Just finished Sopranos Season 3 and I have questions SPOILERS (1 Viewer)

[Benson R]

While watching individual episodes I kept wondering why everyone thought this season paled in comparison to season 2. Then I felt a little disappointed when I finished the last episode and like a previous poster said it just rushed by. The reason it rushed by in my opinion was the season didn't really seem to build up to anything like season 2 seemed to build up to Ritchie and Pussy getting clipped. Sure Jackie's death was a major event but it wasn't the powerful conclusion that Tony finally confronting Pussy on the boat was. I can't help but wonder if the real life death of the actress playing Tony's mother had an important impact on what they wanted to do in Season 3.

 

[Mitty]

Personally, I liked season 3 better than 2. I think S1 is still the best though.

I really, really didn't like Richie Aprile, who was a major character during that season. I don't mean that in a "love to hate him" kind of way either. Also, Janice, not a fave of mine, has more time dedicated to her in S2 than S3 (at least it seemed that way).

Yes, the ending of season 2 was stronger than the conclusion of S3, but the rest of the season, at least to me, was more compelling. We lost Pussy, but we gained Ralphie. It also contains the Pine Barrens episode, which is maybe the best of the series. S3 started weakly and ended fairly predictably, but on the whole I felt it was stronger than S2. The show did seem slightly less confident in S3 though; I think that's why they felt the need to ramp up the violence (the stripper in the University episode, Melfi's rape). But, then again S2 did have that Jon Favreau episode, which felt like a network TV sweeps episode, so I dunno.

 

[Benson R]

I don't know D-girl is one of my all time favorite episodes. My point was not that any of the individual episodes in season 3 were bad, in fact I think individually they are all great. I think both season 1 and 2 had a story arc throughout the entire season with a beginning middle and end. That seemed to be missing from season 3.

 

[Benson R]

Double post

 

[Johnny wilson]

The discs in the dvd set I have has no artwork but a bench. The artwork on the discs that were posted when it was first coming out is different than the ones I got. Did everyone get the same?

 

[Everlasting Gobstopper]

I think I read that seasons 3 and 4 were planned together, which would explain why things don't come to a head in season 3. It would seem they used it as a transitional year: the plot moved forward quite a bit, but in terms of build, there was no real payoff, but it seems like they've planned the payoffs to come in S4.

 

[Steven Simon]

I really, really didn't like Richie Aprile, who was a major character during that season.

I respectfully disagree. I felt David Proval (Rich Aprile) played the quintessential gangster on the show, where as Ralphies character doesn't even come close....

 

[Chucky P]

And in Chase's original plan, that was the last you'd hear of him. He's said numerous times that he never intended to follow up with that character. But it's certainly possible that he changed his mind in light of audience reaction.

I hope he does that guy is like fucking Rasputin!

 

[Rob Speicher]

I can't imagine him living through the shot Paulie got off on him. You can see the blood come out of his head. Still makes you wonder what happened to Paulie's car, though.

 

[Everlasting Gobstopper]

I believe it's one of the commentaries in the first season, David Chase says that he unwittingly made a cliffhanger out of the "Where's Pussy" storyline. Originally, he didn't really have anything planned for that character, but it became a major part of season 2. I imagine the situation with the Russian is much the same thing: David Chase wrote it, not thinking it was a big deal that he'd escaped, the fans all say "Where's the Russian?" and so David Chase has to write more stuff for him. I'm not saying it's a bad thing, it just seems like Chase's M.O.

 

[EricW]

i think future episodes of The Sopranos will always be lacking in that the mother won't be there anymore. aside from that, i think the second and third seasons were about the same (i only watched both once, way back).

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

This makes me question the writers- they created a character, gave him a very drastic history, surrounded his disappearance in mystery, and gave him an obvious out- if he didn't think that audiences would expect to see the character again, he's an idiot.

Also- they made it overwhelmingly clear he was an immigrant, was an alcoholic and had a very strong life-long tie to his friend in North Jersey. A character like that has nearly no choice but to return to the one area and one person he knows- if even temporarily. It seemed obvious that this was the direction it seemed to lean- and the lifelong friend had to choose between his friend and Tony- all the while he's holding hundreds of thousands of dollars of Tony's money.

Even the fact that Pauly's car was stolen seems like a waaaaaaay too big deal to just have it dropped so quickly. Heck, if my Caddy was stolen out there- it would be something that would be a huge deal- I can't imagine what a man like Pauly would do when faced with a similar situation. If nothing else, I'd imagine he's spend a ton of time bitching about it.

Again- if Chase REALLY thought no one would see this whole situation as a loose end, he must either be out of touch with the audience- or a wingnut.

