Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Better Call Saul ***Spoilers***

Options
1…2829313334…201

Comments

  • Options
    #902
    folamh
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭folamh


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    The show is about masculine identity and it is a wonderful exploration
    Could you elaborate on this? Is it because the main characters (besides Kim) are men?


  • Options
    #903
    kn
    Registered Users Posts: 3,867 ✭✭✭kn


    Muff Richardson wrote: »
    there was no sense of a finale whatsoever.

    I would have thought that the guy dying was finale enough!


  • Options
    #904
    donfers
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 4,006 ✭✭✭donfers


    Tipsy McSwagger wrote: »
    Am I the only one on here who doesn't think Mike is a scumbag?

    Yes - you're the only one


  • Options
    #905
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    donfers wrote: »
    Yes - you're the only one


    Just to clarify, I think he's a scumbag for being a crooked cop and the other criminal things he takes part in but not for killing those two cops.


  • Options
    #906
    fryup
    Registered Users Posts: 18,067 ✭✭✭✭fryup


    wouldn't it have been better as a sequel other than a prequel?

    not a fan of prequels cause we know where its going to eventually end up


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #907
    DoYouEvenLift
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,188 ✭✭✭DoYouEvenLift


    fryup wrote: »
    wouldn't it have been better as a sequel other than a prequel?

    not a fan of prequels cause we know where its going to eventually end up


    They could easily continue it on to have sequel seasons as well


  • Options
    #908
    cython
    Registered Users Posts: 4,767 ✭✭✭cython


    fryup wrote: »
    wouldn't it have been better as a sequel other than a prequel?

    not a fan of prequels cause we know where its going to eventually end up

    Given that people that are "disappeared" like Saul was at the end of BB generally have to keep a low profile, I don't think there would be much to a pure sequel other than Jimmy/Saul/NewIdentity looking over his shoulder and reminiscing as we saw in the beginning of episode 1. There were so many references and seeds sown RE Saul and Mike's respective back stories
    (and the latter doesn't have any story in a sequel, remember)
    in BB that IMHO it's a much richer and more colourful setting for a series.

    As mentioned we might get some sequel time later in the show, but I think a pure sequel would get old fast.


  • Options
    #909
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    FloatingVoter wrote: »
    Having no empathy and an ego the size of a planet were his two assets alongside a twisted bent for chemistry.

    That's way, way off the mark. Walt displayed empathy throughout the show from start to finish. Often, he would then ignore it but it was there.

    Just off the top of my head:

    Telling Jessie distribution was his problem when they got robbed and to "deal with them" and then doing a complete 180 and let the robbings go.

    Going back to help Jessie at the end of season 2 after giving him and Jane the money. Now, he killed Jane at this point but he was only there in the first place to try and help Jessie.

    Protecting Jessie from Gus at his own risk.....repeatedly. He did it with his car on one occasion. :P

    In season 5 when Jessie refused to work with him anymore, he eventually gave Jessie the money he was owed and let him walk away.

    Returning the baby to Skylar and also diverting suspicion away from Skylar through the phone call.

    Protecting Hank from Gus. "I wont cook for you if Hank dies". And ultimately trying to save Hank from the Nazi's at the end in the desert.
    Saving Jessie at the end.

    Now, all that said I'm not claiming he was a good guy. He was a ruthless bastard who killed people, and thought nothing of killing children. By all accounts he was a terrible, despicable person. But saying he had no empathy is not understanding the character.


  • Options
    #910
    The Black Oil
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators, Regional East Moderators Posts: 18,409 CMod ✭✭✭✭The Black Oil


    Just been catching up from episode 7 over the past while. I thought the show's tone was fairly consistent. Didn't care all that much for elements of the finale, tbh.

    Moderator: Television, Psychology and Dublin County North.

    CMod: Entertainment



  • Options
    #911
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    folamh wrote: »
    Could you elaborate on this? Is it because the main characters (besides Kim) are men?

    Why are you YOU?

    What made you so very different to your brother/father/neighbour/uncle/friend/great grandfather etc?

