"Sopranos" Folks at the Emmys (AP Photo)

Here's the word from HBO Video:

HBO's Emmy, Golden Globe and Peabody-winning series The Sopranos returns with the final nine episodes on all three DVD formats from HBO Video on October 23, 2007. In The Sopranos: Season 6, Part II, the show comes to its conclusion with Tony Soprano facing new stresses, including life-altering decisions at home, pressure from the law, and doubts about allegiances on the job that leave not even his oldest and most trusted crew members above suspicion. The Sopranos: Season 6, Part II, available on DVD, HD DVD and Blu-Ray disc formats, is being released in time for the holiday season, making it the perfect gift for die-hard fans. …

"Making Cleaver," an exclusive sneak-peek at the behind-the-scenes making of the film that Christopher pitched in Hollywood
"Music of The Sopranos," a retrospective look at the final season and the music that helped shape it
Four audio commentaries from cast members – Episode 1: Steven Schirripa, Episode 3: Dominic Chianese, Episode 7: Robert Iler, Episode 8: Steven Van Zandt

Pricing: $99.98 DVD, $129.95 HD DVD/Blu-Ray

My friend Alan Sepinwall has a post-finale interview with David Chase; even if you've read excerpts, you can find the whole thing here

I wrote a few notes for tomorrow's Beacon Journal, which I am posting after the jump …

If you have not watched yet, do not read any further.

No doubt people will argue about the ending. I’ll just remember all the great last moves it made, the wonderful acting, and the music – Vanilla Fudge and Bob Dylan used with equal adeptness. Of course, I wish it did not stop. But it goes out on a string of episodes as fine as any show has ever made.

Now, some elaboration: At first I panicked when the screen went black, afraid something had gone haywire in the DVR, checking another set where I was making a backup recording, then e-mailing a friend in another state to be sure I had seen what I had seen.

After all, the finale had been playing with ominousness in that last scene, seeming to focus on some out-of-place-looking guys in the restaurant. And with the freeze on Tony's face, I was reminded of the ending of the original "Fail Safe," and thinking that I had missed a scene of people approaching the Sopranos, guns out, leaving us all with their doom.

But no. In the end, Tony's cunning and instinct for self-preservation had gotten him through; he had even managed to turn a fed, instead of the other way around. As for the indictment, that's part of the cost of doing business.

But in the end, Tony's life was not really about business. I've been a little obsessed lately with the show's "Godfather" parallels, and have written about the notion that the show would end with Tone Alone, like Michael Corleone at the end of "Godfather II." Instead, the show left that fate to Uncle Junior, who had been willing to turn against family — including Tony — for the sake of business. And the one thing that kept Tony from that fate was that he remained close to his family, however much his business may have twisted his relationship with them.

All this and Vanilla Fudge, too. Sure, the Journey riff was artfully used. But Fudge's thunderous "You Keep Me Hangin' On" was a terrific bookend, its plaintive "set me free" not only echoing Tony's dilemma but the show's longing to end, which it finally did by stopping even as Journey cried "don't."

And I'm still chewing on the details of the episode. And anticipating a second viewing. And wishing, hoping, thinking and praying for a reunion movie — although it would be pretty near impossible to top this ending.

TNT offers "Sopranos" stars in a "Law & Order" marathon, after the jump …

Here's the official announcement and episode list:

One day after the series finale of The Sopranos, TNT is giving fans of the series a chance to spend the day with their favorite stars when the network presents 12 episodes of the hit drama LAW & ORDER, featuring such guest stars as Edie Falco, who has won three Emmys® for her performance as Carmela Soprano on The Sopranos; Michael Imperioli, who earned an Emmy for his performance as Christopher Moltisanti; Aida Turturro, who earned an Emmy nomination for her performance as Janice Soprano; and Frank Vincent, who plays Phil Leotardo. Other Sopranos stars to appear in the LAW & ORDER marathon include Jerry Adler (Herman “Hesh” Rabkin), John Ventimiglia (Artie Bucco on The Sopranos), Vincent Curatola (Johnny “Sack” Sacramoni), Dan Grimaldi (Patsy Parisi), Joseph R. Gannascoli (Vito Spatafore), Ray Abruzzo (“Little” Carmine Lupertazzi Jr.), Robert Funaro (Eugene Pontecorvo), Dominic Chianese (Corrado “Jr.” Soprano), Vincent Pastore (Salvatore Bonpensiero) and Sharon Angela (Rosalie Aprile).
TNT’s 12-hour LAW & ORDER marathon kicks off Monday, June 11, at 2 p.m. (ET/PT). The following is a complete rundown of the episodes and guest stars featured:
2 p.m. “I.D.,” featuring Aida Turturro and Jerry Adler – The cops tackle identifying a corpse left in an elevator.
3 p.m. “Grief,” featuring Edie Falco – A reluctant witness affects the case of two rape victims in custodial care.
4 p.m. “DWB,” featuring John Ventimiglia – The detectives uncover a shocking twist while investigating the beating of a black man.
5 p.m. “Trade This,” featuring Vincent Curatola – The murder of a stockbroker points to organized crime when a hired hit man kills the prime suspect.
6 p.m. “Deep Vote,” featuring Dan Grimaldi – A political reporter is the target of a murder plot.
7 p.m. “Everybody Loves Raimondo’s,” featuring Joseph R. Gannascoli and Ray Abruzzo – Two men are gunned down at an exclusive restaurant.
8 p.m. “Sects,” featuring Robert Funaro – Police and prosecutors go after a fanatical cult leader who encourages sex with children among her followers.
9 p.m. “Publish and Perish,” featuring Michael Imperioli – The police investigate the link between a powerful police commissioner and the murder of a porn actress and a maverick publisher.
10 p.m. “Hindsight,” featuring Michael Imperioli – Det. Nick Falco is investigated after a woman he spent the night with turns up dead.
11 p.m. “Shadow,” featuring Dominic Chianese – The murder of a bail bondsman looks fairly routine until the chance words of the chief suspect uncovers possible case-fixing.
Midnight “Juvenile,” featuring Frank Vincent – The investigation into the shooting of a newspaper columnist leads to a murder case from two decades earlier.
1 a.m. “Deadbeat,” featuring Vincent Pastore and Sharon Angela – The murder of a deadbeat father whose son is dying of leukemia presents a moral dilemma.

