Quote:
Originally Posted by Hell Atlantic
personally i think they owed it to the character to have him die some other way. this was a rather cheap death, if you ask me. i thought all signs were pointing to Phil whacking Chris to spark one hell of a war for the last 2 episodes.
i didn't know how to interpret Tony killing him - was it a mercy killing cuz he felt Chris would be a vegetable, or was it really to eliminate what he thought was a mounting threat?
just hard for me to swallow. you can't tell me all these years with Chris coming to the forefront of the storyline that it was all so he could die in a car accident. i understand Chase would prefer to have it so that each episode can stand on its own and they're all "mini-movies", but as the storyteller of a long story i feel it's his job to say "this is how it all tied up, this where it all lead to". we're not talking about Vito Spatafore, who came out of nowhere to have a major story arc and then was whacked. this was one of the main characters in the show the last several years running. just a cheap way out. just cuz as a storyteller Chase has the power to do what he wants with any character doesn't mean he necessarily should wield that wand however. that's basically Chase saying "this is my show, i'm the storyteller, if i wake up and decide i want Tony to die by food poisoning i'll do it if i want". certain characters deserve, nay, require, a certain sendoff.
|
I actually liked the way they killed off Chris because I didn't see it coming like that at all. Chris gets whacked by Phil Leotardo? Well, yeah, that sucks, but it would be like hitting a pinata and having a bunch of candy fall out. It's satisfying, and you knew it was coming. But Tony killing Chris himself amid a fog of possible motives in a split second decision? That was like hitting a pinata and having a swarm of bees fly out.