I think to Tony, the ideal woman is Livia. He will always compare all women to Livia, and none will ever match up. That is how dominated he was by his mother. Tony has a classic Oedipus complex. His marriage to Carmela was never going to work, because Livia couldn't stand Carmela. He needed to cheat on Carmela and treat Carmela badly, because thats what Livia wanted him to do.
If Tony flips, if Tony leaves "the life", if Tony grows up, what does that mean? That he is finally giving Livia up, that he is finally freeing himself from her.
In fact I bet that if Nancy Marchand, who played Livia, was still alive, that there would have been no need for the Coach Molinaro character. That we would have seen Livia in the dream, instead of Coach Molinaro, and it would be Livia that Tony wants to shoot in the dream and can't.
</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p196.ezboard.com/bsopranolandfor ... ion1963</A> at: 5/21/04 3:15 pm
mad scorpion
372Personally, and not to bash you...i think you are looking way too far into the symbolism/meaning of the dream and series in general. while this show is absolutely incredible...though i felt season 4 wasn't why are you expecting chase to come up with all of this symbolism and ingenious plotlines? the fact is....he leaves most of the stories he starts on the cutting room floor....(the russian is a good example) chase started that storyline and then realized it would be better for ratings for the sopranos to take on a ny crew instead of the russian mob...johnny sack has been turned into a bad guy, or at least a worse guy because of this. There has been no great plan to this storyline a la Hamlet which you mention so much...it has seemed to be more trial and error...and as much as i enjoy the show, not much more than that. This is television...without ratings there would be no ratings, no season 2 let alone seasons 3,4,5 and 6. so let's all enjoy it, but please chase is talented but he is not a genius.
</p>
</p>
The russian storyline
374We don't know yet if the russian storyline is dropped. You never know when it may factor back in. That episode wasn't about the Russians anyway. It was about Paulie and Christopher and their relationship. My personal feeling is that we get so many poorly written sitcoms and sitdramas (shows that create simple situations and make everything easy to follow), that it is too easy to expect the same thing with the Sopranos, when it is a complex show.
In real life, situations aren't resolved that fast. Some situations aren't resolved at all. Maybe the Russians don't come back and hunt down Paulie. Maybe they do, but its after the end of the series and we won't see it. Maybe we'll see it in season six. We are getting the action as it relates to the main characters and their development. If Chase was to immediately resolve every situation he develops, the show would not be nearly as good as it is. Chase shows us that Vito is gay. Does that mean on the very next episode, that Vito has to pay the price for that? Did the russians have to come back right away? That is a sitcom mentality-- the mentality of resolving every situation and putting more emphasis on the "situations" than the development of the characters.
What David Chase has said is that the characters and the story arc of the Sopranos were written out by him completely before the series started. He had sketched the broad strokes for all five seasons before the series started. The big change has been the addition of season six (money talks) So I think Johnny Sack was always going to become a larger and larger character, and that the Russians storyline is what it is and had nothing to do with it. Just my opinion of course <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">
</p>
In real life, situations aren't resolved that fast. Some situations aren't resolved at all. Maybe the Russians don't come back and hunt down Paulie. Maybe they do, but its after the end of the series and we won't see it. Maybe we'll see it in season six. We are getting the action as it relates to the main characters and their development. If Chase was to immediately resolve every situation he develops, the show would not be nearly as good as it is. Chase shows us that Vito is gay. Does that mean on the very next episode, that Vito has to pay the price for that? Did the russians have to come back right away? That is a sitcom mentality-- the mentality of resolving every situation and putting more emphasis on the "situations" than the development of the characters.
