In the NYT, Amy Winehouse > James Gandolfini

Dooley, your list is almost exclusively sitcom characters. That says something right there about Tony Soprano, does it not? I think that for a long time, television was considered a good vehicle for comedy, but not so much for drama. Granted, "Oz" and some others came first, not least of all "Hill Street Blues." But Buddy Holly preceded the Beatles, right?

I stand by the assertion that he's arguably the most influential television character of all time. So many shows directly trace the lineage of their lead character to him. Billy Crystal and Bill Cosby's characters each had a breakthrough trait, I'll give you that. But Tony Soprano altered our understanding about what kind of canvas a show creator was working on when breathing life into his protagonist.

Now, don't get me wrong: I don't think "The Sopranos" was a perfect show. I think that it got a little plot heavy in later seasons, and I think that it did a poor job of introducing characters, and sometimes awkwardly ramped up the significance of peripheral characters.

But I do think that Tony Soprano was nearly a perfect character.

And played perfectly.

 

Titanic influence isn't measured in five years, Dick. The Sopranos has only been off TV since 2007.

Further, the presumption that it's best TV shows ever is a byproduct of the tyranny of now. TV critics who just started writing in the last decade just don't have the clout to declare that for themselves. Some of the "great" shows of today, as labeled by critics, are just nihilistic, upscale soap operas. Postmodernism and relativism reign today, so, through that prism, these shows look excellent. Some are (The Sopranos) and some most definitely are not.

 

Any in particular you're thinking of?

 

That would seem to be the case.

Whatevs? Should I be ashamed? Is that a put-down?

 

Lucille Ball had two huge TV shows in the era when she was pulling in almost a quarter of the country to watch. Carroll O'Connor was the star of the show that led the ratings (for any time slot) for five years in a row, meaning more than 30 percent of those with TVs were watching. Marlon Brando may be the greatest actor of all time and had his name on that list before The Godfather.

James Gandolfini has a cult following that includes a lot of people you (and I) follow on Twitter. There's a problem with that, as there is with what Alma is describing. I'm all for an intellectual oligarchy in many cases, but fame is for the people en masse to decide.

 

It's all one television universe. Cosby's I Spy character and Jody Dallas, besides their TV milestone status, were, wider-society-wise, chisels chipping away at the thick wall of obstacles blacks and gays faced in society. And the That Girl character, and hell, even more so, Mary Richards, showed young women they could have careers and could be smart. I don't think Tony Soprano had the society-wide impact those characters did. And your Holly argument can also be seen as Tony Soprano:Holly:on Draper:Beatles. Now, I don't think either of those characters are in that pantheon, but just sayin'

 

Just about all of them are nihlistic. Some shows are excellent despite that.

Mad Men, I'm sorry, gets outdrawn on Sunday night by Ice Road Truckers and The Real Housewives of New Jersey on cable. It's frankly a boring, morose show, fetishsized by a select few, most of whom write 1000s of words about each episode on the Internet.

 

For cultural impact, Sipowicz > Soprano

 

Damn. Ice Road Truckers is still on? I was into that show the first two or three seasons.

 

This is weird. dooley_womack1 and I almost never agree on pop-culture debates.

Dick Whitman, I think you have lost perspective about the wide-spread viewing of The Sopranos, particularly in comparison to shows from the era before cable (or before cable's popularity). By being on HBO, The Sopranos could only be watched by people with many TV choices. Because of the cursing, it cut into its audience. Because of the intellectual nature of the show, it cut further. Simply put, not that many people have seen The Sopranos. And James Gandolfini didn't do a whole lot else.

Do you believe you used the word "most" correctly in this case, or was it intentional hyperbole? I agree with a lot of what you said. One problem is that many of the best shows from the 1970s and 1980s haven't made themselves easy to find on the Internet. I really would like to watch Soap, for instance. The Mary Tyler Moore Show's first three seasons are on Hulu, but from that point on, I'd have to buy the DVDs (running a total of about $50). That's frustrating to me.

 

If John Hamm dropped dead tomorrow, it would not rate A1. And "Mad Men" is a current, groundbreaking show. It is also a niche show.

I recognize I'm out of it, but when I saw the RIP thread yesterday, honest to God, I thought it was one of the Lord of the Rings actors. I do not have HBO, so Sopranos was never an option.

And it's been off the air for how long now?

I'd rank Alan Alda an A1 before this guy, not to say he deserves it, but he'd be more deserving than the Sopranos guy.

 

Versatile mentioned the first name that popped into my head.

Lucille Ball vs. James Gandolfini - that is Mike Tyson vs. Michael Spinks.


People really have to watch themselves with the 'greatest of all time' stuff.