For one (and this was like in the next paragraph in that link), if Patsy was involved, his son would likely know through Meadow. It's also possible that after Phil dies Tony is just less careful.

I just don't buy Patsy being involved... the scene where Paulie and Patsy get shot at leaving the Bing, the way Patsy runs for his life (and I also think he tried to shoot back at their attackers as he fled if I remember correctly) doesn't make sense if he's a part of a move against Tony. If he wasn't part of the hit on Paulie, but later decided to be part of a hit on Tony with a different group (or the same group if he decided to defect), I also really doubt he would have turned on him in the span of a single episode without more overt hints for the audience, both in the last two episodes and throughout the series/season. With the exception of maybe Silvio, lots of guys in Tony's crew had reasons to want to kill him throughout the course of the series. Even if Patsy had a few, I really think we would have seen obvious plotting or hatred of Tony on his part.

The only thing that could have been a direct plot would have been if Patsy's son had intentionally started dating Meadow so he could get inside information. The big problem with that thinking is that Patsy is already part of Tony's inner crew, so he probably spends more time with Tony than Tony does with his own family anyway. Patsy could arrange to have him whacked a ton of other ways and at plenty of other times. Plus, his son dating Meadow legitimately, and absent of sinister intentions, could put him in great standing with the boss without having to do anything. Given Patsy has always been a loyal soldier, his only real motive for killing Tony would be pure revenge, and there was basically nothing throughout several seasons that established to the audience that Patsy actively continued to harbor resentment towards Tony.

i really don't fully understand what you are trying to say that first paragraph...

but obviously patsy has NOT always been a loyal soldier. he routinely defied tony (stealing from the esplanade construction site among other things) and he never really got over his brother. he even tried to kill tony in season 3, in case you don't remember.

however, revenge is not his primary motive for killing tony now. rather, he sees an opportunity, with the dust settling from the war with new york (AFTER sil's hit), to take over as boss. with sil, bobby, christopher, and carlo gone gone, who is the logical choice to step up as boss? either paulie or patsy. and who's gonna want paulie as boss.

to me it is clear that tony was shot by the members only guy. the question is: who has the motivation, support (from new york), and ability to get rid of tony? and the only answer to me seems to be patsy.

(also, i think it is possible that, if patsy did mastermind this hit, he also took out paulie, thus possibly giving some relevance to the whole christopher "three o'clock" storyline).

EDIT--another thing, patsy's son dating meadow obviously probably was not staged by patsy but he would have taken advantage of the relationship for sure if he was moving against tony

EDIT2-- and as far as there not being enough overt hints: this is david chase we're talking about here. he loves springing **** on you and not tying up loose ends, in case you didn't know. besides, it seems to me that there are some fairly obvious facial expressions/ camera angles indicating coveting going on with patsy and his wife

I like the Patsy idea but they give absolutely no hint at it being a possibility in the show. After his attempt to kill Tony he has been loyal (besides the theft at the Esplanade which doesn't say much because everyone in Tony's crew is disobeying him to get an extra buck, afaik Tony even said that this is expected and a cost of doing business). If this was their idea I think they would give us at least a little hint that Patsy has these ambitions. Like, it could also have been the guy Tony and Chris attack in the first season at the HMO building, they give us the same amount of story leading up to the killing of Tony.

So, is the finale argument strictly intentionally ambiguous and definitely whacked or do some people have good arguments that it wasn't a hit?

I feel like everyone will be biased, at least slightly, to think he was whacked and I've read good arguments for both so I tend to lean towards ambiguous.

I think they finished dinner and went home personally, but I've found arguing that on the Internet to be a frustrating experience in the past.

I used to think it was ambiguous, and I don't really try to convince people that it wasn't, but the analysis I linked convinced me that Chase's intention was for us to conclude that Tony was killed and the 10-second blackout at the end is us seeing from his now-dead POV.

tony has lots of people who would like to see him dead. however, imo, there is only one guy who has all of the following:

1: the incentive (both financial and personal)
2: the resources (a normal guy's [an insurance agent who tony and christopher beat up, for instance] not gonna be able to order a hit on a mob boss and get away with it)
3: the knowledge of tony's whereabouts for dinner
4: support from other crime families, due to tony's hit on phil leotardo (if a regular guy had tony whacked, there would for sure be retaliation: it would be like when tony ordered a hit on vito but then retaliated anyway when phil had vito clipped the night before tony's guy was gonna kill him.)

sorry that may not make sense btw, i'm groggy

EDIT-- i think the camera angles demonstrating patsy and his wife coveting the sopranos' things is a big hint that patsy is not content with his lot in life

btw, leaving the ending of the show would go against every theme david chase spent six seasons establishing. he's a smarter guy than that. besides, he has said that it is all there for us to figure out, implying that there is a definite ending that can be inferred from the show.

think about the major storylines in all six seasons before season 6b. they all come to a definite end. why would he change that formula all of a sudden in the last season?

Don't forget the conversations throughout S6 with Bobby and Sil about how "You never see it coming" and "everything cuts to black".