What David Chase has said is that the characters and the story arc of the Sopranos were written out by him completely before the series started. He had sketched the broad strokes for all five seasons before the series started. The big change has been the addition of season six (money talks) So I think Johnny Sack was always going to become a larger and larger character, and that the Russians storyline is what it is and had nothing to do with it. Just my opinion of course <img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/smile.gif ALT=":)">
</p>
Re: mad scorpion
375<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Personally, and not to bash you...i think you are looking way too far into the symbolism/meaning of the dream and series in general. while this show is absolutely incredible...though i felt season 4 wasn't why are you expecting chase to come up with all of this symbolism and ingenious plotlines? the fact is....he leaves most of the stories he starts on the cutting room floor....(the russian is a good example) chase started that storyline and then realized it would be better for ratings for the sopranos to take on a ny crew instead of the russian mob...johnny sack has been turned into a bad guy, or at least a worse guy because of this. There has been no great plan to this storyline a la Hamlet which you mention so much...it has seemed to be more trial and error...and as much as i enjoy the show, not much more than that. This is television...without ratings there would be no ratings, no season 2 let alone seasons 3,4,5 and 6. so let's all enjoy it, but please chase is talented but he is not a genius. <hr></blockquote>
Reminds of a conversation a professor once had with another colleague, "Do you really think Shakespeare was thinking all of this "stuff" when he was writing his stories" The other said "No. But it doesn't matter, it's there."
The fact that so many fans/critics alike have praised this show on a consistent basis and the show has become a television phenomenon isn't just because Chase got lucky or is JUST talented...talent is what everybody has...Chase is a genius in the way he utilizes his...
</p>
Reminds of a conversation a professor once had with another colleague, "Do you really think Shakespeare was thinking all of this "stuff" when he was writing his stories" The other said "No. But it doesn't matter, it's there."
The fact that so many fans/critics alike have praised this show on a consistent basis and the show has become a television phenomenon isn't just because Chase got lucky or is JUST talented...talent is what everybody has...Chase is a genius in the way he utilizes his...
</p>
Moved from another thread:
376silrules
Posts: 10
(5/22/04 2:03 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del All Anyone Catch?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How when angelo is getting into the car and the man carrying the box offers to get twine and Angelo says "dont worry im not going that far..."
Just thaught that was funny
billymac72261
Newcomer
Posts: 16
(5/22/04 2:30 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: Anyone Catch?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good connection!
</p>
Posts: 10
(5/22/04 2:03 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del All Anyone Catch?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How when angelo is getting into the car and the man carrying the box offers to get twine and Angelo says "dont worry im not going that far..."
Just thaught that was funny
billymac72261
Newcomer
Posts: 16
(5/22/04 2:30 pm)
Reply | Edit | Del
Re: Anyone Catch?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Good connection!
</p>
Re: More dream stuff (Tony B & daughter)
377<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Again I'll say that I think the finger shooting is merely a memory of Tony's of when they were kids play-acting. <hr></blockquote>
And what is significant about the play acting? IMO it's that you don't ACTUALLY kill someone, you just pretend. My point is that Phil MAY be just "pretending" that Tony B killed his brother because they want to nail him on Peeps.
</p>
And what is significant about the play acting? IMO it's that you don't ACTUALLY kill someone, you just pretend. My point is that Phil MAY be just "pretending" that Tony B killed his brother because they want to nail him on Peeps.
</p>
Re: Well, well, well....
378mrmuddywaters said:
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Is it possible that Johnny Sack gets so upset when Tony won't kill Tony B, that he gets back at Tony by having Carmela whacked?<hr></blockquote>
I don't know about that. You know how deeply Johnny Sack feels for his wife...he loves Ginny intensely and isn't at all afraid to fight for her honor. (who can forget his rage about the derogatory mole joke Ralph thought was so hilarious?) I honestly don't want to believe that Johnny would harm Carmella because of his own intense feelings for his wife. . .but, I shouldn't forget that Johnny Sack didn't get to be the highly respected underboss to Carmine for nothing. You could be closer to right than I'd like you to be and Sack very well probably is dead cold enough to slit Carms throat himself without batting an eyelash. The horror. Sadly I have unwillingly begun to prepare myself for the loss of Carmella after reading Fly's post concerning his interpretation of last Sundays episode, 'The Test Dream'. Although the tiniest glimmer of a thought that Carmella's time could be getting increasingly shorter did flit through my mind, it was only for an instant and I pushed it away just as quickly. I am not ready to lose her at all!
