Talk:Luxury Lounge
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
Untitled 1[edit]
Privately, Phil also approaches Tony to thank him on Johnny Sack's behalf for the hit on Rusty. Tony expresses his distrust for the acting boss by denying involvement, which Phil graciously accepts as cautiousness.
or maybe tony has alzheimers? 67.162.66.69 01:43, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Rabbits and cookbooks[edit]
Personally I saw the end of the episode as an arc for Artie from depressed to accepting. He has sunk into depression because of his business problems and is again toying with the idea of being involved in the mafia because of his friend and associates in the organizations easier financial lives. He loses interest in his cooking because he feels the audience do not appreciate it and leaves much of the work to other chefs. The Bennyt Fazio situation and on a smaller scale the rabbit give him a chance to vent his frustration in a way other than whining. By the end of the episode, despite his injury, Artie follows advice given to him by Charmaine and Tony and sticks to what he does best. He cooks a meal from his parent's cookbook (his parent's started his first restaurant, Vesuvio, and his family ran others before that; they also paid for him to go to cooking school). He does use the rabbit which ties up that scene neatly, shows that he is getting a sense of satisfaction from the meal and gives a little humour to the scene. The pathos is added to by the cookbook. I think it's important to have both points in our episode summary. MrFridays seems to think the cookbook is the only relevant point and LGreen is more interested in the rabbit. Both are valid points of view. Lets discuss your reasons and try to reach a consensus.--Opark 77 07:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I have to say, I disagree, but only a little. About half of this episode is about the problems Artie is facing with customers, with American Express, with his wife, he is shown as hurt and helpless. He is even hurt when a rabbit is eating his veggies and angrily pulls out a rifle to take care of it. True, Tony tells him to get back to cooking and leave the customers alone, but in my view that has nothing to do at all with the last scene. In that scene he is doing some book-keeping and his wife lets in a few customers past closing time, and there is nobody to do the cooking, but they have alreay gotten a bottle of wine so cannot be ushered out. So Artie is pretty mad so demands that they eat whatever he decides to cook- not the behavior of someone who likes to cook. There is no indication whatsoever that he has returned to his roots and enjoys the act of preparing food in any way. Forced to cook something he then flips through the recepie book and turns to the rabbit recepie. His wife criticizes the choice, saying not everyone likes rabbit. So even while he cooks up one source of his pain he is chastised by another. It all fits. This is totally relevant to the episode and even if people can see different sides it should be included. I mean, we are talking about a summary of what happened, and this happened and is relevant so why take it out?? I mean this comment is an analysis but the summary is just a summary so its perfectly appropriate. Lgreen 07:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're last sentence is what I think - it's a summary and both things are true so there's no reason they shouldn't be there if a consensus feels they are important enough. So you're happy to leave both points in? I agree that Artie was angry but I think you're wrong about Charmaine being a source of pain - I saw her as sweet and loving in this episode and very supportive of Artie through some moments when he was being unreasonable. She let those customers in for a reason - she could have turned them away, part of it is business, part of it is atmosphere and part of it is making Artie cook. You say you saw no indication he returned to his roots - I'd say the closeup on the cookbook indicates that. You also said there's no indication that he enjoys the act of cooking - I'm sure he was smiling while doing it (but that might be remembering what I want to see!) and the music playing over the scene created a sense of peace for me - but as you say we have two different points of view of the same events on screen - the summary should reflect neither as it's an encyclopedia and not a place for original thought but as an episode summary the facts of what happened should still go up. --Opark 77 09:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- You have no way of knowing that the rabbit he cooks is the same rabbit that he shot in his garden. I appreciate your concerns and viewpoints, but the simple fact of the matter is that the origin of the rabbit that is cooked is not relevant. --mrfridays 15:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- I think it is relevant, as does LGreen. The rules of wikipedia state that we should respect the consensus view. It's not up to any single individual to decide what is and isn't relevant. --Opark 77 21:58, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Not only is it relevant, its critical. Even if its not the rabbit that he is shooting at its still a rabbit, right? He is either exacting his revenge on the actual rabbit or thinking of revenge as to the store-bought rabbit. Either way, the episode closes with Artie getting in the last word after all the problems that have befallen him this episode. Why do you see an accurate summary as a problem? I cannot believe that this is even being argued about. Lgreen 23:49, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Are you deranged? What's it like living in fantasy land? Must be all rainbows and unicorns I suppose. The mere fact that you refer to your addition of "Artie cooks the rabbit that he shot in the garden" as an 'accurate summary' is mind-boggling. Let me spell it out for you, just in case you didn't get it the first 3 times: YOU. HAVE. NO. WAY. OF. KNOWING. THAT. THE. RABBIT. IS. THE. SAME. ONE. ARTIE. SHOT. Even if it is the same rabbit, the assertion that you feel he is getting a measure of revenge for all of the problems he faced in the episode is certainly POV, and has no place in a EPISODE RECAP/SUMMARY. If anything I would imagine that Artie managed to get quite a bit of anger out when he actually shot the rabbit, or when he sent Benny to the hospital. If you want to mention that Artie cooked a rabbit dish, that's fine. Its unnecessary, but fine. Anything other than that, I will keep deleting, and the Wikipedia POV rules will certainly be on my side. --mrfridays 09:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- Well now that we are all mad at each other...... Anyway I think the point is clear- (a) artie shoots at a rabbit in his garden, (2) later, he cooks one up after much bad stuff has happened to him. I agree it might not be the same one, in fact my summary said it was implied that it was the same one, which i think is true. If this is too much POV for you then ok. Moreover, As far as I recall, this is the last scene of he episode which is usually significant. I'm pretty sure i'm not deranged, if that's what you are asking. Man, this whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth for the wikipedia.Lgreen 05:40, 1 June 2006 (UTC) EDIT- I did a quick google search, seems like most everyone thinks that cooking scen is important...and and they think its the same rabbit. See a few links- blog 1, blog 2, someone else, New York Post Article. Whatever, you don't think its important.
