A coworker came in this morning and tried to pass that sentence off as her own deep thought, until I looked at her with furrowed brow and asked her how that worked. She said “you know, liking the bad guy, having the lead be a villain”. I said that concept had been around forever in movies at least, and she then admitted that she had heard a couple djs saying that on the radio on the drive in.
But I still think that’s not true. Gandalfini could well have given the best of that type of performance seen on TV up until that time, but I can’t believe there’s never been a series with a bad guy as the lead. Problem is, I can’t think of an example. Surely there were soap opera villains that filled that bill, but I’m talking more about a prime time series.
C’mon, Dopers, tell me all the things I’m not remembering right now. Thank you and :smack: in advance.
J.R. Ewing.
Going a lot further back and a lot more lighthearted, Bret Maverick was charming but he was also a con-man, ne’er do well, and a liar.
How about J.R. on Dallas?
J.R. Ewing was a cartoon villain. Tony Soprano was much more nuanced and complicated. I don’t see why it’s so hard to believe The Sopranos changed the entire trajectory of television dramas - the evidence is pretty plain, when you look at what came before and after (I guess Oz preceded The Sopranos, but it didn’t have anywhere near the cultural impact).
Bryan Cranston said the same thing. Tony was definitely not the first antihero or anything, but it sure does seem like The Sopranos helped start a renaissance in cable TV drama that paved the way for a lot of other shows, and I can believe it helped show some TV writers or executives the appeal of focusing on the psyches of conflicted, violent antiheros. I know people often talk about The Shield, which I never saw, as another show that goes into that vein. Breaking Bad and The Sopranos feel different in almost every way, but they’re also both dramas about two suburban dads who are also criminals and are struggling with the demands of both worlds while not fully understanding themselves. Both shows also go
I’ve wondered if the movie Analyze This (for anybody who doesn’t remember, the comedy with Robert DeNiro as a mob boss who goes to a shrink) had any inspiration in common with The Sopranos.
There’s been a lot written about the inspirations and real-life basis for parts of the Sopranos. Not so much for Analyze This. Reading about Gandolfini this morning I did see that Livia Soprano was based on Chase’s own mother. I forgot about that- it’s pretty horrifying.
What, like a mugger who’d steal a marble rye while an insulting an old woman?
To be fair, she was an old bag, so it wasn’t particularly insulting.
I think Chase has said the psychoanalytic aspect is based on his own experiences with therapy. About the only thing Analyze This has in common with The Sopranos was the fact that it had a mob boss visiting a psychiatrist. In Analyze This the idea was played entirely for laughs, and De Niro was a cartoon mob boss who was essentially harmless. In The Sopranos it was a key way to illustrate Tony’s deep conflicts and tie his family and mob life together.
I think the success of the Sopranos helped HBO’s business model enormously.
I guess there’s no way of knowing but as much as I love The Wire I’ve long thought the latter seasons were essentially subsidized by the subscribers initially brought in by The Sopraonos …
The anti-hero isn’t new, but Tony was humanly flawed, with some major depression and mommy issues, and a fucked up family unit. This was relatively new ground, especially for television, and the success of that story encouraged other personality-driven ventures like Six Feet Under.
[QUOTE=Marley23]
Reading about Gandolfini this morning I did see that Livia Soprano was based on Chase’s own mother. I forgot about that- it’s pretty horrifying.
[/QUOTE]
That is scary. I always assumed, due to her name and scheming and trying to orchestrate hits, that he had just decided to update/Americanize the character from I CLAVDIVS into a mafia matriarch.
Definitely check out Alan Sepinwall’s The Revolutions was Televised. It is a fantastic discussion of this current Golden Age of television dramas largely kicked off by The Sopranos.
From what I understand, David Chase was kind of a pivotal figure in Weiner’s development as a serious dramatic TV writer. He had worked on Becker before coming to work for Chase, but it really wasn’t until The Sopranos that he really cut his teeth. So there’s that, too.
In the later seasons. In the early seasons he and the plots were a bit more believable. OTOH, in the first season he wasn’t the main character yet (Patrick Duffy was supposed to be the star, but like Fonzie:Richie he was eclipsed.)
Lots of shows have had villains as leads, but I don’t know if, pre-Sopranos, we had a villain as lead without a somewhat “good” character as counterpoint. Jesse has become that in BB, but that wasn’t Gilligan’s original intent.
Shows like the Sopranos, The Wire, The Shield, Deadwood, and Mad Men live in a universe (the real universe) in which good and evil aren’t characters, they are aspects of characters. Sometimes one or the other will be ascendant, depending on the character or the situation.
Profit, starring the great Adrian Pasdar.
He was, in my household, seen as pretty much a joke, two dimensional and scheming for the sake of gaining viewership and not realistic at all.
They were started at the same time and both knew about each other’s production.
I thought she was a flawed human being but believable.
It didn’t, and when I watched it last year it really didn’t stand up to time, but it was a necessary predecessor because it showed that the network best known for Taxicab Confessionals could do big-budget, hardline, longform drama with pretensions to quality (and few, if any, redeemable characters) and succeed.
Without the success of Oz, TV would look very different today.