Episodes, I mean. Although it's beginning to feel as if there's no need for a reunion movie …

Bobby's dead, Silvio is apparently close, Tony's family has gone into hiding (and, in the middle of the crisis, AJ could think only of managing his own depression), Carmela worries too much about where she might have to stay, Melfi has dropped him as a patient — and Tony is curled up in a safe house, on an uncovered mattress, his hands around his weapon, and the last best defense — if he has one — is Paulie. And Paulie's loyalty has always been open to question. (I did for a moment imagine Tony waking on his mattress to see Paulie and the guys standing around him, just before they shot him dead.) What a good episode.

Anyway, there have been signs, mentioned here before, that the show was heading toward a moment where Tony had no one around him. But good heavens, the way that we got there on Sunday! The chance of Tony ending up dead at series' end became ever more real, although I still don't accept it.

I think we're still headed more toward "The Godfather, Part II," with Tony alive but with no one still close to him. Of course, survival will depend on taking out Phil Leotardo — who had a superb moment Sunday, trying to base his vendetta against Tony on tradition and honor, and who was allowed, at least for this week, to show that Tony and his guys were never as smart or able as they thought they were.

But apres Leotardo, quel deluge? My buddy Alan Sepinwall insists that Tony would never be allowed to run a New York family, so he can't assume ultimate power. How's this for bitter irony then? Tony kills Phil, ensuring his own survival but at a double price: the loss of so many of his people (leaving him with no one he can trust), and the ascension of Little Carmine, who finally becomes the New York boss but has neither risked nor lost anything to get there. A lovely form of hell, isn't it?

Some notes after the jump …

Wonderful, aching stuff with AJ and his depression. And, as I talked about with last week's episode, the circle around Tony has gotten still smaller: He has no way of dealing with AJ, Meadow's falling into another guy's orbit, Carmela's getting pissed and the seed's been planted with Melfi that maybe she needs to get away from him, too. Even the thing with AJ in therapy, talking about Livia, indicates that Tony is headed toward an old age alone.

Assuming, of course, he gets to old age. And I keep thinking that, in spite of Phil's determination to have it out with Tony, that Tony still ends up surviving — that, evoking "Godfather/Godfather II" yet again, "Sopranos" will end much more tragically with Tony alive and alone.

After all, as the line cited above underscores, Tony still wants to believe that he's not bad, that he hasn't destroyed everyone around him, that there isn't a Soprano family curse. And even if he does end up alone, he will probably still want to believe that he always tried to do the right thing — even as his hunger and selfishness are so strong, he can't even stop from taking one of AJ's Lincoln log sandwiches.

Paulie's shoes, Junior's schemes, after the jump …

This is how "Sopranos" makes us laugh: Paulie getting out his shoes, one white pair after another; Junior and other nursing-home residents singing "Take Me Home, Country Roads."

This is how it makes us ache: Tony actually considering whether he should kill Paulie, and it's not even because Paulie might betray him; it's that Paulie annoys him. Junior, once the big man, taken down by a crazy kid emulating Junior's own craziness. And when we see that Paulie and Junior are alone and for the most part unloved, we see that's probably what awaits Tony.

Paulie may think of the killing of Big Pussy when he gets on the boat with Tony, but we should also think of "The Godfather, Part II" and the killing of Fredo. It's also on the water, it also involves a character who is both a liability and a loved one, and it's a killing that removes one more connection of another character to humanity.

When Michael in "G II" has his brother killed, he has shown once and for all that he will do anything to protect his power and standing; it's the moment that makes "Godfather III" superfluous, because Michael has lost his soul there.

When Tony ponders killing Paulie, he knows on some level that it could destroy his soul — and Tony, whatever me may think of him, still believes that he has a soul. He keeps pressing Paulie on the Johnny Sack situation because Paulie's confession could be considered betrayal, and therefore a rationale for death. (Fredo, remember, had sealed his fate by disloyalty to Michael.) But Paulie knows that you never admit to anything, and Tony can't quite bring himself to kill Paulie just for being a pain in the neck. And then, of course, regrets it because Paulie is still a pain.

And then there's Junior, showing us what faces Tony down the road if he lives long enough, especially if he outlives his enemies or is no longer a threat to them. No family, no love, no escape, just sadness, small schemes and a daily dose of meds. He can still win admirers — but they're all crazy. Sane people will just drain him. (And, in Tony's getting a "bridge loan," there's the suggestion that Tony is already feeling drained.)

Making this all even sadder is that Tony's decision not to kill Paulie also suggests, not for the first time in the show's history, that he doesn't have the stuff to run the mob. He's not quite ruthlessness enough. His violence can be capricious — witness the fight with Bobby earlier this season — instead of calculating. Michael Corleone would never make such a mistake.
\

For your consideration and argument, after you've seen tonight's episode, and after the jump …

Murderous, vain, capricious Johnny Sack is dead. It's a death that sets in motion what should be the "Sopranos" endgame, establishing once and for all Tony's place in his gangland world, if he will have any place at all. Because of that, it looked as if "Sopranos" could have flipped these first two episodes, appeasing people who want mobster intrigue by beginning with tonight's show, then getting into the family conflict by airing last week's episode second. But "The Sopranos" has insistently been first about family, and the nature of family. So the order was right thematically, if not mollifying to some viewers.

And still Johnny Sack is dead, and still I feel badly for him and his family. Of course, he had all the flaws I mentioned, many of which were magnified when he became the boss. But Johnny always had a redeeeming side in his feelings about family, especially in his unquestioning and undiminished love for his wife. So when Johnny's greatest humiliations came when his family suffered, too — the way he was treated at the wedding, for example, or the loss Ginny and the rest felt on tonight's show. And it was made all the more brutal because Johnny allowed himself to be hopeful over the possibility of a second, more positive medical opinion — a hope that was, of course, dashed.

