Steve J. Rogers
-
Content count
966 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Steve J. Rogers
-
-
The show has never really been "the wacky overweight, funny Italian mafia gumbas", so I doubt it's popular from people wanting that. The people that want that would've already tuned out by season three.I don't really know how to explain someone thinking Feech was a good guy or nice guy. He had been nothing but a prick since showing up.
Yeah but A) Big Pussy was and is one of the popular characters ever on the show, B) I think Paulie gets some of that fanbase as well and C) Steve Schrippa (sp) kind of parlayed it into a nice "Goomba's Guide to..." humor writing career
Also, did you know that there is a parody "interactive" theatre of The Sopranos around forgot the name, but its one of those interactive experiences where alot of stuff is going on and each time you see it you want to hang around a different section of the "play" to get the whole thing. Sort of like those sterotypical Itallian or Jewish wedding "interactive dinner theatre" productions only with a wise guy theme.
Definatly think most of the characters in that "act" are patterened after Paulie, Pussy, Bacala, Chris as he appears in "public," rather than say Richie Apprille, Ralphie or Jackie Jr.
Actually I can totally get someone thinking Feech was a "good guy" (as much as a mafia character can be) if they think Paulie is a "good guy" because essentially Feech seemed like an older and more POed version of Paulie.
Steve
-
People who like it because they like the genre/same type of show/ect or just geniuinlly like the program
I was listening to a sports radio show where the two hosts were talking about the show and for some reason it struck me about how the two differed on their opinon on the Robert Loggia "Feech" character
To set this up, Feech is an old guard type of crusty mafioso guy. Kind of a blen of Junior's cantankorous and Tony's pit-bullness. Fresh out of prison and ready to "go back to work"
And to set this up further one of the hosts while not up on current pop-culture has an affinity to mafia/crime tv shows/movies (all the classics, Godfather, Scarface, ect) and has been watching the show since day one Guy is about late-40's-early 50's from NYC, former boxer and horse race watcher so he has a bit of a "wiseguy wannabe" edge to him.
His co-host is a complete sports nut so he isn't up on popculture beyond what he grew up on (probably 5-10 years younger than his partner) and has no time (or effort) to keep up with it now, kind of an easy-going kind of guy, probably started watching it (and he started with the last couple of years) because he wanted to see "what everyone was talking about" especially since talk about the show was becoming a regular feature on his radio show
Anyway, they were talking about Feech and the guy who just started watching said that basically despite who he is (a gueniune mafia dirt-bag asshole) he has a likable quality (probably along the lines of Paulie Walnuts' popularity) but his partner quickly stepped in an said that there was no way he could like him (aside from being entertained by his performance) as he is a pretty dispicable character. (As an aside, this is something that the show does well, kind of makes you remeber that you shouldn't LIKE these characters, that you should want them to get their comuppance)
Well that got me wondering about just WHY the Sopranos got so popular
Sure there are enough fans of the genres the Sopranos belong to to keep the show afloat and there are enough hardcore fans to keep watching but do the Sopranos get that audience that would rather see them be "the wacky overweight, funny Italian mafia gumbas" rather than go through the actual darkness that the storylines actually follow
BTW, a good case can be made that they haven't been the same since Ralphie pummled that stripper in Season 3 in terms of their darkness and violence
Steve
-
Just something I wondered about, despite wrestling's connection with Saturday morning (where most older causual fans remeber watching wrestling "back in the old days) and both WCW and WWF's forays in Saturday night programing (SNME, WCW Saturday Night (the flagship before Nitro) I can understand why a weekday night would be selected
But then, the target audience isn't exactly "supposed" to be doing the same things more "older" demographics do on weekends (going out on Friday/Sat night, hence why TV networks basically either give up programing or have "family" themed programing)
Or did Vince and USA want to cut into MNF's ratings? Figuring that most of the "target audience" would be home watching football anyway why not give them wrestling?
Steve
-
And who's Giaccome? Is that supposed to be Ed Giacomin?Yeah, the other player to have his number retired by the Rangers along with Richter and Rod Gilbert
Steve
-
Can you give GM Angle more than a week to see how they are going with it!
