The Official Good Television Thread

[crimsonfloyd]

I don't even know where to begin to address how wrong you are. Let's take the character development thing. One of the major themes of season 6 is Tony getting countless opportunities to change (including an actual NDE, which is often a powerful inciting event for personal growth) but basically deciding to take the easy way out and continue to be more or less the same sack of shit that he's been for the past five seasons. It's pessimistic but also meaningful and cautionary.

I don’t see how you can say I’m wrong but then basically reassert my point. Tony was so boring and unlikable by the end for that exact reason. You know what he’s gonna do and how he’s gonna resoond. It was the same old shit.

As for the other characters in the show, most of them are middle-aged and set in their ways. Should they all change just because it's the final season?

No, but I think at SOME POINT in the series certain moments should have been addressed. Meadow never acknowledges what a corrupt person her dad is and never is put in a situation where she has too. Same for A.J. actually. Carm is never made to look at the fact that she is a massive amoral hypocrite. No one ever figures it out so basically nothing comes of it. Furthermore, they do nothing with Adriana or Chris’s death, basically making the moments inconsequential.

Basically, every chance they had to make the characters confront a new situation and thereby grow, they avoided. As a result, the show became redundant and predictable.

Even then there is plenty of meaningful character development; Vito coming to terms with his homosexuality and trying to get out of the mafia life, Melfi beginning to understand that her therapy may be doing more harm than good, etc. I wonder what character you think should have developed more, but didn't.

The stuff with Vito is some of the best writing of the season, but the Melfi stuff was thrown together in the second to last episode to quickly wrap up her arc.

 

[Vegard Pompey]

I don’t see how you can say I’m wrong but then basically reassert my point. Tony was so boring and unlikable by the end for that exact reason. You know what he’s gonna do and how he’s gonna resoond. It was the same old shit.

No, but I think at SOME POINT in the series certain moments should have been addressed. Meadow never acknowledges what a corrupt person her dad is and never is put in a situation where she has too. Same for A.J. actually. Carm is never made to look at the fact that she is a massive amoral hypocrite. No one ever figures it out so basically nothing comes of it. Furthermore, they do nothing with Adriana or Chris’s death, basically making the moments inconsequential.

Basically, every chance they had to make the characters confront a new situation and thereby grow, they avoided. As a result, the show became redundant and predictable.

What I meant to say was that; yes, Tony doesn't change but this is deliberate and meaningful. See, I agree with what you're saying all the way up until the point about the show being redundant and predictable. The show is about flawed, morally cowardly characters who will avoid making hard decisions and rationalize continuing to do exactly what they've done before. And this is not a flaw with the series, this is the series using a naturalistic style of storytelling where characters often don't have neat character arcs.

Hell, the entire idea of a "character arc" was satirized back in season 1 in a conversation between Chris and Paulie:

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Sopranos is good but without a doubt overrated as fuck.

Brotherhood > The Sopranos

Brotherhood is about crime and politics in the Boston area. The two main characters are the McAfee brothers. Tommy, a rising politician, and his criminal brother Michael(based on Whitey Bulgar)who arrives back in town in the beginning of the series. One of the best endings ever.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

What I meant to say was that; yes, Tony doesn't change but this is deliberate and meaningful. See, I agree with what you're saying all the way up until the point about the show being redundant and predictable. The show is about flawed, morally cowardly characters who will avoid making hard decisions and rationalize continuing to do exactly what they've done before. And this is not a flaw with the series, this is the series using a naturalistic style of storytelling where characters often don't have neat character arcs.

Yeah I get all that, but it was dull to watch by the end. By the end I hated Carm and didn’t like Tony at all anymore. I was bored of their same old cycles and the predictable results and reactions by others. Even Medow and AJ became unlikeable to me by the end. Honestly, I just wanted to see them all watch Tony die to see them in pain. The fact that the show couldn’t at least give me that and instead had to give some bullshit “look, I have a film degree!” crap was just the icing on the cake. Those were always the worst moments of the show anyways.

Hell, the entire idea of a "character arc" was satirized back in season 1 in a conversation between Chris and Paulie

Maybe this has a meta meaning, maybe not.

 

[no country for old wainds]

requiring characters to be likeable is a sure sign of a low TV IQ, next youll be criticising the mighty deathspell omega for being too abrasive.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

requiring characters to be likeable is a sure sign of a low TV IQ, next youll be criticising the mighty deathspell omega for being too abrasive.

I never said they had to be, but predictable, dull and unlikeable is a bad combination.

 

[Satanstoenail]

Yeah the ending would have been so much better if it had shown Tony getting shot and everyone crying

 

[crimsonfloyd]

In comparison to them eating onion rings, parallel parking, and listening to Journey? Yes, it would be.

 

[Satanstoenail]

In comparison to them eating onion rings, parallel parking, and listening to Journey? Yes, it would be.

You’ve completely missed the point of what made the show great. It was never going to be that sort of ending, and imo Chase had balls of steel doing it that way instead of wrapping everything up in a neat little package to appease the chumps. If you hated it so much by the last season, you should have turned it off.

 

[tagradh]

Yeah the ending would have been so much better if it had shown Tony getting shot and everyone crying

So long as A.J. was still eating onion rings, and they were the real cause of his tears.