So I call this post "the ideal Tony" because that, in many ways, is what Johnny was. Going back again to last week's episode, we were reminded how selfish and mean, to the point of monstrosity, Tony is. Not even his family is spared his evil. Johnny protected his family; he understood love in a way that Tony can never achieve. Tony believes in family as chattel, as possessions, as something where his commitment and faithfulness are flexible. Johnny saw the gray areas in business, but in his family life, he believed in absolutes. So I felt a pang at his death, a pang that Tony has not come close to deserving.

"Sopranos," "Amazing Race," "Friday Night Lights," after the jump …

I expect to be expanding on this later but, if you haven't already made plans, be sure to see the "Friday Night Lights"
season finale on Wednesday.

I'm optimistically calling it the season finale because that's the way NBC is referring to it, and because I don't want it to go away. The season finale is structured so that it could serve as a series finale if it had to, but there are still so many questions and characters to deal with, it could also go on. And I don't want it go away.

More about that later. For now:

Having seen "The Sopranos" opener, what did you think? I was bothered by the jumpiness of the opening but am still thinking about the latter stages. Not just the fight, either. More about how incredibly cruel Tony can be — first in thinking that he could say what he did about Janice, while she is sitting across from him, while her loving husband is also there. Then that he could come up with a job for Bobby that would hurt Bobby far more than Tony's fists. Amazing stuff.

As for "Amazing Race," sorry to see Uchenna and Joyce go, even if they already have a million bucks. They are decent people. But any viewer got a sinking feeling when their early-flight gamble didn't work, and it just felt worse and worse as we saw the other players but not even a hint that Uchenna and Joyce had made a connecting flight.

So what have we got left? Eric and Danielle, don't like 'em. The Barbies, don't like 'em. Mirna and Charla, entertained by them but well aware of how annoying they can be. (Target Demo, visiting for Easter, was watching the show without benefit of previous history, and was really getting irked at Mirna and Charla.) Oswald and Danny can seem like the worst players in the world, especially with that newspapers challenge, but I still like them. So I'd be content with them winning, or M&C — but not at all happy if the other teams came through.

Also over the weekend, watched "Man of the Year," the Robin Williams movie that may inspire a post here later about the mis-marketing of some movies, and finally finished "Happy Feet." I've had a post in draft form about "Night at the Museum" — especially about why it managed to make $500 million worldwide — that I hope to wrap up soon, and I may have a few thoughts about "Happy Feet" to add there.

Also, in case I haven't mentioned it in a while, I still get drawn into VH1 Classic. But good heavens, could someone spend a few dollars to remaster the videos? The picture quality is horrible at times, aged and fading.

The semi-season finale of "The Sopranos" on Sunday was a frustrating hour. As much as I understood what the show was doing, I wasn't crazy about the way it went about its business.

To be sure, I came to it with an increased longing for satisfaction. I watched it at about 11:30 Sunday night because the bride and I had spent the earlier part of the evening at a Cleveland Indians game. A very bad Indians game. It's a good thing we filled out our All-Star ballots before the game was under way. But I'll come back to that.

Once we got home, I had the DVR playing back "The Sopranos." This was the last new episode for a bit. HBO has shown 13 in this cycle, with eight remaining for telecast in 2007. That in theory creates an extended final season, but Sunday's telecast felt like a season finale. The Soprano clan had gathered the way it tends to for season finales. And most of the big drama had happened in the episodes leading up to this one.

As I said, I know what the show was trying to do. These episodes have come back repeatedly to the issue of whether people can change or not, especially Tony, whose shooting earlier this season should have been a life-changing experience. In some ways, the show has demonstrated, Tony cannot change. He has tried to stop his infidelity, but just can't do it. He is drawn to women for mere lust (as was the case with his brief encounter with a Bing dancer) and for more complicated reasons (most recently embodied by the real-estate agent played by Julianna Margulies). But, in his meeting with a hospitalized Phil, Tony did indicate that he has changed, that he has no stomach for pointless feuds and macho posturing. There was a further indication of it when he took no action against Christopher upon learning that the real-estate agent and Christopher were canoodling; the old Tony considered women his possessions even if he was no longer involved with them, and he was still in pursuit of Julianna.

Change was also a factor in the different view we got of A.J., whose surliness at last diminished when he met a woman who gave him a comfort zone, an older woman who was domestic in a way that he had not seen with his club-hopping contemporaries. To see A.J. bond with her son was to remember that somewhere inside the younger Soprano was a sweet kid who had gotten lost in poses and attitude.

But as much as we saw those characters change, they were counterposed against the ghost of Vito (whose inability to change ended up killing him) and Christopher's dark shadow. As much as any character on "The Sopranos," Christopher has wanted to believe in change — to believe that he can change from a thug into a writer, or a producer, or a decent married man. But as much as he dreams of change, he cannot change his most basic self — an addict.

Not just a drug addict, either. Christopher seems addicted to self-destruction; he knows his drug habit risks his future with Tony, and that taking up with one of Tony's women has, in the past, been as great a risk. At the end of Sunday's episode, it's not clear if Christopher has once again given up his habits. (We know he has gone to an NA meeting, but we don't know if it's a stopgap or a real step back to recovery.) But even if he has done that for the moment, odds are that Christopher will lapse into drugs once again, because that's what he does. And sooner or later, it's going to kill him.

And in between, we have Tony's rival Phil, put in a place where he needs to change, but still full of rage over past grievances. (And I loved the way Little Carmine unknowingly pushed exactly the wrong button with Phil — proving Carmine's inability to change into the wise leader he wishes to be.) Tony has brought him the message of change. Now we'll have to wait to see if Phil learns from it.

So there was a lot of thematic business in the episode. But it didn't play out well dramatically. For most of the hour, we were offered a mood of dread and danger — that Phil's guys were going to take out one of Tony's, that Christopher was going to make a fatal error, that Tony was going to revert, that Phil's illness might pass power into the hands of guys trigger-happy enough to firebomb Tony's home during the holidays. (At least, after all those threats, I wondered if that would be the episode's end.) And then? No power, no force, no shock. Just ideas, and a long wait to see where the story goes.

