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 siberian khatru:
It's entirely possible that Chuck's story was 100 percent true. But let's remember: It was told completely from his POV.
I think there's room for skepticism. For instance, he told Kim his father was a paragon of honesty, a saint, really put him on a pedestal. Thus, he couldn't imagine Dad doing anything remotely wrong.
So what if ... that $14,000 missing from the business was actually Dad spending a bit on, say, gambling, or some other vice. Chuck's idealization of his Dad -- and his inherent dislike/distrust of his brother -- may have led him to wrongly assume Jimmy skimmed the money. His Dad wouldn't accept that because he knew Jimmy was innocent, but he was too guilt-ridden to fess up to Chuck.
Is Jimmy so pathological that he would steal from his father? Maybe.
Is Chuck so jealous of his brother, the proverbial prodigal son who is loved by the father despite his faults, who unlike Chuck has the gift of charm (which even works on Chuck's prim and proper wife Rebecca), that he would think the worst of him -- or even tell a lie to Kim in order to hurt Jimmy the only way he knows how, by driving a wedge between Jimmy and his girl? Maybe.
Originally Posted by Anyong Bluth:
Well put.
Chuck has grandized Jimmy's screwups because there's a deep seeded jealousy.
Jimmy even called him on his sanctimonious BS in indirectly pushing the fallout with Kim and him.
No matter how much Jimmy helps Chuck and his loony condition, he is determined to knock his brother down a peg- at work, with Kim, with his wife, going to law school, becoming a lawyer, at HHM when he worked in the mail room, and on and on... .
No one is perfect, and Chuck is incapable of seeing his own faults, and especially his father's, so Jimmy is the source of blame, because his father could NEVER do anything wrong - except favor Jimmy over Chuck.
His putting in a good word with Howard was only after trying to further drive a wedge between her and Jimmy, just like he doesn't want him to be successful at the new firm.
For whatever reason, Chuck's self worth is very dependant on proving his superiority to Jimmy. He can't even stand his wife liking his own brother.
Nailed my thoughts, gents.
The fact that Chuck tried to emulate Jimmy (after relentless warnings about Jimmy to his wife) in the joking about lawyers pretty much established, to me, Chuck's jealousy of his brother. The rest of the episode's expansion of that story arc was spent reinforcing that tidbit.
Yes, Chuck perceives the issue as real, but he is still wrong in his assumption. As most have stated: Chuck will be the cause of turning Jimmy into Saul. [Reply]
Originally Posted by mdchiefsfan:
Nailed my thoughts, gents.
The fact that Chuck tried to emulate Jimmy (after relentless warnings about Jimmy to his wife) in the joking about lawyers pretty much established, to me, Chuck's jealousy of his brother. The rest of the episode's expansion of that story arc was spent reinforcing that tidbit.
Yes, Chuck perceives the issue as real, but he is still wrong in his assumption. As most have stated: Chuck will be the cause of turning Jimmy into Saul.
Huh?
You may think Chunk thinks the way he thinks for the wrong reasons, but he absolutely got to the right answer.
Jimmy is a fraud. The fake billboard incident, the kids jumping in front of the car, blatantly violating Bar rules on solicitation, the shadyness with robbing the Kettlemans (not to mention not reporting their whereabouts), going back to scamming in his hometown as soon as he gets frustrated in Albuquerque.
Jimmy's a crook - he's always been a crook. He may be a likeable crook, but Chuck didn't send him down a path of being corrupt.
Chuck isn't wrong in his assumptions of Jimmy at all. Jimmy's a guy that would absolutely bring HHM under serious fire and with a firm that big, all it takes is a little blood in the water before partners start getting poached, class actions suits start flying and the thing implodes. [Reply]
Take back my post about Kim. She is needed in the relationship between the brothers. Also, thought it was hilarious when Chuck told the joke in bed. Was actually the best one..."not enough cement." haha [Reply]
I find the story line of Kim being punished for Jimmy creating and airing the commercial just absolutely STUPID! honestly....it makes NO SENSE!
sigh...whatever..... [Reply]
Originally Posted by frankotank:
I find the story line of Kim being punished for Jimmy creating and airing the commercial just absolutely STUPID! honestly....it makes NO SENSE!
sigh...whatever.....
You don't think maybe the douchey boss likes her and is pissy that she obviously likes Jimmy? Punish her "because of him" equals instant hate for Jimmy in his mind. Also, didn't seem like Chuck wanted her "in the doghouse" as he put it. [Reply]
Originally Posted by frankotank:
I find the story line of Kim being punished for Jimmy creating and airing the commercial just absolutely STUPID! honestly....it makes NO SENSE!
sigh...whatever.....
I disagree, everyone knows Jimmy is a renegade, they've said as much. Kim really pushed Howard to get Jimmy a shot at Davis and Mayne, when he went out of bounds Howard viewed it as Kim's poor judgement that facilitated the whole thing.....he's right to a point. If you get someone a job with your good reference and they blow it, whoever gave them the job isn't going to take your word for someone else. Reputation and judgement mean a helluva lot in those situations. [Reply]
Mike/ray
well....OK....I guess I can see around the corner to that.
I've been in the workforce long enough to know that there ARE really people like that out there.
but damn man....she didn't have anything to do with his actions.
Originally Posted by TinyEvel:
Kim in a Kansas City Royals shirt (Saul's?) this was supposedly at least ten years ago, so, what gives? Somebody on the crew from KC?
@rheaseehorn: @royalsreview Oh what does it mean? What does it mean???
😶 [Reply]