- Are you deranged? What's it like living in fantasy land? Must be all rainbows and unicorns I suppose. The mere fact that you refer to your addition of "Artie cooks the rabbit that he shot in the garden" as an 'accurate summary' is mind-boggling. Let me spell it out for you, just in case you didn't get it the first 3 times: YOU. HAVE. NO. WAY. OF. KNOWING. THAT. THE. RABBIT. IS. THE. SAME. ONE. ARTIE. SHOT. Even if it is the same rabbit, the assertion that you feel he is getting a measure of revenge for all of the problems he faced in the episode is certainly POV, and has no place in a EPISODE RECAP/SUMMARY. If anything I would imagine that Artie managed to get quite a bit of anger out when he actually shot the rabbit, or when he sent Benny to the hospital. If you want to mention that Artie cooked a rabbit dish, that's fine. Its unnecessary, but fine. Anything other than that, I will keep deleting, and the Wikipedia POV rules will certainly be on my side. --mrfridays 09:59, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
- You have no way of knowing that the rabbit he cooks is the same rabbit that he shot in his garden. I appreciate your concerns and viewpoints, but the simple fact of the matter is that the origin of the rabbit that is cooked is not relevant. --mrfridays 15:09, 28 May 2006 (UTC)
- Yeah, you're last sentence is what I think - it's a summary and both things are true so there's no reason they shouldn't be there if a consensus feels they are important enough. So you're happy to leave both points in? I agree that Artie was angry but I think you're wrong about Charmaine being a source of pain - I saw her as sweet and loving in this episode and very supportive of Artie through some moments when he was being unreasonable. She let those customers in for a reason - she could have turned them away, part of it is business, part of it is atmosphere and part of it is making Artie cook. You say you saw no indication he returned to his roots - I'd say the closeup on the cookbook indicates that. You also said there's no indication that he enjoys the act of cooking - I'm sure he was smiling while doing it (but that might be remembering what I want to see!) and the music playing over the scene created a sense of peace for me - but as you say we have two different points of view of the same events on screen - the summary should reflect neither as it's an encyclopedia and not a place for original thought but as an episode summary the facts of what happened should still go up. --Opark 77 09:46, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
- I was disappointed to read MrFridays post; on wikipedia we expect to keep a civil tone with one another. At least we should fully read and understand each others posts before replying. LGreen was also misquoted in the post ("Artie cooks the rabbit that he shot in the garden") - his first addition of his rabbit point read "implicitly featuring the rabbit that was eating imported vegtables from Artie's garden earlier in the episode." His second attempt reads "purportedly using a rabbit that Artie shot while it was attempting to eat imported Italian vegatables from his garden." Again he made clear that the rabbit was not necessarily one and the same. Both of these quotes are taken from the page history. --Opark 77 07:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Good research LGreen - the blogs aren't really useable as a citation on here (still interesting and help to back up your argument though) but the New York Post article is highly relevant and I have included it as a reference and reinserted the point about the rabbit. We should value the opinion of writers for respected publications more than any of our own - while I still see this as a point of view matter we now have a point of view in a secondary source that we should use. MrFridays, if you find a source that states otherwise, then we should alter the summary to say that the last scene has created differences of opinion amongst viewers. For now, with this citation, it should include the point about the rabbit unequivocally. --Opark 77 07:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think the way it is currently worded is a fair compromise. I would be happy to leave it like this - ("Charmaine seats two customers just before closing time at Vesuvio's. Artie tells Charmaine to tell the two guests that they will have to eat whatever he makes them, since the staff has left for the evening. Artie follows Tony's advice, staying in the kitchen and preparing a rabbit dish from his father's hand-written cookbook".) Furthermore; I never stated that the cooking scene wasn't relevent or significant. I said that the rabbit itself isn't as important as the act of cooking a recipe from his father's cookbook. I can see how you could argue that Artie was able to take an act of violence (killing the rabbit) and turn it into a catalyst for some sort of catartic cooking session in which Artie rediscovers his "roots" so to speak. Having the rabbit be the bridge between the problems earlier in the episode and his resolution at the end makes sense. However my point all along has been that drawing conclusions such as that, which may or may not be accurate, are best left up to the viewer to arrive at. It is not the place of an encyclopedia summary or recap to make such claims. Our goal (should be) to get the bare bones facts of the events that took place in a given episode. I am sorry if I seemed brash in my last message --mrfridays