Unfortunately, I knew where the Indians had gone.C.C. Sabathia gave up two home runs in the first inning, the Angels were leading 7-0 by the end of the third. When we left, midway through the seventh, the score had ballooned to 11-0 and the lackluster Indians gave no hint they would mount a memorable rally. In fact, they let the score go to 14-0 before they scored a couple of meaningless runs, and we were home in time to see the final out on TV.

We still had fun at the ballpark, and the rain that threatened early in the game never became more than a few drops. Good seats. Good junk food. But the Indians disappointed, not so much because they lost, or because the pitching staff was way off, but because some of the players seemed to decide the game was over long before it really was.

When Jhonny Peralta declined to give maximum effort to prevent a base hit, an angry fan a few rows above us yelled, "Omar would have dived for it!" Not only that, Omar probably would have stopped the ball. As I said, we left early. But a lot of fans were gone before we were; it was a work night, after all, and the Indians weren't giving fans anything to chat about happily on the job the next day.

I expected to get more TV watched today but ended spending more time than I expected on a column for tomorrow about "American Idol" and on items for my TV mailbag. So it was "Sopranos" this morning and "Alias" tonight.

(Possible spoilers follow.)

I liked many things about "Alias," even if there were significant amounts of the plot that I did not quite understand, and there were a few more of those moments that make me think that nobody really dies on "Alias." Well, all right, one definitely died, and one appeared to be dead, and one who isn't dead is nonetheless facing justice of an eternal sort. I also liked the flashbacks through Sydney's life, which not only brought her life full circle but took the viewers back to the show's beginnings. And, because I'm a casual watcher of "Alias" and a devotee of "Lost," tonight was the first time I was struck by "Alias's" use of the faith-vs.-practically parallel. Maybe it had been there before (or at least evident to closer viewers), but tonight it was made obvious.

On the other hand — and with "Alias" I usually end up seeing the other hand — the ending did not close the door on the spy game forever. (Or, for that matter, on great and mystical forces waiting to be unleashed.) Indeed, its variation on the "life goes on" gambit in series finales included a world where someone with Sydney's skills is still needed. And there is that not-dead character to consider. So, in a couple of years if not sooner, when J.J. Abrams comes out with a wowser of an idea, and Jennifer Garner is ready for a bloody brawl or three, let's not be surprised to see "Alias: The Movie." And I might even pay to see it — if there's no Rambaldi.

(More possible spoilers)

As for "The Sopranos," more terrific stuff on Sunday. Parts of it we could see coming — Vito's doom was not a question of if — but of when, how and by whom. The answers to those questions were dramatically apt. And I really liked the way Phil's position in the whole thing proved not to be from his gangland culture but from the far older belief system of Catholicism (and from his own commitment to marriage).

Indeed, the series was steeped in the place that Tony et al. occupy in history, not only in the Vito resolution but in Carmela's journey to France, and her encounter with an older, grander world than the one she occupies. But history is not for everyone. Tony still wrestles with the implications of his own past — is he like his father or his mother in dealing with A.J. — and Rosalie Aprile is content to forget the past, except as something to be marked in ceremony.

So good, and yet so deeply covered with a feeling of doom. I kept looking at scenes and feeling that they would end badly — as they often did. Vito paid for loving the gangster life — because he ran afoul of the standards of that life, and the men who felt they had to meet those standards. Tony and Phil both seem headed for a confrontation because they cannot forsake the life they've chosen, even if they might want to, and the restaurant fight was purely a result of everyone feeling they had to defend old-world honor and be old-world aggressors. They all should have learned from Vito.

Well, I got those other two bushes out, more easily than the first one, proving that even a little experience can ease the task. (By the way, after writing this morning's post, I went to church, where the sermon was called "Spring Pruning" and the pastor had many stories about his own fun with plants. Sometimes these things are in the air — especially when the air has bright sun and warmth passing through it, and being outside is mandatory.) We have accumulated groceries. The bride cleaned house and put a second coat of paint on the shed door, and washed her car, and made a lasagna. I ran the edger along the sidewalks, which wasn't bad, and swept up the cuttings, which is not among my favorite things. Younger son went to his job.

In other words, the day was full for everyone. And some TV was squeezed in. Well, a little bit of "The Sports Reporters" this morning. At lunchtime, we watched "Survivor" and caught up on all the strategizing and scheming.

I don't really have anything to add to the discussion I saw online after the telecast. Terry seems a lock for the final two, with a game that combines great individual effort with terrible team strategy. He reminds me of the "Saturday Night Live" parody of a Bush/Dukakis debate, where — after ramblings by Bush — Dukakis says, "I can't believe I'm losing to this guy." The folks on "Survivor" must feel that way every time Terry approaches them with a plan. Cirie, on the other hand, is really smart. We'll just have to see how smart. At this point, if I'm Terry, I want her in the final two since she has been so skilled at betraying nominal allies now sitting on the jury. But when has Terry ever managed to influence who joins him at anything?

Watched some of the Cavaliers-Detroit game during the afternoon. Might have watched more if it hadn't gone like this:

Passed through the house at one point, score's tied 14-14, looks good. Back to the yard, where the bride later informs me that Detroit is up 10. A short break around half time, to see Detroit was up 21. Another check later, when Detroit's lead was in the thirties and time was short. Not a lot of reason to sit by the set and expect a Cavs comeback — at least, not in that game.

Finally, evening brought a chance to really couch out in front of the TV. Rewatched "Alias" and it makes more sense to me — well, as much sense as "Alias" ever makes. As I've said before, I'm sick of Rambaldi but I keep hoping it's finally leading somewhere. Odd to have not only two deaths but two involving cut throats — an eerie symmetry underscoring the betrayal and obsession in each. And I like the way Jennifer Garner is playing Anna-as-Sydney, grabbing onto a facial expression as shorthand for Anna.

I thought a lot about faces during "The West Wing" (which I actually watched after "The Sopranos," but I'll order my notes here by the clock). I may be overthinking this, but when I look at "Sopranos" or "The Shield," or tonight's "West Wing," I see shows where the people involved know they're near the end and they want to go out great. Everyone on "WW" was on his and her game tonight, and I don't mean they were chasing Big Moments. They were just working — working together, playing off each other.