 

[crimsonfloyd]

You’ve completely missed the point of what made the show great. It was never going to be that sort of ending, and imo Chase had balls of steel doing it that way instead of wrapping everything up in a neat little package to appease the chumps.

Eh, it was ballsy only insofar as it was different; insofar as it was poorly done and leaned into the show's greatest weakness (it's attempts to be arty), it was a failure.

If you hated it so much by the last season, you should have turned it off.

Hate is way too strong; I still enjoyed the show decently enough, but to a far diminished degree in comparison to the earlier seasons.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

The Sopranos isn't overrated. It's not flawless and season 4, especially, has its flaws, writing wise anyway. The characters, their roles, and their development work perfectly. Would you honestly have been more satisfied if Tony had "changed" due to therapy?

David Chase has explicitly said that every "plot hole", whether it's the Russian, the ending, etc. is all there and spelled out for you if you're willing to look closely enough. A story doesn't "owe" you an explanation and he peddles that idea more effectively than most imo.

 

[CiG]

Calling something popular "overrated" really is a pretty empty criticism IMO. I think that once something becomes very popular it is, by definition, overrated on some level. It's just a meaningless thing to point out.

 

[Manic Ferocity]

It also doesn't mean that something overrated = bad. The Wire is overrated, for example. Great show, very weak final season.

Deadwood is probably the only HBO show I'd rank above The Sopranos.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

Calling something popular "overrated" really is a pretty empty criticism IMO. I think that once something becomes very popular it is, by definition, overrated on some level. It's just a meaningless thing to point out.

oh fuck off, you haven't even seen the damn show but yet here you are voicing your opinion. And do i really need to break down what overrated means? Just because something is popular does not mean its overrated. But when all those same sheep start talking about "its the greatest show ever" then it easily falls into the "overrated" category.

Nothing about the series is top notch, not the acting(so over the top that its comedic at times), not the cinematography, nothing tbh. And just like MF said, overrated doesnt mean it's bad. It's a good show, but that's all it is regardless of what all their fanboys say. I genuinely scratch my head when i hear people mention the series when talking about some of the all time great shows. Something good doesn't become great just because a bunch of their fans say "its the best" ... on the contrary, that's pretty much the definition of overrated.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

The Sopranos isn't overrated. It's not flawless and season 4, especially, has its flaws, writing wise anyway. The characters, their roles, and their development work perfectly. Would you honestly have been more satisfied if Tony had "changed" due to therapy?

David Chase has explicitly said that every "plot hole", whether it's the Russian, the ending, etc. is all there and spelled out for you if you're willing to look closely enough. A story doesn't "owe" you an explanation and he peddles that idea more effectively than most imo.

Who are you talking to? I called the show overrated, not crimmy. I have no problem with the ending at all and thought it was a rather solid way to wrap things up.

It also doesn't mean that something overrated = bad. The Wire is overrated, for example. Great show, very weak final season.

The Sopranos is infinitely more overrated. Literally every pleb you meet on the street is going to say that its one of the best shows.

Deadwood is probably the only HBO show I'd rank above The Sopranos.

+Game of Thrones, Boardwalk Empire, Rome, True Detective and even The Wire.

 

[CiG]

#triggered

oh fuck off, you haven't even seen the damn show but yet here you are voicing your opinion.

Voicing my opinion on the legitimacy of "overrated" as an extremely common criticism, not on the show itself.

And do i really need to break down what overrated means? Just because something is popular does not mean its overrated. But when all those same sheep start talking about "its the greatest show ever" then it easily falls into the "overrated" category.

How do you separate popularity from talking about "its the greatest show ever"? Seems like semantics, unless you're suggesting that it's popular among people who don't like it as well as people who do...?

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

popularity means = great/good?



yes and your post was attached to a comment i made earlier. Try watching the show first before criticizing others for their opinions.

 

[CiG]

...or what?

 

[crimsonfloyd]

The Sopranos isn't overrated. It's not flawless and season 4, especially, has its flaws, writing wise anyway. The characters, their roles, and their development work perfectly. Would you honestly have been more satisfied if Tony had "changed" due to therapy?

He didn’t need to change, but if the point was he (and almost everyone else) was never gonna change, then they could have wrapped this show up more quickly. If the moral of the story is “people never change and life has no purpose” I don’t need six seasons to illustrate that point.

David Chase has explicitly said that every "plot hole", whether it's the Russian, the ending, etc. is all there and spelled out for you if you're willing to look closely enough. A story doesn't "owe" you an explanation and he peddles that idea more effectively than most imo.

I don’t think they’re plot holes, but moreso unresolved threads within the story. And a story is allowed to have those. However, if he really said that it’s all answered “if you’re willing to look close enough” that’s a little rich for me. The Russian in the woods episode was one of the moments where I felt the show was reaching another level. Then, nothing came of it. If he wants me to go back and sift through the clues and symbols to “figure out” where it led, he should
Have hired someone to help him with those elements, because those things were never well done in the show.

As for the ending, I get that there are a bunch of breadcrumbs at the end to justify multiple interpretations of its meaning. I intentionally didn’t go back and watch to try and figure it out, because it’s bullshit. It was a cheap gimmick to get people to talk about and otherwise poorly done finale without making any strong decisions. And naturally, tools in the media praised the ending for being so different.