    We all see ourselves as an "I". A self.

    How does this self come about? How is it formed? Is it ever changing? Is the 20 year old self the same as the 30 year old self?

    The great question of life is why are we all different. Is it biological or is it contextual?

    The creators are using the McGill brothers as a vehicle to explore this very dense and challenging philosophical and scientific question. By the nature of the subjects it is concentrating on masculine identity. That is why we have this wonderful back story being elaborated on through flashbacks to Jimmy's past.

    It appears that both brothers are similar in their interests and persuasions midway through the series as Jimmy tries to mimic his brother. This is a common phenomenon colloquially known as following in their siblings footsteps. But for Jimmy it appears to have been an act. He only realised this when he returned home to Chicago as he is not like his brother. He wants a quick buck without the work.

    Interestingly, in psychological terms he may have deidentified himself from his brother as an adolescent but because of the trauma (which was released at the bingo hall) of being arrested and almost being convicted for sexual assault he changed his ways as a man in his 20s.

    The show throws up interesting questions about identity and masculinity. Is it an act or is their a true self? Is it biological or social context which causes us to become the person we become. Breaking Bad did this but it was much more slap dash without the nuance.

    It's a much better show than Breaking Bad which was much more of a plot driven show intent on cliff hangers to keep viewers interested. This will not have the same viewership because of that and I have a feeling the season ended so definitely because Gilligan wanted to emphasise this difference.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #912
    johnpatrick81
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,752 ✭✭✭johnpatrick81


    The montage bit of where himself and Marco did all the stunts was like one from a very old episode of the Simpsons! Agreed it coulda been done much better. Came across as tacky and cheap.


  • Options
    #913
    folamh
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭folamh


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    Why are you YOU?

    What made you so very different to your brother/father/neighbour/uncle/friend/great grandfather etc?

    We all see ourselves as an "I". A self.

    How does this self come about? How is it formed? Is it ever changing? Is the 20 year old self the same as the 30 year old self?

    The great question of life is why are we all different. Is it biological or is it contextual?

    The creators are using the McGill brothers as a vehicle to explore this very dense and challenging philosophical and scientific question. By the nature of the subjects it is concentrating on masculine identity. That is why we have this wonderful back story being elaborated on through flashbacks to Jimmy's past.

    It appears that both brothers are similar in their interests and persuasions midway through the series as Jimmy tries to mimic his brother. This is a common phenomenon colloquially known as following in their siblings footsteps. But for Jimmy it appears to have been an act. He only realised this when he returned home to Chicago as he is not like his brother. He wants a quick buck without the work.

    Interestingly, in psychological terms he may have deidentified himself from his brother as an adolescent but because of the trauma (which was released at the bingo hall) of being arrested and almost being convicted for sexual assault he changed his ways as a man in his 20s.

    The show throws up interesting questions about identity and masculinity. Is it an act or is their a true self? Is it biological or social context which causes us to become the person we become. Breaking Bad did this but it was much more slap dash without the nuance.

    It's a much better show than Breaking Bad which was much more of a plot driven show intent on cliff hangers to keep viewers interested. This will not have the same viewership because of that and I have a feeling the season ended so definitely because Gilligan wanted to emphasise this difference.
    Do females not also experience these existential dilemmas?


  • Options
    #914
    folamh
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭folamh


    johnpatrick81 wrote: »
    The montage bit of where himself and Marco did all the stunts was like one from a very old episode of the Simpsons!
    goo goo g'joob?


  • Options
    #915
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    folamh wrote: »
    Do females not also experience these existential dilemmas?

    Of course they do.


  • Options
    #916
    folamh
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭folamh


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    Of course they do.
    Then why do you construe it as an exploration of "masculine" identity?


  • Options
    #917
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    folamh wrote: »
    Then why do you construe it as an exploration of "masculine" identity?

    Because the show is about a man and the first season was an exploration of his relationship with his brother and how that impacted his life.


