Sequel to “How Seinfeld changed TV”.
How did Sopranos change TV? I wasn’t old enough to watch it when it was on, so I missed out on it. I know it started the Golden Era of TV, but how exactly did it change TV?
This is a difficult question because The Sopranos wasnt created in a creative vacuum. But, to the best of my knowledge, it might have been the first program that brought together at one time brilliant actors, a brilliant creative team, complete creative freedom, sex and violence and decadence and a format that was part mob drama, telenovela, comedy and a groundbreaking treatment of mental health issues.
Id like to add one more thing. Without the powerful axis of James Gandolfini and Edie Falco and the sadly short run of Nancy Marchand, this show could have been bad. Really bad. But they bring such passion, energy and believably to their characters that we get swept along with them. None of the other actors are particularly memorable. And the show suffered when Frank Renzulli left because he was the one who brought the Italian American flavor to the show that other writers couldnt deliver.
If I am not mistaken, the show was the first to feature protagonists who are not only not heroes, but actual bad guys.
In that sense, it broke ground for later shows like Breaking Bad and Sons of Anarchy.
Like any such statement, not absolute first. If you look at lists of TV antiheroes some predate Tony Soprano. Re earlier thread, George Costanza is often listed as one. Several others are soap opera characters, among US shows. But among (seriously) bad guy antiheroes in a US dramedy, I agree Tony Soprano is a milestone.
I also agree with earlier comment that this show didn’t have to be good just based on the concept and writing. Which is generally true: landmark shows have to have a compelling concept, a lot of good writing, and at least some powerful acting.
I’m a fairly strong fan of the Soprano’s. I agree some strong performances take your eye off weaker ones. Also some episodes were filler material.
A mobster with a psychiatrist? Brilliant. Unlike most mob treatments, this wasn’t just about the petty criminal activities and the violence. It was about the day-to-day lives of these people, their home lives, their kids, and the stress of having to live two lives.
I think the unique factor about The Sopranos was the way it showed that criminals also live regular lives. Lots of movies and television series had depicted criminals, sometimes even realistically, but they always focused on the criminal activities with a splash of personal drama. The Sopranos, I believe, was the first time we saw criminals doing things like arguing with their wives and taking out the garbage and driving their kids to college. And then stopping to strangle somebody during the trip.
That was the key. We saw normal people living lives we could relate to. And then we saw these same people committing terrible crimes.
eta: In other words, what Chefguy said while I writing this post.
I don’t know about that, I think the supporting cast of other mobsters was pretty memorable. Most of them had been in Goodfellas and other Scorsese movies, playing the same roles, and a few of them were actual real-life mob associates.
And Michael Imperioli’s performance was phenomenal as Christopher.
It was first offered to Fox who luckily turned it down as they would have had to meet network TV standards. No cursing, no nudity, and much less violence.
The nudity was mostly, if not totally, gratuitous. So that would have been little loss, story-wise. I’m sure Fox could have toned the violence down to 24 levels. I don’t see that as too much an issue. The language though. That would have been an immersion breaker had it been on Fox, IMHO.
A&E ran a cleaned up version of Sopranos for a few years. They cut all the nudity and a lot of language and some of the violence.
Cable was around for a good while before its original programming caught up to its potential for R-rated comedies and cop shows. It was great for movies that hadn’t been released to VHS yet, but the first couple of shows to try anything that wouldn’t be at home on Fox were of the Dream On/Larry Sanders Show variety. (Red Shoes Diary might figure in here somewhere.) These were, to be honest, more hard PG than R, and the general consensus with my friends at the time was, they could be more daring.
The Sporanos was more daring. It was tamer than, say, peak Scorsese, but what wasn’t?
I really don’t think that’s the case. Over 7 seasons, The Sopranos garnered 19 acting Emmy nominations for 10 actors who weren’t Gandolfini, Falco or Marchand, in addition to 7 straight SAG nominations for acting ensemble. To say that Tony Sirico as Paulie or Aida Turturro as Janice weren’t particularly memorable simply doesn’t compute. I’m not saying Sirico is Master Thespian or that awards are the only way to gauge a performance, but no matter how high Gandolfini, Falco and Marchand were in the stratosphere (and they were), the show would never have achieved the enduring popularity and critical admiration that it did if they were the only 3 actors (2 really, for most of its run, unfortunately) of note.
and it was the anti godfather… no one here was the benevolent gangster who did what he did because he had no choice … these were the closest to realife gangsters (and some were )
although in sure sonny c and tony would of had a lot to talk about …
Not threadshitting.
I disagree that it did. I think it was a symptom, not a cause. TV was moving to unlikeable leads, everyone being a jerk of some kind. This was just an early adopter, not a groundbreaker.
Oz probably laid a lot of the groundwork though.
Growing up most TV/movies depicted the world as very black and white. Things that are right and law abiding vs things that are wrong and (possibly) criminal. I think the Sopranos was one of the first to present the world in varying shades of gray and wasn’t afraid to show the “bad” people as actual human beings trying to do the best they could with what they had.
As others have mentioned I can’t say the Sopranos was the first or the best but for the sake of discussion let’s all just pretend that it represents the turning point for the way characters used to be to the way many characters are now.
Another vote for “it didn’t.”
(I also mean this in a not threadshitting way).
There were already several trends that were emerging. Main characters in TV dramas were getting more complex (the NYPD Blue lead characters of the early 90s could not have been on TV in the 80s). Story lines in TV dramas were getting more complex and embracing more ambiguity. Cable networks were changing - both basic and premium cable - to include more original programming (that could both cement their brand and take advantage of their non-network flexibility); they were also starting to get more recognition for quality programming. TV shows were becoming more serialized. Internet buzz around shows was starting to matter more and more. etc.
The Sopranos rode on all of those types of trends, was excellently written, acted, and produced, and doubled in ratings between its first and second seasons (through word of mouth, repeat showings on HBO, and release of the tapes/DVDs between the seasons). Because of the its reviews, ratings, awards, and money that the show got, other shows continued down similar paths. But Sopranos wasn’t a turning point; maybe an onramp?
This is how I watched, and I thought it was great.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t The Sopranos one of the first shows to produce only like 10-12 episodes per season, essentially allowing them to focus on quality over quantity? The norm for TV shows at the time, even dramas like NYPD Blue, was to crank out around 24 episodes each season, enough to show new episodes every week for half the year, and reruns the other half of the year. Today most if not all “flagship” dramas follow the 10 or so episodes per season prodction schedule. I had always assumed it was The Sporanos that started this trend.