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.
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
So it was Chuck's betrayal that was the catalyst behind Jimmy's transformation into Saul. Heartbreaking. All because Chuck couldn't accept his own brother as any kind of an equal. It's a shame, because unlike the despicable Walt who enjoyed his own fall in BB, Jimmy clearly never wanted to be that person.
Def how I felt...heartbreaking the way chuck was behind it all. This show...damn [Reply]
Originally Posted by frankotank:
so Mike shows up to a drug deal with no gun.
unarmed.
at a drug deal.
WTF
PS - Jimmy....get Chuck the **** committed.....NOW!
He doesn't need one.
I thought they explained that pretty thoroughly. Physically, he's fine without one. But also, he checked the situation out well before he even showed up at the meet. He knew the drug dealers needed it to go smoothly more than the guy he was protecting. [Reply]
OK...so nobody is gonna just come out and admit that showing up to a drug deal without a gun is fucking STUPID. wow. so he did his homework.....so now he can be a dumbass. cool. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frankotank:
OK...so nobody is gonna just come out and admit that showing up to a drug deal without a gun is ****ing STUPID. wow. so he did his homework.....so now he can be a dumbass. cool.
He didn't need a gun, that's why he didn't take one. He carries one often in BB, IIRC. [Reply]
Originally Posted by 'Hamas' Jenkins:
If Jimmy's character were as poor as Chuck claimed, Chuck isn't in his home, and Chuck knows that.
Like an abusive partner, he's destroying someone's self-esteem to the point where they act in a manner that validates that low perception of their worth.
Jimmy isn't demanding to sidle up to Hamlin on the billboard. He doesn't want the franchise, he wants a spot on the team, and he's certainly earned that.
More very long stuff, but in luke-warm defense of HHM:
Spoiler!
In defense of HHM, as they've been portrayed, they're about as silk-stocking as a law firm gets. They appear to have about a 100K square foot campus. They look to have a 100 strong roster of attorneys.
These guys have that Sidley Austin look about them - starting salaries for associates at 150K; first year associates as pick of the litter law clerks and law review/class rank studs - shit like that.
If that's the case, they can go to the best law schools in the region and pluck the 3 best guys from the 3 best schools, pit them up against each other and probably take their pick. They can hire truly exceptional attorneys.
Saul appears like he's probably a better attorney than his image, but he's also not such a good attorney that he'd have ever seen the RICO case coming. He'd have never sought class certification. The kinds of attorneys that HHM can turn away, let alone hire, absolutely could have done that.
It's the fear of every partner in every firm when they have another member that has a kid in law school - Jesus lord, please don't let him be an idiot. They know the odds favor them having to hire the guy, good bad or indifferent. And when that happens, it's not generally a positive development.
I actually don't fault HHM here. And really, even Chuck had solid grounds for what he did. But the way he did it and how he finally articulated why he did it was shit.
The bottom line is that HHM did what virtually any firm in their shoes would have done in the same situation had Jimmy come in off the street with that case, no ties to the firm and an online degree. Hell, the offer they made him was actually better than I expected (20% of the common fund isn't fucking around).
The leap that I can't quite make here is that a litigator as presumably articulate and honed as Chuck wouldn't have been able to give his justification there in a manner that wasn't so scorched earth. It seems to me that he just got caught flat-footed and flustered as hell.
In either event - still damn good television and great work by all the actors involved. Really outstanding show. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
The odd thing is that Chuck still cares about Jimmy in his own way. But out of his own pride/ego, he just can't envision a world in which the two are anything close to equal. He has an image of himself as the hard-working, righteous learned lawyer and an image of his brother as Slippin' Jimmy and refuses to alter those ideas in his mind regardless of the preponderance of evidence in front of him.
1 month prior, McGill the younger committed a pretty obvious fraud in order to build his practice. He then accepted a cash bribe from one possible client in order to protect/spring another.
McGill's done at least 3 things that would have had him dis-barred in the first season alone.
Let's not get too crazy holding him out as a paragon of virtue just yet. It's not hard to find a guy that would've spotted overbilling without also bringing in the red flags that Jimmy carried with him in the incredibly recent past. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frankotank:
OK...so nobody is gonna just come out and admit that showing up to a drug deal without a gun is ****ing STUPID. wow. so he did his homework.....so now he can be a dumbass. cool.
Mike's the kind of guy who would carry a gun to a drug deal but not let anyone around him know he was carrying. [Reply]
I'm not gonna argue one way or another, just gonna enjoy this wonderfully told story. As for Chuck, he was just being dishonest about his emotions and with his brother - and lord knows that never happens in regular life. [Reply]
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut:
1 month prior, McGill the younger committed a pretty obvious fraud in order to build his practice. He then accepted a cash bribe from one possible client in order to protect/spring another.
McGill's done at least 3 things that would have had him dis-barred in the first season alone.
Let's not get too crazy holding him out as a paragon of virtue just yet. It's not hard to find a guy that would've spotted overbilling without also bringing in the red flags that Jimmy carried with him in the incredibly recent past.
I don't think anybody would deny that there is some truth to what Chuck is saying and a rational basis for believing it. That's part of what makes it so difficult to watch. But that also doesn't mean he was saying it for those reasons or that his own ego/pride/self-image aren't blinding him to Jimmy's good qualities. [Reply]
Originally Posted by KC_Connection:
I don't think anybody would deny that there is some truth to what Chuck is saying and a rational basis for believing it. That's part of what makes it so difficult to watch. But that also doesn't mean he was saying it for those reasons or that his own ego/pride/self-image aren't blinding him to Jimmy's good qualities.
True.
But that's also the mark of a well-written show. I think a smart show is wise to show human fallibility there in Chuck - none of us are immune to pride and being the 'favored' sibling is a nice source of it. A smart viewer recognizes that this doesn't make Chuck the devil. It makes him a dynamic, relateable character in a very artfully crafted show. [Reply]