From the look of it, Angle was JUST getting comfortable with the position. Granted Angle has always been a "Jump right in" kind of guy, but I don't think this week's show should have been about "sweeping changes to the style" ect
Slow burns can be fun as well
BTW, I would have LOVED to have seen that Angle-HHH conversation. Its a shame they had it the way they did, I would have done it the opposite, with HHH threatning Angle's life if he doesn't trade him back to Raw, saying he owes him a favor or Kurt saying to HHH "I'll do it, but Hunter, you OWE ME BIG TIME! And you'll find, I am a man who COLLECTS on my DEBTS! Oh its true. Its damn true." And then you see Kurt calling Bischoff (How do you explain the Duds and Booker still being in the area is a good question, but one can come up with a reasonable explanation)
Steve
-
Okay, here is probably the biggest hockey story this season in NY, the distengration of Glenn Sather's relationship with the media and the further tarnishing of his legend
Basically the media feels that Glenn is pissing away his legend and that his "houlier than thou" act should have had him axed long ago.
Couple of cases in point from this year
1) Glenn feels the need not to talk to anyone involved with the NYC media because he feels he has forgotten more hockey than he knows, yet he freely pops on (without much notice given to the Rangers press relations department) Canadian radio stations ripping New York's media and fans, and just recently even ripped his boss James Dolan! Only problem is, Dolan loves Sather so much he will never fire him (apparantly Sather was nice to him when Dolan was growing up hanging around a NY suburb's training facility or something) In fact, it was SATHER that decided to step down as coach, not the other way around
and
2) The NY media can't get over the fact that Sather constantly ripped Neil Smith for not winning despite a bloated payroll. Yes Smith did a horrid job in the last few years of his tenure, but he did win a cup and finished with the best record in hockey couple of times, and Glenn "Any one can win with NY's payroll" Sather hasn't even made the PLAYOFFS!"
So, A) is Sather just a lucky bastard because he had a boatload of bona-fide first ballot HOFers on his Cup winning teams? (Note the fact also that Messier has 2 cups to Gretzky's none since the trade of Gretz and maybe THERE is your answer) or
B) is the Ranger situation just so horribly out of control (bad decisions, bad contracts, injuries, general dislike by the rest of the league, ect) that the "anyone can win there" comment was just an uneducated one (didn't realize how bad the situation was)
Steve
-
It took me a while, but when I first saw Angle come out in that suit it reminded me of someone, and I just couldn't put two-and-two together.
Hell at first I thought it was the Marvel comics Kingpin on the Buddy Rose "Blow Away" diet
But then it hit me in the "office" promo with Booker
Kurt Angle looks like an actor named Jerry Doyle:
http://imdb.com/name/nm0236381/
Specifically as he looked on Babylon 5's seasons 4-5 as "Michael Garibaldi"
Hopefully someone can provide a pitcure (I don't have the time right now) but believe me, the resemblence is UNCANNY!
Steve
-
No, I'm not advocating putting Richter in the elite category, but does he belong in the HOF?
A quality career, a cup, some damn good performances in postseason play, a Gold Medal, ect
I've heard the argument "He is the all-time Ranger goalie" argument, but GEEZ, no one is advocating putting the all-time Ottawa Senator goalie in the HOF, plus its not like Richter had to TRY to get that slot. You got Giaccome, you got Gump Worsley, Beezer, John Davidson and Terry Sawchuck before his passing, not exactly a roster of Roy, Plante, and Dryden to compete with
I think he gets hurt (no pun intended) because of all the injuries late in his career and the fact that for the last 6 seasons of his active career he would not make the postseason (of course thats due to the worse case of mismangement in the HISTORY of major sports)
In all, I'd probably put him in, but that might be because I'm a Ranger fan
Steve
-
The guy has 3 cups, maybe a 4th on the way, youngest to 400 wins with Roy in reach if he stays healthy and all
Granted head to head in the playoffs Roy did beat him in the ultimate game (that would be Game 7 of a Stanley Cup final)
Hell he never beat Mike Richter and the Rangers in the postseason (though that would have ended if the Rangers made A playoff run in recent years) which sort of holds him back in the regard of NY area media/fans (which is stupid as its 4-1 in terms of playing in Cup finals, let alone 3-1 in terms of Cups won, between the two and while I'll take Richter in the playoffs I wouldn't mind Martin as my net-minder for a Cup run)
So where does he rank? Is he overratted because of the system he plays in (see Steve Young for an example of someone with good talent that may have benifited from a system that fit his needs) and should not be in the same sentence as Patrick Roy? Or does he belong in say the top 5 all-time goalie conversation?