One of the other big "loose end" moments for me was when Meadow went head-to-head with Eric about their fathers (backstage at the musical performance). When Eric lashed out at Meadow- I felt this was an EXCELLENT moment where Tony's lifestyle and business had really come face to face with Meadow's life. Up until this point- it was easy to look the other way, but this type of conflict, very direct, was an excellent opportunity to show Meadow developing her own terms with the life. Instead, the episode ends, and the plot line is essentially dropped.

In reality- the hurt Meadow had was bound to flair and have a go very strong at Tony which would be an excellent opportunity for Tony to have a few moments of self examination-- or she would internalize it and grow very distant from the family. In either case- I thought this was a very important moment in the Meadow arch- and the writers really failed to capitalize.

-Vince

PS: I also found it odd that in the season 3 recap, they used the "I'm going to Columbia" sequence which was part of Tony's hallucinations- and showed it as if it "really happened". Meadow ended up at Columbia, and no element of the decision process nor why she rejected Berkley was ever mentioned. They just treated the weird dream where everyone applauded as if it were part of the actual season- and started season 3 with her at Columbia.

 

[Michael Reuben]

We never thought people would as asking where he went . . . . People have really been much more interested in the answer to that question than I thought they would be. It was supposed to be sort of a fairy tale: who knows where he went?

One of the recurrent themes from the interview is how strongly Chase detests the neatness of most TV writing. Everything is always being neatly wrapped up, whether it's a series of events or a character's motivation. Chase, by contrast, appears to prefer loose ends, which is certainly evident in his plotting of The Sopranos. For me, that's a large part of what makes the show the marvel that it is; you simply do not know, and cannot comfortably predict, from moment to moment, what will happen next.
Re: Meadow. I think either of the "resolutions" to the Eric story that you've sketched out would have been a copout. Meadow is living the same contradiction that drove Carmela to a shrink's office -- she loathes and rejects everything Tony does, and yet she's unwilling to give up the lifestyle that Tony's criminal enterprise supports. Plus, she genuinely loves him. Watching her navigate those irreconcileable feelings from situation to situation is much more interesting, IMO, than some melodramatic confrontation and resolution.
M.

 

[Joshua Moran]

Mark is right season 3 and 4 were written together. But the writers had to delay the shooting of season 4 do to certain events that happend last year. I think we all know which events those were. Anyway alot of what I have seen in a 15 min preview looks to be a great conclusion to the series. Even though David Chase has admitted to be doing a 5th season. Season 4 was written in a way that it could be the last of the series. Also I guess there are plans for a movie after season 5 we will have to keep an eye on that. My fav season so far is 3 because it ends in such a cliffhanger.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

I think the lack of a resolution was a given- The relationship could not be resolved in a nice neat package regardless. The point was how they journeyed to the next neutral point. A "melodramatic confrontation and resolution" is a bit off the mark-- however I think to expect such an obviously explosive moment in Meadow's life to simply end an episode and never come to a head or even be mentioned again is seriously unrealistic. That situation was a very important one, and the writing did a good job to emphasize and then acted like it never happened. I think they dropped the ball on an excellent opportunity to explore the Meadow character, that's all.

A parallel would be the Melphi rape situation: it would be silly for the writers to ignore the obvious tension that her violation placed on her character. The character obviously longed to reach out to Tony, if for no other reason than to have the rapist killed. In this case, the struggle of the character in this situation was explored, and the audience was taken along as she decided how to handle her situation- with a very well composed sequence and pay-off.

To ignore the obvious appeal of going to Tony for vengence would be insulting audience. If the writers would have had her raped and then ignored the obvious instinct of the character to bring Tony into the situation; This would not be some brilliant decision to leave loose ends, it would be a cop out and a lack of commitment to the real emotional center of the character, and would be insulting to the audience.

The Meadow situation and the swell of tension between she and Tony only to drop it without mention sounds more like a lack of attention span and an unwillingness to commit to the character as oppose to any grandiose re-invention of television writing.

-Vince

 

[Michael Reuben]

The Meadow situation and the swell of tension between she and Tony only to drop it without mention sounds more like a lack of attention span and an unwillingness to commit to the character as oppose to any grandiose re-invention of television writing.

I never claimed it was a "re-invention" of TV writing, grandiose or otherwise. But your comments prompted me to go back and review that section of "The Happy Wanderer" (season 2, episode 6), and frankly I don't see what's left unresolved after Eric walks out on Meadow just before they're supposed to sing a duet. Meadow and Tony have already had a confrontation about the jeep in a previous scene, but Eric puts her in the position where she effectively has to rise to Tony's defense. Then he makes himself the villain by standing her up. The friendship is over, and both of them know it's their fathers who caused it.
The only thing left to explore is the ongoing tension between Meadow and Tony, which certainly isn't dropped in season 3; in fact, it's a major plotline in ways that are both obvious (Noah) and not so obvious (Jackie Jr.). And that plotline is still evolving, as the previews for next week's episode make clear.
M.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

But she doesn't rise to his defence- at best she tries (pathetically) to shift blame away from her family and then stands shock still like she was punched in the face.