Also an explanation for why the "Man in Members Only Jacket" is credited specifically as such in "Made in America" and not just as another Holsten's customer.

i'm being a nit, but bobby never actually said this bolded part. it was a rumor. i think if he did say that, there could be no debate that the ending signified tony's death (as it is, i don't think it should be much of a debate anyway).

i agree with your general points though. the article you linked meticulously explained the connection between the credit as "Man in Members Only Jacket" and the hit on tony soprano being a mob related hit

Yeah, you're right, no one ever said that exactly. I think the conversation was along the lines of "Maybe there's nothing, it all just goes black", something like that.

From what I can tell, Bobby actually says something like "You probably don't even hear when it happens, right?" and Silvio mentions whenever the guy was whacked next to him at the restaurant (I think Doc Santoro?) he mentions that he never even heard the shot or realized what was going on until it had already happened.

sick scene that was

Who says he knew ahead of time? He walked in after Tony, he could have followed him there, then made his move when he saw an opening.

Refresh my memory: the whole Christopher "three o'clock" storyline???

The night the episode originally aired, before that 10-second blackout was over, I said outloud, "Oh my God, they whacked him!" The smash-cut to black was clearly intentional, highlighted by the Journey song ending on "stop!", which echoed a little. "Why is the screen black and the sound mute? OICWUDT!"

The second time I watched it, I noticed the whole bell/POV thing they were doing with the camera. I was already 99% sure, but that clinched it for me.

When you pile on everything else: the onion rings, the reason why they chose a Journey song, the fact that everyone in the episode is dressed in black (!!!), the earlier Bobby Bacala conversation (and a sneak preview of the bell/POV thing in that episode!), the "Last Supper" camera blocking/set design (with Carlo mentioned as Judas!), the orange cat, the fact that Chase wanted that final blackout to last 30 seconds but HBO vetoed that...I mean, it's the Casey Anthony debate all over again. No amount of evidence short of seeing it happen is enough to convince some people.

After Chris gets shot by his associates (interesting fact: they do burglaries in the show and one of the actors ended up being a burglar and being part of a cop killing in real life, he sits in jail right now) he has a dream where he gets warned about three o'clock. This freaks Paulie out.

Great part of the ending scene imo: because of the bell/POV thing I was so certain I saw meadow go in through the door in the last shot, but the last shot is tony looking up then it goes to black before that.

The line Bobby says to Tony in the boat is:
Regarding the ending, Chase's seeming annoyance at the microscopic breakdown of the finale makes me think the viewer's initial thinking while watching it is the correct one: The scene is getting more and more tense, and then BLACK. Killed without the satisfaction of us seeing the evil Tony go down.

Beyond that, though, the screen stays black as if to say that it's a part of the episode rather than part of the credits after the episode is over; which seems like a clear indication from the creator to the audience that he purposefully didn't show you the death for artistic reasons but added this extended black screen to insure you know he's in fact dead. Then consider the fact that Chase wanted it even longer, a minute, I think, and I'm unsure why there's so much perceived ambiguity.

In other words, I don't think you're wrong to believe he isn't dead, but you're going to have to explain why the extended blank screen, and I haven't heard a good explanation yet.

The extended black screen was put there to elevate the tension of the scene. It is what makes the ending of the most memorable in television history. Putting the black screen for the sole purpose of making it memorable is not a stretch.

There is also the possibility that the black screen is put in there in order to tell the audience, "You have been rooting for this bad guy for six seasons, and you want closure? Screw you, you get nothing!"

at first, years ago, i thought it was up for interpretation.

the longer since then the more blatantly obvious it sees to me that tony got whacked

always loved the scene where artie bucco is having a meeting with his entire staff, with his wife next to him. one cook says to another (in greek, albanian some foreign lang) 'i would bury my **** in those tits'. artie wants to know what they said, but of course they just laugh
funniest **** ever

More specifically, as Chase said a few times, "you've been rooting for his blood for six seasons? Screw you you get nothing you're not going to see that."


The ending has been discussed a million times on here there's just a ton of clues.

A handful of clues pointing in one direction does not make the ending unambiguous. Without this evidence the scene would have no ambiguity and the viewer could safely assume that Tony, having slyly outmaneuvered Phil Leotardo, is now free to enjoy some onion rings with his family.

Ambiguous endings are extremely common in literature. Think of how many novels end with some sort of observation that is vaguely related to the story that came before it, that prompts the reader to rethink how they interpret the story, or that frames it in a context to give it a larger meaning. Most novels don't end with a few flat sentences that basically say "The End". While the ending of The Wire, with it's closing musical montage and the final words being "Let's go home" might be traditional for television shows, and the ending to Dallas with a gunshot and a gasping Cliff saying "Oh my God" might be a straightforward cliff hanger, The Sopranos ending subverts the viewers expectation (but finds a home with people who watched the show like it was a Great American Novel) and purposely screws with their head.

Yeah, Bobby Bacala erroneously gets credit for predicting blackness. I'm pretty sure it was Livia telling young AJ (who was forced to go visit her) that the afterlife "is all a big nothing".

Heh, first guy ITT to bang the "I'm not convinced by the mountain of evidence you cite" drum is the guy who drove me bananas in the Casey Anthony thread this past summer, where his every post dripped with "I'm not convinced by the mountain of evidence you cite".