Think of the scene where Joshua Malina (Will) and Mary McCormack (Kate) talk about him running for Congress. Timothy Busfield (Danny) on the street. Busfield in the apartment with Allison Janney (CJ). Janney and Richard Schiff (Toby). And what about the way that Jimmy Smits (Santos) is morphing into Bartlet — like in that moment where Santos gives CJ a won't-take-no speech? I will really miss seeing these guys go at it.

'"The Sopranos" was a dud for me, the first one this season. The best explanation I can give is that the show was so intent on showing us why Tony was bored, it made the show boring. The Christopher stuff felt flat. We know he's the victim of his own demons. The scenes at the street fair may have been touching on their own, but in the larger context they didn't really tell us anything. And the flashback to his betrayal of Adriana, while filling in a gap, didn't fill it in a way that brought us a new insight into what happened. And guess what, Pauly is cheap and selfish and mean, and Janice is selfish. Not great.

I'm hoping to post tomorrow about "Grey's Anatomy" and maybe "Saturday Night Live," which I recorded. But for now, I'll leave you with my hope that there was sunshine in your day, too.

I laughed — very hard — at "The Sopranos" on Sunday night. Wasn't alone, either, since this was a night in our regular "Sopranos" gatherings with co-workers, so the laughter was not mine alone. The Ben Kingsley stuff was funny enough. Mugging Lauren Bacall — one of those things where you think, oh, no, they wouldn't DARE, and then they did. I know at some point, probably even next week, that the show is going to get back to serious business. Still, as I've said before, the makers of the show know that every episode counts these days; they're obviously determined to leave people with the sense that this was a great show, one that could do anything, including comedy — and last night was gut-busting.

I didn't get around to "The West Wing" until this morning. An all right episode. Liked the way Josh went to Sam, since it invoked the scene where Josh brought Sam into the Bartlet campaign; unfortunately, these being smart characters, they then had to talk about how this was similar to that earlier moment, which took some of fun out of it. (Rob Lowe's oddly stylized performance also grated quickly.) The switcheroo at the end of the Bartlet/Santos conflict wasn't much fun either. And I hope the NBC promo was deliberately misleading with its hint that Santos might pick Vinick as his new VP; that's way too tidy for a show that was built in a lot of ways on messiness. As we were reminded every time Josh had to handle a pile of papers.

This was a weekend that began with frustration; I had called a guy Friday morning for a story I thought I would need to write and still hadn't heard back from him by the time my workday officially ended. There was some frustration near the end, too, when the office called about the passing of Linn "Barnaby" Sheldon, to ask if I wanted in on the story. By that point, we had company coming, and I had to pass. I did know Linn, a little, and will probably have some notes about him here later.

In between those points, though, were domestic pursuits — painting, yard work, cleaning house — involving all the folks in the House of Heldenfels, ending with a home that looked and felt better. There were also chances for TV in the gaps.

"Gilmore Girls" was very good for about half the episode, where we saw that Mrs. Kim has her own Mrs. Kim; a vivid reminder how deep the cast is, with Emily Kuroda doing a terrific job. Then, as the show got back to its arc — the Luke/Lorelai wedding or not — it struggled. Lorelai's drunk scene, while showing off the way Lauren Graham can play multiple dramatic notes effortlessly, felt too grimly, deliberately sad, especially when we remember that Lorelai has put herself into this situation. At the same time, though, with Amy Sherman-Palladino officially leaving "GG" at the end of this season, I have to wonder how the new creative team will maintain the show's tonal approach — and if, Aaron Sorkin-like, she is going to leave the show in a horrible little box that the new team will struggle to escape.

I very much enjoyed "Veronica Mars" although I have no idea what I really know about the bus crash. Liked the way that grasping Kendall is now connected to the Fitzpatricks, although I do wonder why no one came across this connection before. Of course, Neptune is a town where most people spend a lot of time NOT looking for the truth. The Duncan clue at the end baffled me, though. Are we really to think that Aaron was not a murderer. And if not, weren't his dealings with Veronica at the end of Season 1 just the tiniest bit extreme? Still, I liked the Wallace-Jackie scene where Wallace spoke so cruelly to her, since it reminded us of how skillful young people are at saying horrible things.  And always enjoy Tina Majorino's presence; her reactions to the unexpected prom date were delightful.

"Veronica" addendum. One reader sent these notes along: "Remember Kendall went to Logan's to "sell" him real estate?  She took hair out of Duncan's drain in the shower and they planted the evidence.  All he has to do is have reasonable doubt with one jury member.  OJ Simpson, Robert Blake, if you are famous and rich, sometimes you get off.  Veronica speculated that Arron killed Lily with an ashtray.  Rumor has it that the actress that plays Lily will be in the last episode so I am thinking another flashback at what happened that night. As for him trying to kill Veronica, more interesting storyline if Arron is out of jail.  Remember, Logan mom's body has not been found.  Here's hoping the new CW gives Veronica another season with it being available to most of the country and not getting moved for a game of some kind of sports."

Thanks for the info. But that shower scene has bugged me because it was so unclear about what was going on — and I remain dubious about Kendall's ability to extract a hair and know whose it would be, especially considering the traffic through that place. Let us now resume the original post…

The bride and I also took in the two-hour return of "Alias." I am not a fan of the show, which always feels exciting for about an hour and then just exhausting. The return was entertaining, and I have a mild curiosity about where it's going, but I can't get too crazed. Seeing Jennifer Garner playing pregnant with her thinner, post-pregnancy face was intermittently amusing. And the closing scene was a giggle simply because one of my TV mantras is that no one ever really dies on "Alias."

And now let's all charge into the new week. I'm really looking forward to "When Andrea Met Kellie…"

I did not expect to go this long between posts, but the days filled themselves up — chasing down a cat to take to the vet, putting a fence back up around a flower bed, Easter morning at church, grocery shopping, giving the grill its spring inaugural. Today at work I was hip-deep in a non-TV project, now finished.

