When 'Sopranos' go silent; Crime drama's hiatus means it won't be eligible for this year's Emmys

Does it seem to you like something is missing this winter? Let's see ... Chiefs out of the playoffs, check. Seen all the good movies, check. Can't decide which interests you less, the Golden Globes or the Grammys. Check. Suddenly it hits you: "The Sopranos"! What happened to "The Sopranos"? It's January. Shouldn't the new season be starting soon? Or at least the advertising campaign? Yes, this is usually that time when America's most talked-about TV show makes its midseason appearance on HBO for 13 blessedly rerun-free weeks. But not this year. In a development unheard of for a show as popular as "The Sopranos," its fourth season will not begin until September - or 16 months after the third season finale. The story behind this is one as old as television, but with an HBO twist. Executives at the cable channel wanted to extend "The Sopranos" through at least its fifth season in 2003. But the show's fussy creator, David Chase, wasn't sure he had that in him. "My deal goes through four seasons," he told The New York Times last February, "and at present (it) would be my wish that the show end then." Understandably nervous about losing their biggest hit, they offered Chase serious dollars to reconsider. As important as the money, however, was the time. Chase had already persuaded HBO to delay the third season of "The Sopranos" by two months so he could flesh ut story lines. In July HBO enriched Chase and gave him a generous window to prepare his next two seasons. At the time "Sopranos" fans were teased with the possibility that the fourth season might be pushed back only to June. But HBO later confirmed the September start date. Either way, "The Sopranos" would not be eligible for the 2002 Emmy Awards. The Academy of Television Arts and Sciences won't confirm anything until it issues its rules for the 2002 Emmys later this month. But it seems unlikely that the academy would fiddle with its longstanding calendar guideline, which states that an episode must air in prime time between June 1 of the preceding year and May 31 to qualify for that year's prime-time awards. And this all but guarantees another excruciating Emmys night for "Sopranos" fans, as representatives from their hated competitor, "The West Wing," graciously accept trophy after trophy. Indeed, the only suspense at the 2002 Emmys will be whether "The West Wing" will best its record for most hardware at a single ceremony (it won nine Emmys in 2000). And that would seem a cinch thanks to the disappearance of James Gandolfini - the gun-toting, cigar-chomping, SUV-driving soccer dad on "The Sopranos" - from the Best Actor category, and the fact that "The West Wing" already has aired one episode this season seemingly tailor-made for Emmy voters. I refer, of course, to the "Terrorism 101" special that appeared shortly after and in response to the Sept. 11 attacks. Here the show's supporting actors (Emmy record: a perfect 4-for-4) stood before a group of schoolchildren and lectured them - that is, us - on the peaceful nature of Islam and the importance of not adding to the plight of the Afghan people through another bloody war. What will really gall "West Wing" haters is that when Emmy voters look at this episode a few months from now, they're going to think the show was positively prescient. Assuming the actual war on terrorism continues its current methodical course to total victory, the success of President Bush seems destined to rub off on "The West Wing's" fantasy of a chief executive, played by Martin Sheen. As President Bartlet, the MS-stricken professor-turned-politico, he combines Clinton's star qualities with Truman's grit, Wilson's intelligence, FDR's frailty ... and a curiously Clintonesque lack of a domestic or foreign agenda. Only Tony Soprano's defining and domineering role on "The Sopranos" has kept this award out of Sheen's hands. Until now. The envelope, please Perhaps one other tiny bit of suspense will be what lucky shows and stars get the nominations usually filled by "The Sopranos." Here are some likely candidates: "Six Feet Under." Although it did not rapidly build into a national sensation the way "The Sopranos" did, HBO's freshman drama was beautifully shaped by "American Beauty" writer Alan Ball, whose characters took on incredibly lifelike qualities thanks to a talented cast. "24." Though its Nielsen ratings are not stellar, more people usually watch Fox than HBO, and voters will have an easier time recalling those nonstop "24" episodes than the low-key "Six Feet Under." Kiefer Sutherland would be my pick to take Gandolfini's spot in the Best Actor category for drama. (Andre Braugher won't be nominated this year, either - his show was canceled.) "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." This year might be the best shot for a show that critics love but many older academy members have likely never seen. "Boston Public." Super-producer David E. Kelley has a way with Emmy voters. This sophomore series may also gather a Best Actor nomination for Chi McBride. To reach Aaron Barnhart, phone (816) 234-4790 or visit the TV Barn Web site at www.tvbarn.com. @ART CAPTION:The grim truth is that Edie Falco, Robert Iler and James Gandolfini of "The Sopranos" won't be eligible for Emmy competitionthis year. @ART CAPTION:Peter Krause, left, and Michael C. Hall are featured in "Six Feet Under." @ART CREDIT:HBO @ART:Photos (2, color and b/w)