Steve
-
Because he hit his OWN guy...any good ref would see through that...So? It's not the referee's job to determine motive or whatever. He's there to uphold the rules.
That actually is a good point.
You never know in a situation like that, the Manager could make it look like he is turning but then after the DQ it turns out to be a ~SWERVE!
Wouldn't work though as smarks would see it MILES away!
Steve
-
Rock and AustinGood one. Though it was only at the last match that they brought up the whole "Rocky has never beaten Austin" thing and there it was just WM matches, it didn't stretch all the way back to their IC feud
-
HHH and UndertakerKawada and Misawa
Taker never jobbed to HHH?
Wait, didn't HHH beat Taker in a "number one contender match" before SummerSlam 02, leading to what would be the formation of the Raw title or something like that?
Steve
-
Out of curiosity, how long untill Rock's contract is up with the WWE?
Would you resign him if you were Vince?
Steve
-
Studd was Tag Champ with Killer Kowolski in 1976 (Executioners)Weren't they masked though and like Doom not given names?
-
Are you talking televised matches? Because obviously if you look at the WWF results from the late 80's when Hogan was around, just find his opponent of the month.
Good point! Ditto AS with Y2J and HHH, but I was going for a long-standing feud between two guys that lasts for longer than a month or two
And I don't quite count feuds where most of the backstory gets forgotten the next time they cross paths (Y2J and HHH for example, in the prelude for WM all their backstory got forgotten with the exception that Y2J was responsible for the Quad injury)
Steve
-
When was the last time the WWF put a match on PPV without ANY backstory, not so much as an incident on Heat before the show (this counts just for PPV matches, not Heat/Free-For-All or tournament matches)
Steve
-
I'm developing a fan-fict about a long-standing feud between two wrestlers where the gimmick of the feud is that one of them can never get a win over the other.
The only big-time feud like that off hand would be Raven-Tommy Dreamer and like Raven-Dreamer the feud ends where the guy finally pins the other one cleanly on his last night with the promotion
Any others? (matches against have to be more than just a handfull)
Steve
-
Should make a distinctinon though
A) Shoot comments that aren't meant to be shoot comments
Your garden variety stuff that can be construed as shoot-material (i.e. HHH won't lay down for anyone or alot of Jesse Ventura's/Bobby Heenan's anti-Hogan comments)
B) Shoots that are meant to be shoots
Basically alot of Kevin Nash's "exposing the business" stuff
-
Austin one year came out from I think the stands, so "technically" thats a run-in" His enterance music played, everyone in the ring waited for him (this was the 98 one if I'm not mistaking) while he came in from behind
Steve
-
^ Well they sure made that clear by sticking photos of great moments next to some of the worst and not drawing any distinction between the two. If they meant anything except "Everything on this page was pure WrestleCrap that contributed to WCW's demise", then they didn't come close to getting their point across.As it stands, it's an insult to some of WCW's finer moments, and that just doesn't make any sense to me.
Isn't it said on the site that some of the images were also for people to say "Boy what were they thinking letting HIM get away?"
-
it's funnier by doing less...can't explain it the way I want toMore and more comedy is going down that route, when the American version of The Office comes out you will see a perfect example of it (if they don't fuck it up). Most of these kind of shows (of which CYE is perhaps the most fully realised American effort) go for the 'painful' kind of laughter, rude and dislikeable characters acting innapropriately and causing embarassment or conflict.
