Like Tony's mother. And I think that's the most logical outcome for the episode. Tony just died. He didn't get whacked. All the other "clues" are red herrings but they don't add up to a mob hit.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There’s just no way Carmela and AJ get hit . A real mafia hit wouldn’t even kill a boss in front his family at a diner. That’s why I don’t understand when people are so sure he died. The end was just a cut off . It could’ve been a seizure or he passed out. It’s not obvious he died. The setting being a family meal doesn’t invite the idea of it being a mafia hit. Any man who killed a boss like Tony in front of his wife and kids would be severely punished and killed as well. They wouldn’t have hit the boss Tony.

Stupid take. Earlier in the same episode or one episode prior (?), the Sopranos executed NY mafia boss Phil Leotardo in front of his wife and grandchild at a gas station.

[Anonymous]

The blackout ending was lame crap, but because couch potato sheep, especially boomers, over-hyped the series so much, they made it out to be genius. Same for all the corny way over-the-top writing in Mad Men everyone makes out to be genius.

It's clear the ending was just an opportunistic ploy to potentially extend the money train with a movie or spinoff. When James died in real life, David switched his story.

[Anonymous]

I always assumed Tony had a heart attack eating an onion ring.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Some posters are being too superficial. I highly recommend this in-depth analysis of what happened by Mike Cole http://mikecole.org/the-sopranos-ending-made-in-america/

To summarize the ending:

"However, The Sopranos is first and foremost a work of fiction. And as such, it is likely subject to all the plot development devices commonly employed by authors of fiction including: dramatic irony, symbolism, and meaningful scene sequencing. Using an understanding of these techniques to glean clues from the final two episodes, we can clearly conclude the following:

Tony was indeed "whacked"
Carmela and AJ also were killed
Meadow lived
Patsy Parisi betrayed Tony
AJ inadvertently facilitated the murders
Rhiannon was an unwitting accomplice for the murders"

Definitely worth your time if you are a Sopranos fan!

Ok Mike, I read your blog. You came up with an intriguing theory for the ending and why AJ and Carmela were also killed based on the idea that they're eating onion rings as the equivalent of the Eucharist, aka the Last Supper. The problem with the theory is that only one person died following the Last Supper: Jesus. If the dinner at the restaurant was supposed to be an allegory of the Last Supper, it doesn't work, and that's leaving aside the whole problematic issue of comparing Tony to Jesus.

Noticed that people commenting on your blog pointed out all the flaws with this theory, of which not least is David Chase apparently commenting that AJ ends up a low level producer (therefore he didn't get whacked). There is also the danger of overanalyzing a story and finding allegories where the writers never meant to be allegories. Sometimes people just die. They just die. Like Tony's mother. And I think that's the most logical outcome for the episode. Tony just died. He didn't get whacked. All the other "clues" are red herrings but they don't add up to a mob hit.

Then of course there is this: whatever the author meant is irrelevant in light of what the reader - or in this case viewer - thinks. Once you create a work of art and send it out into the world, you lose creative control over it and it becomes a possession of each and every person who experiences it and considers it in light of their own unique perspective.

If books and films and television and paintings and music etc. had only one fixed meaning, they would be not so very compelling in the human arena.

Tony died for some viewers. Tony didn’t die for some viewers. Etc.

David Chase’s thoughts on the matter aren’t relevant to us.

[Anonymous]

I loved the ending. I think about it a lot. The fact that death is probably like that for most people. Everything suddenly goes black.

[Anonymous]

From salon.com

‘The day before the show aired, “Don’t Stop Believin’” was downloaded on iTunes 1,000 times; the day after, 6,531 times…’

I was part of the journey craze the first time around and loved that the song was part of the sopranos ending- and now it’s on my jogging playlist