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.
But he DID steal from his dad and his dad did seem to be a pretty good dude, if not an incredible pussy.
Chuck knew this and whether or not Jimmy's conduct is actually what led to the business to fail, etc..., it's still damn strong evidence corroborating Chuck's view of his brother. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Oh Kim...I mean Khatru. You just keep putting your faith in Jimmy and he just keeps burning you. Was it Chuck's fault that a con-man convinced 9 yr old Jimmy to steal from the till as well?
Jimmy's has a soft heart and a bad BAAAAD moral compass. That's not Chuck's fault, nor is Chuck the bad guy for seeing Jimmy for who he is.
I don't know where you get the idea I have faith in Jimmy. That whole point was about not believing everything Chuck says because he has blind spots/agendas as well. I think in this show you should not take any character at face value. For instance, when asked at the job interview about where she came from and her past, Kim seemed pretty uncomfortable about that. I bet we find out why.
I'd also be careful extrapolating too much from that 1973 flashback. Yes, Jimmy took $8 out of the till -- after Dad gave $10 away to the grifter, after he gave money to some other hard-luck story the week before. That establishes a pattern. So was Dad so generous that he gave away $14,000 over several years to sad sacks, putting his business in jeopardy? (While I was watching I was trying to calculate if that were feasible. Perhaps not.)
Jimmy technically wasn't even taking from his Dad there, he was taking $8 of the $10 that his Dad had already given away to the grifter (and not expecting it to be spent on smokes at the store). Now, did that become a pattern -- did Jimmy start skimming from the till? Maybe. But unlike the evidence with Dad, the only piece of info we have to substantiate that conclusion is Chuck's version of events -- which brings us back to biased perspective and issues of trust.
I'm not saying Jimmy didn't or couldn't have stolen from his old man. But with this show, with its depth of character, I wouldn't be surprised if there were multiple layers to this -- such as Chuck forever holding Jimmy responsible for something he didn't do because of an assumption based on Jimmy's reputation. That to me would make for a much more interesting dynamic. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
It sure looks to me like Jimmy became Saul after he decided to embrace who he truly was. Despite all the hang-wringing over the 'path' that Chuck put Jimmy on, Jimmy had made partner at a successful, straight arrow firm and he intentionally sabotaged that. All the roadblocks (fair as they were) put up by Chuck had been cleared. That's on Jimmy and has nothing to do with Chuck.
It was Jimmy's realization of self that put him on the path to becoming Saul. Hell, if anything, striving to be Chuck is the only thing that pushed that off for a few years.
I think you're giving Chuck way too much credit. Chuck had an opportunity to put Jimmy on the straight and narrow, but he never even gave Jimmy a shot. He was manipulating Jimmy's career even before Jimmy became slippery as a lawyer. Even in a new firm, Chuck was calling his brother out in front of the entire law firm and manipulating Kim in order to get into Jimmy's head.
What if Chuck mentored Jimmy instead of strongly sabotaging any chance for Jimmy to succeed? By the end, Chuck becomes a trigger for Jimmy to do bad things. [Reply]
Originally Posted by chiefzilla1501:
I think you're giving Chuck way too much credit. Chuck had an opportunity to put Jimmy on the straight and narrow, but he never even gave Jimmy a shot. He was manipulating Jimmy's career even before Jimmy became slippery as a lawyer. Even in a new firm, Chuck was calling his brother out in front of the entire law firm and manipulating Kim in order to get into Jimmy's head.
What if Chuck mentored Jimmy instead of strongly sabotaging any chance for Jimmy to succeed? By the end, Chuck becomes a trigger for Jimmy to do bad things.
Why should Chuck have mentored Jimmy?
Jimmy appears to be 10-15 years his junior; they likely never truly knew each other or were terribly close. When Chuck bails Jimmy out of jail early in the series we're told that they barely communicate. Even if you set aside whether or not he stole from dear ol' dad, we do know that Jimmy had a history growing up of being a slippery little shit and a born con-artist.
You continue to blame Chuck for not fixing Jimmy when in fact Jimmy was already a problem child and Chuck has no obligation to subject his firm to that and no obligation to correct a couple of decades worth of behavioral issues from him. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
Why should Chuck have mentored Jimmy?
Jimmy appears to be 10-15 years his junior; they likely never truly knew each other or were terribly close. When Chuck bails Jimmy out of jail early in the series we're told that they barely communicate. Even if you set aside whether or not he stole from dear ol' dad, we do know that Jimmy had a history growing up of being a slippery little shit and a born con-artist.
You continue to blame Chuck for not fixing Jimmy when in fact Jimmy was already a problem child and Chuck has no obligation to subject his firm to that and no obligation to correct a couple of decades worth of behavioral issues from him.
You're giving Chuck too much credit and that really showed in the last episode.
Maybe Chuck originally was trying to save the firm from Jimmy. But then it was Davis & Main, who were fine with Jimmy wheeling and dealing on the bus. And now it's Kim, a bystander. It's pretty amazing that Chuck could almost care less about the firm, but suddenly becomes very interested when Jimmy becomes involved. This is definitely personal.
Maybe Jimmy was going to be slippery no matter what. But I don't think that justifies going really far out of his way to sabotage his brother, let alone Kim. [Reply]
Originally Posted by BWillie:
Im not rooting for Chuck at all. Hes the most smug most unlikable character in the entire show
Chuck's a dick. He is willing to have a health crisis and go against whatever nutty condition he has just to ensure Jimmy is screwed by proxy of Kim and him trying to hang their own shingle. Jimmy not possibly succeeding is more important to him than his health and a physical collapse. For a client that means relatively little to HHM, and would be life changing for Kim and him.
Chuck is anything but a brother to him, the same man who actually has looked out for him, helped him, and supported him when he became a Techno-electrophobic recluse. [Reply]