  • Options
    #918
    folamh
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭folamh


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    Because the show is about a man and the first season was an exploration of his relationship with his brother and how that impacted his life.

    Jimmy is also white. Is the show therefore an exploration of white identity? And if Chuck had been his sister rather than his brother, would the issues be less masculine?


  • Options
    #919
    Muff Richardson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭Muff Richardson


    kn wrote: »
    I would have thought that the guy dying was finale enough!

    huh? a fairly irrelevant character from a previous life who had very little input into jimmys current life or the previous ten years or whatever it was. who he also was about to bid farewell to for good, or another long period of time dies and you think this is a series ending highlight? you could say he had an influence into Jimmy realising he was better pulling strokes on the other side of the law but him dying is hardly a momentous dramatic series finale moment


  • Options
    #920
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    folamh wrote: »
    Jimmy is also white. Is the show therefore an exploration of white identity? And if Chuck had been his sister rather than his brother, would the issues be less masculine?

    I don't know why you are making an issue out of something which has been explained and is patently obvious. Of course if Chuck was Chelsea it would most definitely throw make things different because the dynamics would be different.


  • Options
    #921
    Muff Richardson
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,078 ✭✭✭Muff Richardson


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    Why are you YOU?

    What made you so very different to your brother/father/neighbour/uncle/friend/great grandfather etc?

    We all see ourselves as an "I". A self.

    How does this self come about? How is it formed? Is it ever changing? Is the 20 year old self the same as the 30 year old self?

    The great question of life is why are we all different. Is it biological or is it contextual?

    The creators are using the McGill brothers as a vehicle to explore this very dense and challenging philosophical and scientific question. By the nature of the subjects it is concentrating on masculine identity. That is why we have this wonderful back story being elaborated on through flashbacks to Jimmy's past.

    It appears that both brothers are similar in their interests and persuasions midway through the series as Jimmy tries to mimic his brother. This is a common phenomenon colloquially known as following in their siblings footsteps. But for Jimmy it appears to have been an act. He only realised this when he returned home to Chicago as he is not like his brother. He wants a quick buck without the work.

    Interestingly, in psychological terms he may have deidentified himself from his brother as an adolescent but because of the trauma (which was released at the bingo hall) of being arrested and almost being convicted for sexual assault he changed his ways as a man in his 20s.

    The show throws up interesting questions about identity and masculinity. Is it an act or is their a true self? Is it biological or social context which causes us to become the person we become. Breaking Bad did this but it was much more slap dash without the nuance.

    It's a much better show than Breaking Bad which was much more of a plot driven show intent on cliff hangers to keep viewers interested. This will not have the same viewership because of that and I have a feeling the season ended so definitely because Gilligan wanted to emphasise this difference.

    is this a piss take? are you miss canning who was teaching me leaving cert english and the true hidden messages behind emily dickinson's poetry? either way, can you hook me up with some of whatever your smoking?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #922
    folamh
    Registered Users Posts: 787 ✭✭✭folamh


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    I don't know why you are making an issue out of something which has been explained and is patently obvious. Of course if Chuck was Chelsea it would most definitely throw make things different because the dynamics would be different.

    I'm not "making an issue". I'm just trying to understand Mardy Bum's proposition. I don't think they explained what they meant very clearly, and I also don't think it's "patently obvious" how the show is about masculine identity, since I don't see what the themes have to do with masculinity.


  • Options
    #923
    Doge
    Registered Users Posts: 9,027 ✭✭✭Doge


    This thread has gone beyond ridiculous! :pac:


  • Options
    #924
    Kirby
    Registered Users Posts: 13,084 ✭✭✭✭Kirby


    Doge wrote: »
    This thread has gone beyond ridiculous! :pac:

    Wow. so silly, much ridiculousness.


  • Options
    #925
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    folamh wrote: »
    I'm not "making an issue". I'm just trying to understand Mardy Bum's proposition. I don't think they explained what they meant very clearly, and I also don't think it's "patently obvious" how the show is about masculine identity, since I don't see what the themes have to do with masculinity.