Watching was done, too. Friday night, we kicked back with "Serenity," the big-screen continuation of "Firefly." Sunday night was devoted to '"The West Wing" and "The Sopranos," and in between there I caught up on "Veronica Mars" and "Gilmore Girls." I keep thinking the viewing menu included something else, but right now I can't remember what it was.

Notes on all that viewing:

– I laughed more at "The Sopranos" than at any other recent episode as the guys exhibited their homophobia in so many different ways. For Paulie, of course, it was all about him. Tony's stumbling explanation of how guys get a free pass for any homosexual acts in prison was priceless. And I really like the way they're treating Christopher's NA sponsor, the latest in a line of characters who are not hoods but still want to hang out with some.

At the same time, though, the guys' reaction to Vito's secret life reminded us how unenlightened they are about many things; even young guys like Christopher can't handle the idea of men with men. Even though Tony was less dismayed than the others (and nice to see that his change brought us back to his post-shooting introspection), even he felt social pressure from the others — until that pressure was a challenge to his authority.

As for Vito, I'd like to think that he has found a place where he can be himself and is out of harm's way; the implication in Tony's attitude was certainly that Vito is fine as long as Vito doesn't come back. Unfortunately, there's no such thing as out of harm's way on this show, as we saw early on in the "College" episode.

– "The West Wing" offered some civics lessons, as Santos is learning that even a transition period comes with hard lessons, and old friends are not necessarily the best new allies. And it held out some fun hints of what could be if the show wasn't ending now, by beginning to fill some staff positions. But overall the hour dragged, and I expected more for Bartlet's farewell to Leo than false bonhomie bucking up everyone else.

– "Gilmore Girls." Emily is right. It's time for Lorelai to step into the middle of the Luke/April situation. It's sure not easy emotionally for Lorelai to keep herself apart. And it appears that just about everyone else on the show has had more conversation with April than Lorelai has.

As for ongoing plots. the Rory and Jess thing was a waste of air time (even if it gave the promo makers something to hang the episode on). And Rory is just a bore to watch (partly because Alexis Bledel is bringing little to the part), her attraction to Jess no more convincing than her ambivalence about Logan. Not a great episode overall. Luke's accompanying the field trip kept seeming to go somewhere, only it had nowhere to go. And for all the kerfluffle about Lorelai's parents being in town, why has it not occurred to her that they might be house-shopping for Luke & Lorelai — a very Emily wedding present, yes?

– "Veronica Mars." Not bad, and it feels as if we're getting closer to something on the big mystery. Some interesting visuals on the dream sequence. Lot of empty air, though.

– "Serenity."  Of the three folks under this roof, I am the one least enamored of "Firefly," so I may not be a great judge of "Serenity." While it wasn't completely lacking in entertainment, it never elevated beyond being a so-so action picture. Of course, on a Friday night when we were all eager to kick back, I appreciated the way the movie made few demands on me.

In spite of the ambition in yesterday's post, the day got away from me. I had a story about SportsTime Ohio that ended up consuming part of the day and evening; it was after 8 p.m. before I had the information I needed to write. And while I was working on that, I was trying to track the two local contestants on "Deal or No Deal" to get something about them in today's paper. Since I was on the phone during the end of one player's journey, I ended up e-mailing an NBC publicist for the results, then wrote a brief item about it.

By which time it was well after 9, so the night's viewing was "Everwood" (on recorded delay) with the bride. I got through part of "Veronica Mars" after that, but it was late by then and sleep was demanded. Finished "Veronica" this morning.

So, some thoughts on recent viewing:

"Veronica Mars": Decent episode, although it was pretty clear that Thumper was in the stadium bathroom before the show revealed it. (At least, I think he was in the stadium. Some tricky editing there.) I continue to like the way Tina Majorino has become part of the show; she knows how to do both intelligence and vulnerability. And Steve Guttenberg is fun to watch, although I wonder if the writers are, in essence, playing to his weakness — making Woody transparently suspicious-looking because anything subtler is not going  happen with Guttenberg. Very much liked the way Jackie handled Wallace. And was there anything more loaded with tension than the scene of Veronica and Logan dancing? Talk about issues…

But probably the best thing about the episode is that I don't have to wait a week to watch another new one, since "Veronica" moves its new telecasts to Tuesday beginning tonight.

"The Sopranos": Sunday's episode was the first one this season I had to watch in regular time, since HBO sent out the first four for review before the season started. And I was watching it with friends as part of a regular "Sopranos" gathering, with the two previous weeks' episodes viewed before we got to the new one. My one beef: that Tony's spiritual awakening in the hospital seems to be over. I know, for some things he has no attention span, but the near-death experience after the shooting should have set him off on a more extended journey. But maybe I'm asking too much of Tony.

Vito in the leather bar was weirdly hilarious — loved the cap — and I'm really wondering how that will play out. The Johnny Sack scenes were touching; as calculating and cold as Johnny can be, we keep getting reminded that his love for Ginny (and, by extension, their family) is absolute — far deeper than what Tony feels for Carmela. So, of course, it had to become an issue of weakness.

Also liked the event-planner dialogue with AJ, a nice reference to the previous season and to AJ's overall aimlessness.

As for the bodyguard story, well, didn't you sense soon after seeing this guy that someone was going to pound him? (I suspected Christopher would get the chance to show the difference between bodybuilding and street fighting.) The show's deftness was in the way Tony ended up doing it.

"Everwood": I'm on and off in terms of watching the show, although I like it for the most part when I do. (I did cring on Monday night at the way mastectomies' aftermath were treated as loathsome scarring.) At its best, it reminds me a little of "Veronica Mars." The characters are allowed to be smart and articulate, but not in the fake-grownup way of "Dawson's Creek." And their emotions feel genuine. I also like that it's not a teen show, even though many of the characters are young.

Yesterday I was talking to Glenn Gordon Caron, the writer-producer behind "Moonlighting" and now "Medium," and he was explaining how "Medium" is really a show about married, settled grownups — something that can be a challenge for young TV writers to handle. He's right, too; "Medium" repeatedly sets up opportunities for melodrama, then dials it down to a reasoned discussion. "Everwood" often does the same thing, testing the characters but not making them cartoons. But that may also explain why The WB never seemed as enthusiastic about "Everwood" as it did about lighter and simpler shows.