Yeah, but comparing this thread, and other opinions on Larry David's post Seinfeld work I wonder how popular in the "mainstream audience" that show will actually be
The reason this thread really started was more of a response towards a review I saw in IMDB.com for David's movie "Sour Grapes" where the review said that she was a Seinfeld fan but hated this movie and said that she guessed that she liked the "Jerry half" of Seinfeld, as if she knew what was the extent of Larry David's contribution to that show, other than giving the inspiration for "George Contanza"
That kind of made me wonder about the majority of the mass audience's reason for liking Seinfeld a much more watered down version of a show like The Office or CYE
What I mean is, did Seinfeld get popular because A) they wanted to be seen as "hip" towards people who geniunely liked the show and wanted to join in water cooler talk about it and B) they wanted to feel that they were "in" in jokes like "master of your domain" or "significant shrinkage" and probably wouldn't like the jokes if they said outright, "Lets see who can go the longest without masterbating" or "My penis shrank because of the cold water!"
I rather have someone dis-like the show for various reasons, too each their own, but I wonder about those who loved Seinfeld but vehmeatly dislike CYE
Steve
-
OMG! DAVID?! HAHAHAHAHA HOW STUPID!Sorry, just wanted to be like everyone else...
Now here is the sad part. I'm an NBA fan but I have to say:
Read is The Rock's voice:
Who in THE BLUEST OF HELLS IS DAVID BENOIT?
Well yeah after someone tells me I'll be "Oh yeah thats right!" but now I'm all HUH?
I think he's an NCAA player. I recall seeing the name recently, but can't remember what team he's on. It would make sense considering March Madness and all, but still.
Anyone care to venture a worse name mixup? Sure this belongs in a totally different folder but I'm sure there are plenty of worse ones where the person is referred to as someone "less famous" or "more obscure"
BTW the same field doesn't count. I.e. some of Lillian's and other wrestling commentator's goofs don't count (with the possible exception of Rodman calling Lex Luger "Luthor" but then Luthor IS easily more famous than Flexy Lexy)
Steve
-
OMG! DAVID?! HAHAHAHAHA HOW STUPID!Sorry, just wanted to be like everyone else...
Now here is the sad part. I'm an NBA fan but I have to say:
Read is The Rock's voice:
Who in THE BLUEST OF HELLS IS DAVID BENOIT?
Well yeah after someone tells me I'll be "Oh yeah thats right!" but now I'm all HUH?
-
Folks, none of the belts are "real". Its a fake sport, it's all in a portrayal. As the belt handed to and rarely defended by HHH it has no legitimacy. With Benoit winning it clean in the main event of Wresltemania and celebrating with Eddy it brings it's status up to legtimacy in the eyes of the fans.Pretty much what I was going to say.
Arguing about a belt being "handed" to someone is silly when technically all belts are "handed out" in wrestling. Saying "Triple H didn't win it in the ring" means nothing. So if they threw him in the ring with any wrestler on RAW and won that match for the title, then it would be legit?
Actually I agree with that sentiment, but for the better part of the Raw World Heavyweight Title's existence it has been denounced by the smarks and the IWC as being a non-legit title, basically acting like it deserves as much respect as the aforementioned "Million Dollar Belt" and "King of the WWF Title"
Whatever I guess.
Being a Benoit-Jericho fan I do hope we FINALLY get them to slug it out on PPV for the title, been waiting for THAT match for a LONG time (even before their feud with the Two-Man Power Trip)
Steve
The OAO Sopranos season 5 thread
in Television & Film
Posted · Report reply
BTW I heard this theory on the radio but, you know, if you notice throughout the years Tony has never done the sterotypical "standing over a guy and shooting them" unless its a dream sequence (Yes he does pump bullets into Pussy, not to mention the kid that tried to wack Christopher but this is in general terms)
And I don't think they every let it slip if a major character is getting whacked during the preview
On the flip side, Drea did get picked up for a new sitcom debuting this fall on NBC so who knows
Steve