To translate such a direct slap to Meadow as something that wouldn't be in turn passed on to Tony is an oversight IMHO. It's like the kid in school who is teased because his family is poor- at the age where they long to separate themselves from the parents anyway, that kid is bound to lash out at the parents on the same topic. It's easy to live with as long as it is quiet- once it directly smacks you in the face, it's something that flairs.

This type of thinking has been demonstrated in countless other situations by the writers on this show, but for some reason illogically ignored in meadow. Take the cases with Carm- her life with Tony is often relatively quiet, until outside forces slap her with the reminder of what her family is- then she reacts.

Take when the shrink went at her about Tony and their life- it would have been illogical for her to return home and have the matter dropped. Instead she internalized her pain, and this was clearly shown on the show. This comes up time and time again- when Carm's wallpaper boyfriend stopped coming around- again she was faced with much of the reality of a lifestyle she can often "work around" and it caused her to react.

Again- I just think that the teen confrontation with the parents is inevitable-- and given that Meadow had tons of Ammo in this case- I can't think of any teenager in America who wouldn't have either lashed out with the anger at the first opportunity or internalized it and essentially shut down. By completely ignoring what was made to be an important moment in her personal development (the first real DIRECT AND IN YOUR FACE backlash from who her father is), I think the writers did the character and the audience a disservice.

It's one thing for Meadow to deal with rumors and allogations and nonsense from people who aren't her peers- but the moment that it was shown so violently by one of her direct peers, it should have been a moment of great effect. I can't stress enough how this would have been a turning point for any real teenager- the point where myth and speculation becomes cold hard fact in the form of the reaction of a peer.

-Vince

 

[Michael Reuben]

It's one thing for Meadow to deal with rumors and allogations and nonsense from people who aren't her peers- but the moment that it was shown so violently by one of her direct peers, it should have been a moment of great effect.

Meadow has already dealt with a great deal more than "rumors and allegations and nonsense" in season 1 ("College"). And I think you've overlooked the significance of whom she chooses as her first serious boyfriend.

M.

 

[Vince Maskeeper]

Again- as a writer myself (and someone who was a teenager not so long ago)- I simply thing it's wholly unrealistic for the development to take that long. That situation would have come to a head that night, or at most the following morning. Meadow has never show a reluctance to have it out with the family- or at the very least drop a half dozen snide comments and stew about it.

Again- don't get me wrong- I think the show is great... although what it's done is simply take more "short film" writing to the small screen. However, often the show is too eager to move forward into more and more plot strings, and this is sometimes at a sacrifice to savoring moments and struggles which really define the main characters and their depth.

-V

 

[DanHaya]

Ok, I'm gonna jump around here so please bear with me.

Regarding Chase mapping out a season in advance, that's a common practice in episodic television. It's not so much that he plans out everything, but he does have certain things and events that he wants to cover during the course of the season and probably a relative timeline for accomplishing these things. Then he passes this information on to his writing staff, who then go and write the 13 episodes.

As far as the relationship between Meadow and Eric Scatino, you might have missed a line in a 3rd season episode where she tells Tony that David Scatino is in a mental hospital out in Nevada. Although she doesn't elaborate any further, it's possible that she got that information from Eric.

I may be in the minority here, but I didn't care much for "Pine Barrens". I'll have to watch it again. I did get the inpression at the end, however, that we would see the Russian again sometime in the future. The fact that Paulie's car was missing and that they never found the guy leads one to speculate about his whereabouts. I doubt that Chase will leave that issue unresolved. Tony still needs the Russians to launder his money, so I'm sure it will be dealt with in some fashion down the road.

Finally, on the Jackie Jr. issue, I think that Tony was very hurt perosnally by Jackie's actions. He had tried so hard to keep that kid straight, only to be disappointed at every turn. But, in the end, he left the ultimate decision to Ralphie, probably for several reasons: 1. Ralphie lives with Rosalie Aprile, so he would have to deal with her, 2. He wanted to be a Capo so badly, and passing the buck to him would make him feel important and trusted, and 3. It absolves him of any direct involvement in the decision, whichever way it was going to go. He probably figured that Ralph would whack Jackie, but he might be able to use that against Ralph later on. Either way, Tony comes out of it fairly clean, except with Meadow.