- Well not to complain but I think the summary lacks the attempted shot at the rabbit eating the Arugula in the garden, the whole point is that the rodent (same or different) shows up twice. I don't want to start a fight so I'm not going to put it in (at not least now) until people around here calm down. Lgreen 06:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think the way it is currently worded is a fair compromise. I would be happy to leave it like this - ("Charmaine seats two customers just before closing time at Vesuvio's. Artie tells Charmaine to tell the two guests that they will have to eat whatever he makes them, since the staff has left for the evening. Artie follows Tony's advice, staying in the kitchen and preparing a rabbit dish from his father's hand-written cookbook".) Furthermore; I never stated that the cooking scene wasn't relevent or significant. I said that the rabbit itself isn't as important as the act of cooking a recipe from his father's cookbook. I can see how you could argue that Artie was able to take an act of violence (killing the rabbit) and turn it into a catalyst for some sort of catartic cooking session in which Artie rediscovers his "roots" so to speak. Having the rabbit be the bridge between the problems earlier in the episode and his resolution at the end makes sense. However my point all along has been that drawing conclusions such as that, which may or may not be accurate, are best left up to the viewer to arrive at. It is not the place of an encyclopedia summary or recap to make such claims. Our goal (should be) to get the bare bones facts of the events that took place in a given episode. I am sorry if I seemed brash in my last message --mrfridays
- Good research LGreen - the blogs aren't really useable as a citation on here (still interesting and help to back up your argument though) but the New York Post article is highly relevant and I have included it as a reference and reinserted the point about the rabbit. We should value the opinion of writers for respected publications more than any of our own - while I still see this as a point of view matter we now have a point of view in a secondary source that we should use. MrFridays, if you find a source that states otherwise, then we should alter the summary to say that the last scene has created differences of opinion amongst viewers. For now, with this citation, it should include the point about the rabbit unequivocally. --Opark 77 07:43, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Burt and Gerry's dinner[edit]
- Head of table: Tony
- Tony's right hand - Sil, Paulie, Burt Gervasi, Gerry Torciano, Patsy, Albie Cianflone,
- Tony's left hand - Chris, Bobby, (Slicked back grey haired guy in black suit, royal blue shirt), Carlo, (Overweight White Haired Guy, grey suit)
- Opposite Tony - Phil L
--Opark 77 07:38, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
Mugging Ms. Bacall[edit]
Hi!
I thought Murmur mugged Lauren, not Christopher. I believe (could be wrong) that Murmur is holding his hand on the plane, indicating that it hurts from punching Lauren. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.99.19.39 (talk • contribs) 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Untitled 2[edit]
Frankly, I'd like to use the power of wikipedia to discover the identity of the stripper Artie expresses his lust for in the early moments of the episode.65.182.51.67 08:02, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
Fair use rationale for Image:Sopranos ep607.jpg[edit]
Image:Sopranos ep607.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot (talk) 07:30, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Correction needed in "Title reference" comment about "weak US dollar"[edit]
Title reference "The episode starts and ends with the hitmen from Italy. The closing scene features them reviewing the gifts they have bought from America for family back home, taking advantage of the weak US dollar."
The writer above is incorrect, the US dollar's exchange rate is not mentioned. In fact, the gifts the hitmen display on the plane are the gifts robbed from Lauren Bacall, which Christopher earlier gave to Tony. Tony expressed annoyance with Christopher over his absence and appeared unimpressed with much of Chris' swag, 're-gifting' it to the hitmen. Theaternearyou (talk) 07:12, 30 December 2009 (UTC)