"Gilmore Girls": Not sure about this one, especially with the return (again) of Jess in tonight's episode. Didn't buy for a minute Rory's getting back together with Logan — and was disappointed that Paris was shuffled off again in short order.  Am wondering when Lorelai is going to get off the pot and deal with Luke about his daughter. It's long past time.

When I finally sat down to see Wednesday's telecast of "Veronica Mars," I was ready to be dazzled. It felt as if it had been forever since there had been a new episode, and I was long past ready for one.

The episode was all right, not great. I did like the scenes with Logan, since to the end it was not clear if he was a sincere suitor or a master manipulator. But other stories and relationships felt less sure-handed. And, since I was primed for good stuff, it was all the more disappointing when it wasn't there.

Is that disappointment the fault of the show, since most series have off weeks? Or am I to blame, for expecting a high level of accomplishment that wasn't there?

I'll blame the show. After all, there are programs that we come to with high expectations that do deliver. "The Sopranos" came back from its long hiatus with a very good episode, and tomorrow night's is even better. As I said in a column about the show, with the end of the series in sight, the makers of "The Sopranos" are acting as if every single episode counts, not just one here and there leading to a big finale.

But the quality of the early episodes has been so high, viewers are going to expect the show to maintain that — and it may not be able to do so every week. I thought of that when watching the season finale of "The Shield" next week.

I'll have more to say about "The Shield" in a separate post. But this has been a terrific season, both through the addition of Forest Whitaker as a "good" guy who is as ruthless and unscrupulous as Mackey, and in the impact of Whitaker's presence on all the other characters. The intensity has been incredible; what might have been cat-and-mouse in lesser hands is more like cobra-and-mongoose here.

Still, because "The Shield" has been so compelling episode by episode, I was prepared for something epic in the season finale. Make no mistake, it's good. It has an air of tragic inevitability for anyone who has been watching closely this season. And there's a funny little surprise in the middle of the drama. Even so, it disappointed a little because it did not top everything leading up to it.

This wasn't a case of waiting for a show to return, as with "Veronica Mars." It was instead a matter of getting so deeply involved in a series that I wanted an ending whose power would carry me over to the next (and possibly final) batch of episodes.

This morning I arose with the remains of my cold. My bride's attempt to fight off illness continues to be a losing battle. My morning paper told me that the company owning my newspaper is being sold. Knew that was coming. Then my e-mail basket included the news that the company buying my newspaper's company did not want my newspaper, so we're up for sale again. Then I got almost all the way to work before discovering I did not have my key card. (I had dropped it in the living room, I learned when I drove back home.) And somewhere in all that, I realized that I had forgotten to record "Grey's Anatomy" last night.

But let's talk "Sopranos." While there are spoilers aplenty out there about the March 19 episode, you won't read any of them here. I believe in a code of silence on this one, since anything else would spoil the delight of watching it unfold. And you'll really want to watch the next episode.

At least we can talk about last night's show.

(IF YOU HAVE NOT SEE IN YET, DO NOT READ BEYOND THIS POINT.)

Not only was it a shock when Uncle Junior shot Tony, the show increased the brutality of it with Tony's agonized attempt to call for help. And it came at the end of an episode laced with dread, with the feeling that something very bad was going to happen. Oh, sure, there was the artful misdirection — making it seem that Eugene might actually put a bullet in Tony to end his own family's suffering. Still, when I looked at the episode a second time, I noticed all the times it pointed that Tony was prospering — new boat, new car for Carmela — as omens that things were not going to stay good forever.

The irony of it, of course, was that Tony was not shot for all his misdeeds. In fact, he was performing a good deed — taking care of his uncle when no one else would or could — when Junior shot him. That touches on a theme that has run through "The Sopranos" as well as other art, including the novels of Larry McMurtry and '"St. Elsewhere," that sometimes punishment is arbitrary, and goodness does not by itself guarantee reward. Pain can come from unexpected places, and be no less horrible for that. Look at the beating and hit-and-run earlier in that same episode. Confusion leads to the beating; fate sends a car.

If the world can let some men thrive on wrongdoing — like Tony — then others will not thrive even when they do no wrong.

The chat with folks at the Beacon Journal on Wednesday was great fun. Let's do it again. But it was close to 10 p.m. before I got home, and viewing was backed up. The bride and I watched "Lost," and I expect to have more to say about it later today. Then I dipped into "The Sopranos." For now, let's just say that there are big things coming, so big that after watching the season opener, I was fast-forwarding through the next three episodes to be clear about what was happening.

Since I usually put some sleep on my agenda, I saved "Idol" for this morning — performances watched, personality stories skipped, judges mostly skipped. And this is all I can say:

Aren't the guys collectively remarkable?

Nine out of 10 performances were at least competent, with the horrible David Radford the exception. Eight of 10 were good to great. When I saw the show lined up Taylor Hicks, Elliott Yamin and Ace Young early in the telecast, I had to wonder if "Idol" wanted to get the good stuff out of the way before it competed with "Lost." Instead, the show was deep enough that it still had plenty for the rest. Well, except Radford. Since I keep a running report card during the show, in short order I felt like a figure-skating judge who has planned to save the big scores for the stars later in the competition, only to be forced to raise the scores early. And then where do you go?

Well, with Chris Daughtry, who closed the show, I threw up my hands and gave him an A. Is this guy tearing it up or what? And he did so at the end of a program where some people I expected to be really good (Hicks, Ace Young) proved just OK by comparison, while people like Gedeon McKenney and Will Makar stepped up big time.

Anyway, here's the card: Daughtry gets that A. McKenney, B plus. Yamin, B. Makar, B minus. C pluses for Hicks, Young, Kevin Covais and Bucky Covington. C for Jose "Sway" Penala. Radford gets a D, and considering what the other guys were doing, I should probably curve him down to an F. I have no idea what the voters will do, especially since Radford was lousy a week ago and still survived the vote. But the mid-level women have to be very worried about what will happen if they make it to final 12 and have to compete with six of the guys; if they were all in a combined vote this week instead of the gender split, I wouldn't have been surprised to see three or four women gone.

