Don't you (you personally) dislike meta stuff like that?

In this case I don't feel like it's even much of a puzzle, but some people say the same thing about Inception, so .

In the final episode alone, there is SO much foreshadowing to Tony's death, that I want to say it's ridiculous to argue otherwise!

The first 10 seconds of the episode, he appears to be lying in a casket with organ music in the background.

He eats an orange for the first and only time in the series, after having just bragged in the previous episode that he hasn't had a green vegetable in weeks. Not only does the Godfather die in movies #1 and #3 with orange in mouth and in hand, but Tony is almost murdered in season 1 holding a bottle of orange juice.

He has a 'goodbye' scene, alone, with almost each family member (Janice, Meadow, Carmella, Junior, Syl, Paulie...).

He's shot by Junior in the episode titled 'Members Only'. The possible assassin wears a Members Only jacket.

Finally, there's no way that somebody could order the death of a New York mob boss, and get away with it, as Tony seems to do.

If it's the audience that gets whacked, then the orange, the mock funeral, the Members Only thing, etc must all be coincidence?

that's not my interpretation - i was merely fleshing out what it might mean. my interpretation is and will continue to be that it doesn't matter. he might be dead, he might be alive, but all hope for him is gone, and all hope for his family is gone. whether he lives or dies is totally immaterial, since everyone around him is doomed.

Yeah, they were good. His pasta tip in an earlier episode is better though.

I never cared to analyze it. I enjoyed reading various interpretations of it, but I didn't feel the need to dig that deep. I loved it and am glad it's over.

I love the rebirth of this thread!

Just caught the series opener this afternoon. They all looked like kids.

not really a subtle moment but for me it was the funniest.

Paulie and Christopher were in the woods trying to kill a crazy Russian dude, Christopher was wearing some carpet from the car as his shoes and Paulie was going nuts with hunger - they found the ketchup and i laughed for ages.

starting again on Sky HBO on tues night, can't wait.

Yea they had the last episode on and then the 1st. Crazy watching the difference. But some seasons were like 2 years apart.

AJ looks like 2 different people. Why the hell did Chase pick him as AJ? He was a fat kid as wide as he was as tall. He must have lost a bet or knew the family. Hell, even the kid from 2 1/2 Men would have been a better choice.

Anyone know the significance of that life-sized poster of Silvio in the 2nd to last episode? It has to mean something but I've never heard what it represents.

I posted this earlier itt, but here is why I hate that huge blog entry, outside of some factual errors like misquoting Bobby Bacalla.

David Chase foreshadowed Tony's death throughout the episode. That is a fact, however using that premise to conclude Tony was killed is incorrect because as Triumph pointed out Tony is doomed: life is just as bad an outcome as death for Tony. So the foreshadowing/subjective camera is either showing his paranoia/misery/depression or literally foreshadowing his death, but concluding that he died from the first premise is absurd because the counter-argument agrees with that premise.

I don't remember how many tried out for AJ but I know he just had to say the line "what, no ****ing ziti now?" a dozen or so times and they gave him the part.

Eh, he was a fat kid with dark hair, I think he was a decent pick, not a great actor, they didn't luck out like Mad Men did with Sally or anything but I think he pulled off the role pretty well.


I think the oddest/fun casting in the show was Will Arnett as the undercovers FBI husband, always giggle at that.

just finished the wire season 1. 7.5/10, interesting but many flaws. average acting, corniness, lack of subtlety, and too predictable, mainly

Anyone follow Bill Simmons, Bob Klapish or Jimmy Kimmel on Twitter? Ever since the thread has been revived, they are tweeting about the last episode. Simmons def. lurks here. I think that's well known though anyway.

Hey Simmons - the Ewing Theory is crap, at least in the case of the titular figure. PM me for details.

My holy triumvirate is Deadwood, The Wire, The Sopranos. The order pretty much rotates depending on which one I watched most recently. But they are all in the same ballpark.

It's been changed to the Tiki Theory after the Giants won the SB when he retired.

The notion that Simmons lurks here is the same kind of idiocy that happens when people think 2p2 invented every meme that 4chan really did. There's never been anything resembling good evidence that he does.

This board talks about stuff that's popular, Simmons talks about stuff that's popular. It's a super dead time for TV dramas right now so people are talking about good older shows instead of the nothing that's on.

Is this a joke?

Really? So you don't find it odd that a thread that's been dead for over 2 months all of a sudden peaks in interest among major national writers after it's been revived? It's all a coincidence? Even when it concerns a guy that has played in the Main Event and is known for gambling? Really?

I'm a freelance writer and I seach the internet all the time for topics to write about. 2+2 is well known. It would be fairly easy for a guy like Simmons to find this thread and come up w/ ideas to write about. ESPECIALLY when he has written about the final episode of Sopranos before and refers to it quite often. You are delusional if you think otherwise.

I get you are Dids being Dids and everyone else is an idiot for possibly thinking outside the box.

Baltimore Jones posted a random blog link discussing the Sopranos finale on Jan. 27 and that exact same link was referenced by Kimmel via Simmons 4 days later. If Simmons doesn't lurk some of these threads then it's a ridiculous coincidence. It's enough proof for me, at least. BS has participated in small Internet forums in the past, he was a regular on the Red Sox forum Sonsofsamhorn.net just a few years ago before he left after some dicey arguments questioning his analysis.

the reason i don't think simmons lurks here is he would come up with much better topics and points to start conversation if he lurked here. i mean, there are some classic threads he couldn't resist talking about, even if he had to totally hide the source.

also, you'd think he'd give us some funny subliminal messages every once in awhile just to be cool, if he was a lurker.

Does he sit there giggling and masturbating while reading us discussing whether or not he lurks here?

Why do ppl give a ****?

That isn't a random blog. It is the quintessential Soprano's ending blog.

I love the following argument

Guy #1- Random speculation

Guy #2- Questions random speculation

Guy #1- YOU ARE SO CLOSE MINDED, THIS VERY UNLIKELY THING IS OBVIOUSLY TRUE AND NO OTHER EXPLANATIONS MAKE SENSE.

There's so many better explanations for why Simmons does/says what he does and says. Yes, he might read 2p2. He might read any of the 100s of other forums that talk about similar things. Mostly we don't know, and accusing people of being "delusional" and "close minded" because they don't buy your overly specific (close minded much?) theory is just a logic faceplant.