~Kim~<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\">
</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p196.ezboard.com/bsopranolandfor ... mstrain</A>
at: 5/23/04 1:59 am
<blockquote>Quote:<hr>Is it possible that Johnny Sack gets so upset when Tony won't kill Tony B, that he gets back at Tony by having Carmela whacked?<hr></blockquote>
I don't know about that. You know how deeply Johnny Sack feels for his wife...he loves Ginny intensely and isn't at all afraid to fight for her honor. (who can forget his rage about the derogatory mole joke Ralph thought was so hilarious?) I honestly don't want to believe that Johnny would harm Carmella because of his own intense feelings for his wife. . .but, I shouldn't forget that Johnny Sack didn't get to be the highly respected underboss to Carmine for nothing. You could be closer to right than I'd like you to be and Sack very well probably is dead cold enough to slit Carms throat himself without batting an eyelash. The horror. Sadly I have unwillingly begun to prepare myself for the loss of Carmella after reading Fly's post concerning his interpretation of last Sundays episode, 'The Test Dream'. Although the tiniest glimmer of a thought that Carmella's time could be getting increasingly shorter did flit through my mind, it was only for an instant and I pushed it away just as quickly. I am not ready to lose her at all!
~Kim~<img src=http://www.ezboard.com/images/emoticons/ohwell.gif ALT=":\">
</p>Edited by: <A HREF=http://p196.ezboard.com/bsopranolandfor ... mstrain</A>
Loss of Carmella
379Many of us talking about the loss of Carmella. I hate to imagine how that would make a lot of people feel. Soprano viewers are loyal to the show, especially the people who are regulars on this board. It would almost be like viewing someone close to us being killed though a fictional character.
The other characters come and go. They show up in the beginning of the season and get whacked, we expect that, but not expect this to happen to an on going character of a regular TV series. I know the Sopranos is like a long movie, but we are since we were watching Gilligan's Island, Munster and Adams Family, reruns, in a frame of mind that we are watching TV.
"It is a TV show darn it!" I can imagine a less sympathetic person saying to one of us. A day later or on the 11 PM news they would probably be talking about this as if it were real, not a fictional character. BTW, didn't notice anything unusual about Edie Falco's listing on http://www.imdb.com, so we never know.
</p>
The other characters come and go. They show up in the beginning of the season and get whacked, we expect that, but not expect this to happen to an on going character of a regular TV series. I know the Sopranos is like a long movie, but we are since we were watching Gilligan's Island, Munster and Adams Family, reruns, in a frame of mind that we are watching TV.
"It is a TV show darn it!" I can imagine a less sympathetic person saying to one of us. A day later or on the 11 PM news they would probably be talking about this as if it were real, not a fictional character. BTW, didn't notice anything unusual about Edie Falco's listing on http://www.imdb.com, so we never know.
</p>
Re: thing he has to do
380<blockquote>Quote:<hr>I have analyzed just the "TITLES" for the 13 episodes of each season and it is amazing what you can glean from just this information . . . . Have you performed this exercise<hr></blockquote>
No I haven't, wgordon010. Not in the sense of trying to establish overarching themes or meanings.
I have thought about particular titles on occasion. For example, I'm certain I know the meaning of "Long Term Parking" and can guess a great deal about the meaning of "All Due Respect" from that.
</p>
No I haven't, wgordon010. Not in the sense of trying to establish overarching themes or meanings.
I have thought about particular titles on occasion. For example, I'm certain I know the meaning of "Long Term Parking" and can guess a great deal about the meaning of "All Due Respect" from that.
</p>