I think we may have to make Monday "Grey's Anatomy" night at the House of Heldenfels, since Sunday seems to fill up with other commitments. Not that Mondays are always easy, either. It took me almost a week to get to the Feb. 18 episode of "Grey's," and last night's episode is filling a spot on the DVR until we get to it tonight. I hope.

Sunday night I also recorded "Dancing With the Stars" and have peeked at the conclusion. Although I thought Stacy Keibler was better over the course of the show, I can't kick about Drew Lachey winning. He certainly did what it took to dazzle viewers on the Thursday telecast. But that still leaves me puzzling over Jerry Rice's second-place finish. Sure, he fit best with the idea of the show as "journey" (which I wrote about in a previous post), but his dancing was so much less impressive than the other two finalists, that I have to wonder if some people voted for Rice just to make mischief with the results.

As for why I was doing that recording, the answer is that the bride and I have rejoined the "Sopranos" dinners involving a bunch of our co-workers. The dinners date back to the previous airings of new episodes of "Sopranos." Basically, every couple of weeks, people bring food, we eat and then we watch a couple of "Sopranos" episodes — usually the one from the previous week followed by the newest telecast. Some conversation accompanies, often along the lines of "Wait, whose bloated body did they just find on the beach?" Attempts to understand the plot may also follow. It's low-key fun. Good food, too, although the show's violence may not be easy on the digestion. One co-worker turned away from the grisly scenes rather than risk losing her vegan chocolate cake. She told me later that violence is not good for the soul and the psyche. One more reason for me to write off my soul.

The dinner-and-TV format does not work with just any show. "Carnivale," for instance, was not as big a draw (and required a lot more plot discussion). But "The Sopranos" has been a consistent pleasure, so people started warm-up dinners. Last night, we watched the 11th and 12th episodes from the fifth season; on March 12, the 13th episode (which finished the fifth) will be followed by the sixth-season premiere. I'm going to be hungry for new stuff then, since the episodes last night just made me hungry for more.

But I'm still waiting for review copies of some new episodes. Today's mail instead included a real oddity: a Joan & Melissa Rivers bobblehead.

Someone in TV decided that bobbleheads are a cool way to hype shows. A little Chuck Wooley bobblehead on my desk has been joined by a "Dennis Franz as Andy Sipowicz" figure (tied to the release of the third season on "NYPD Blue" on DVD). I may take Sipowicz home to keep my Vic Mackey bobblehead company. I am keeping him a safe distance from Joan & Melissa, who arrived to promote the TV Guide Channel (where they will be holding court for the Oscars soon).

But there's something wrong with Joan & Melissa. Joan in particular looks too normal — well, bobblehead-normal. And that may just be more marked with time. The figures should come with their own tiny scalpel, so they can be brought up to speed with Joan's nip/tucks, then keep pace with future changes.

Here is HBO's latest announcement that "The Sopranos" will keep going longer than anticipated — which, of course, just makes us all wonder if it could keep going beyond this.

LOS ANGELES, Aug. 11, 2005 – HBO announced today that in addition to THE SOPRANOS' upcoming sixth season, which will include 12 episodes, HBO will produce an additional eight bonus episodes, to debut in January 2007.

Currently filming its sixth season, the critically acclaimed, Emmy(r)- and Peabody-winning THE SOPRANOS will continue in production for these eight additional episodes. The sixth season is slated to launch in March 2006.

‘‘We are obviously delighted that we will be able to extend THE SOPRANOS' series beyond its slated 12 episodes,’’ said Chris Albrecht, chairman and CEO, HBO. ‘‘When something is as remarkable as THE SOPRANOS, our audience would like to see it continue as long as possible, so we are thrilled that David Chase felt there are more stories to be told.’'

‘‘With every season, this series continues to creatively evolve and grow. We are all looking forward to spending more time with 'The Sopranos',’’ said Brad Grey, executive producer of the series.

HBO Chairman Chris Albrecht didn't even wait for the question. "I don't know," he said during opening remarks at an HBO press conference today. "I read what you read."

The question, of course, was will there be even more "Sopranos"? The next season is due on HBO in March 2006, and that's supposed to be the last. But there have been hints in the press that series creator David Chase would be willing to do more.

While he didn't know, Albrecht was at least willing to let his daily mood swings on the subject include some optimism.

"David was so charged after last season and the response to the show from last season, and he's so happy with what he's doing now that I honestly believe that he feels like there's more to tell than just what he's got planned for the (coming) season," Albrecht said. "I know he knows he can tell more."

Then Albrecht's mood swung.

"David has always been most concerned about leaving the audience feeling great about the show. … If he felt he's got 12 more episodes in him, but only 11 of them were going to be really good, and the last one wasn't going to be, he would in his mind make the decision not to do (the 12th episode)."

So we'll just have to keep waiting for Chase to make the call.

Among the many other subjects Albrecht addressed was the demise of "Carnivale," a show I liked very much, but which HBO has ended after two seasons.

"Never have we gotten besieged the way we have been by 'Carnivale' fans," Albrecht said. "Literally 50,000 e-mails over a weekend. And I don't mean the first weekend (after the decision). … It is so over the top, not just in terms of the number but in terms of things that they say and threaten."

So did HBO miscalculate in dumping the show? "After reading the e-mails, I'm not sure," he said.

But he argued that "Carnivale" just did not make financial sense.

"If 'Carnivale' was a $2-million-an-hour show, we'd keep going with it," he said. "But a period piece shot all on location, a huge cast like that .. and you've got to order at least 13 episodes to give something a real shot — it is an enormous investment."

The show did not sell well overseas, he said, so the expense could not be covered that way. "So you just have to say, 'Can I take this money and allocate it in other ways that appeal to the same audience?' "

As for how the show ended, viewers weren't the only ones taken by surprise. Albrecht said he originally thought the plan for the second season was for an ending "where you didn't have to go on. At the end, (the makers of the show) decided to kind of change that a little bit, which turned into a little bit more of a cliffhanger."

And who can love a cliffhanger that remains eternally unresolved?