--- In [email protected], Peter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > How many of you saw the final episode of the Soprano's > last night? Rather lame, IMHO, with its lack of closure.
I didn't see it, and haven't been following the series closely, but I just finished reading an article in which the creator of the series said that he ended the series that way on purpose, to *avoid* the "closure" that many people wanted. SPOILERS AHEAD -- BE WARNED They wanted Tony to "get what was coming to him" because he was a "bad guy." They wanted similar fates to befall all of the people in the series that they wanted to "bag" as good or bad, black or white. The creator of the series wanted to *mess* with that, and, I hear, did. I say more power to him. If more TV producers and writers catered more to their internal vision and less to audience polls, TV would be better. That said (and to interject a note of positivity into all of this), I am constantly *amazed* at the quality of *some* TV series I've seen in the last few years. Having known a great number of people who work in the industry, I've gotten the feeling that the deck is pretty much stacked against them. It would be a *miracle* for even the most talented group of writers, actors and directors to create a good series in that stifling an environment. And yet, miracles happen. The Sopranos. Dexter. Six Feet Under. House, M.D. Lost. Battlestar Galactica. Carnivale. And the list goes on. Even given the seeming *quest* for mediocrity pursued by television executives, excellence just won't be surpressed. It's like the grass that grows up through the concrete in lots that have been completely paved over. I tip my hat to those who have achieved it, in spite of the system within which they work.
