As I am sure many of y'all already know, a spinoff of "Breaking Bad" titled "Better Call Saul" will be airing in 2014. This is going to be a prequel to Breaking Bad and will be based on the character of Saul Goodman from "Breaking Bad."
I, for one, will be watching. I'm sure the majority of all of you other "Breaking Bad" fans will be as well. Might as well get the discussion going sooner rather than later.
So... what are your hopes, expectations and/or concerns with the show? Here are some of mine:
Hopes: I hope to see Saul do his thing in the courtroom. I hope to see strong, unique supporting characters. I hope to see Breaking Bad foreshadowing. I hope he has an intriguing paralegal and/or assistant. I hope to see Breaking Bad characters such as Fring, Mike, etc...whoever. I hope the show kicks ass.
Expectations: I don't expect it to be as good as "Breaking Bad" (because nothing else is, really), but I expect it to be good since Vince Gilligan is writing. I somewhat expect it to have an even balance of comedy and drama...since Saul undeniably provides a substantial amount of comedic relief in "Breaking Bad." I expect to see "courtroom Saul." I expect the "Breaking Bad" references and character cameos to be less than what I hope. If it isn't even a fraction as good as "Breaking Bad," I expect it to be better than 95% of everything else on TV, since there is some shitty shit on TV these days.
Concerns: I'd be a liar if I were to say that I didn't think this show has potential of flopping and certainly failing to meet the presumed high expectations of the audience. Don't get me wrong, I think it will be good... but I think it COULD suck if not executed properly. My main concern is Saul ultimately proving himself to be a "little dab will do ya" type of character, which would lead to a show centered around his character not working out. I am hoping that the character of Saul will not be so over-used and constantly over the top, that he becomes annoying to me, thus ruining his character for me altogether... Not saying I think this will be how it goes down...just saying I think there is a CHANCE of this being the case, which prompts me to believe that a strong supporting cast is VITAL in terms of the amount of success/quality this show will accumulate. All in all, I don't think VG will steer us in an unfortunate direction though...I think they'll pull it off.
She looks like Rashida Jones in mom pants and hair. I never got It's all good man out of Saul Goodman until he said that in the ally way. This show is TIGHT TIGHT TIGHT> [Reply]
Originally Posted by mr. tegu:
It was a setup. When Saul got him on the catwalk the guy mumbled, "took you long enough" and then they had a quick good job handshake.
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
I think it WAS a setup, but it is a topic of debate amongst viewers. Some (wrongly) think there was money in the handshake.
I don't see how it could even be a debate.
The guy was up there basically doing nothing, and he fell only when Saul was making his statement with the camera rolling.
Then the "it took you long enough" comment with the handshake.
He couldn't get the local news to cover his story, but he knew that they couldn't ignore a rescue like that and his name and ad would be all over town. [Reply]
That whole episode was really a bit too hokey for me.
That opening scene was really pretty ridiculous. It was one of those only-on-TV schemes that only works if a whole bunch of little things go exactly right, all while relying on a stranger to act exactly as you want. That guy could have easily said, "Eh, I'll just keep the cash." It was just kind of stupid. [Reply]
Originally Posted by cosmo20002:
That whole episode was really a bit too hokey for me.
That opening scene was really pretty ridiculous. It was one of those only-on-TV schemes that only works if a whole bunch of little things go exactly right, all while relying on a stranger to act exactly as you want. That guy could have easily said, "Eh, I'll just keep the cash." It was just kind of stupid.
The good thing here is that Better Call Saul happens to be a show on TV [Reply]
Originally Posted by cosmo20002:
That whole episode was really a bit too hokey for me.
That opening scene was really pretty ridiculous. It was one of those only-on-TV schemes that only works if a whole bunch of little things go exactly right, all while relying on a stranger to act exactly as you want. That guy could have easily said, "Eh, I'll just keep the cash." It was just kind of stupid.
You're right about the opening scam. You undertake a massive risk (with the $1000 plus, unless the bills are counterfeit) for an uncertain take from the other guy's wallet (what if he only has $20), and you may not even get the original money back. [Reply]
Well that's kinda odd that the writers want us to believe a scam like that would work. That's not like them at all.
It's almost like this one hokey show I used to watch where the main character was in hiding from a drug lord. He ended up hatching a really odd scheme to get rid of the guy that would never work in real life. It had to do with a bell, an old Mexican guy in a wheelchair, explosives, poison beans, poison berries and a kid in the hospital.
Really weird. Had to suspend belief a little there. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
You're right about the opening scam. You undertake a massive risk (with the $1000 plus, unless the bills are counterfeit) for an uncertain take from the other guy's wallet (what if he only has $20), and you may not even get the original money back.
That is a good point and makes the whole premise from Saul's perspective make much more sense and removes that risk factor of basically scamming himself out of money. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Gonzo:
Well that's kinda odd that the writers want us to believe a scam like that would work. That's not like them at all.
It's almost like this one hokey show I used to watch where the main character was in hiding from a drug lord. He ended up hatching a really odd scheme to get rid of the guy that would never work in real life. It had to do with a bell, an old Mexican guy in a wheelchair, explosives, poison beans, poison berries and a kid in the hospital.
Really weird. Had to suspend belief a little there.
Originally Posted by Gonzo:
Well that's kinda odd that the writers want us to believe a scam like that would work. That's not like them at all.
It's almost like this one hokey show I used to watch where the main character was in hiding from a drug lord. He ended up hatching a really odd scheme to get rid of the guy that would never work in real life. It had to do with a bell, an old Mexican guy in a wheelchair, explosives, poison beans, poison berries and a kid in the hospital.
Really weird. Had to suspend belief a little there.
That scam actually exists in various forms. I know it's widely warned in Paris that tourists avoid gypsy scams where a girl approaches you with what appears to be an expensive ring and asks if you dropped it. IF you say yes, they ask for a reward. If you say no, they attempt to sell it to you. Some rubes will throw good money at her thinking it's an expensive piece but it's not. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
You're right about the opening scam. You undertake a massive risk (with the $1000 plus, unless the bills are counterfeit) for an uncertain take from the other guy's wallet (what if he only has $20), and you may not even get the original money back.
Originally Posted by mikeyis4dcats.:
That scam actually exists in various forms. I know it's widely warned in Paris that tourists avoid gypsy scams where a girl approaches you with what appears to be an expensive ring and asks if you dropped it. IF you say yes, they ask for a reward. If you say no, they attempt to sell it to you. Some rubes will throw good money at her thinking it's an expensive piece but it's not.
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
You're right about the opening scam. You undertake a massive risk (with the $1000 plus, unless the bills are counterfeit) for an uncertain take from the other guy's wallet (what if he only has $20), and you may not even get the original money back.
No way the $1000 was real. I mean, the watches were fake, why wouldn't the money be fake? [Reply]