    Masculinity is the possession of qualities associated with a man. Jimmy tried to mimic the men in his life and in television. His brother is the main influence but he also dresses like Hamlyn and the lawyer from the television programme. He felt inferior around his brother and wanted to impress him which is quite a masculine attribute.
    The female presence is limited in the show for this reason. Indeed, his female friend was not your stereotypical female character either.


  • Options
    #926
    Cantstandsya
    Registered Users Posts: 737 ✭✭✭Cantstandsya


    Anyone know what's happening with the podcasts? They're a good listen but no sign of ep 10 so far.


  • Options
    #927
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    It's a much better show than Breaking Bad which was much more of a plot driven show intent on cliff hangers to keep viewers interested.

    It's not. I'm rewatching Breaking Bad at the moment, this will be my fourth rewatch. I am still spotting new things in almost every episode. It's so densely layered. It rivals the Sopranos in this regard. Maybe BCS will also achieve this but I'm doubtful.

    You're also overstating the prevalence of cliffhangers in BB. They became fond of them in the weak 5th season but up until then, they weren't a regular feature.

    Finally, BCS is as plot-driven, if not more so. It's also tonally all over the place, BB was much more cohesive all the way through to the second part of season five.


  • Options
    #928
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    Tarzana2 wrote: »
    It's not. I'm rewatching Breaking Bad at the moment, this will be my fourth rewatch. I am still spotting new things in almost every episode. It's so densely layered. It rivals the Sopranos in this regard. Maybe BCS will also achieve this but I'm doubtful.

    You're also overstating the prevalence of cliffhangers in BB. They became fond of them in the weak 5th season but up until then, they weren't a regular feature.

    Finally, BCS is as plot-driven, if not more so. It's also tonally all over the place, BB was much more cohesive all the way through to the second part of season five.

    All shows are plot driven to an extent I will give you that. How anyone can say Better Call Saul is more plot driven than BB is staggering though.

    BCS is tonally different because it is trying to do different things. From the dodgy opening to the strange sequence with Marco and Jimmy doing the cons. It is switching genres like Community.


  • Options
    #929
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    BCS is tonally different because it is trying to do different things. From the dodgy opening to the strange sequence with Marco and Jimmy doing the cons. It is switching genres like Community.

    And I personally don't think that works in its favour. It makes it lack focus, neuters the show a little. It doesn't know what it wants to be. It might work for Community (I don't know, I haven't watched that show) but Community is a sitcom, this is a drama (which like many dramas can be funny on occasion). Comedies have much more freedom in this regard. So, it's a poor comparison.

    As for plot, BCS has one. It has little side stories in some episodes but has a main plot.

    And BB didn't really do cliffhangers until season five. I've been rewatching it the last few days. Most episode endings are very unambiguous. You might wonder where the event will lead, but that's not what a cliffhanger is. With a cliffhanger there is an event that leaves the audience guessing. That happened very little on BB. I'm not sure where you got the impression that it uses cliffhangers a lot.


  • Options
    #930
    Mardy Bum
    Registered Users Posts: 3,674 ✭✭✭Mardy Bum


    Tarzana2 wrote: »
    And I personally don't think that works in its favour. It makes it lack focus, neuters the show a little. It doesn't know what it wants to be. It might work for Community (I don't know, I haven't watched that show) but Community is a sitcom, this is a drama (which like many dramas can be funny on occasion). Comedies have much more freedom in this regard. So, it's a poor comparison.

    As for plot, BCS has one. It has little side stories in some episodes but has a main plot.

    And BB didn't really do cliffhangers until season five. I've been rewatching it the last few days. Most episode endings are very unambiguous. You might wonder where the event will lead, but that's not what a cliffhanger is. With a cliffhanger there is an event that leaves the audience guessing. That happened very little on BB. I'm not sure where you got the impression that it uses cliffhangers a lot.

    BB had a lot of cliffhangers but they were nuanced and very well chosen but cliffhangers all the same e.g. Hank on the toilet. I think we can agree to disagree as I would not watch BB more than once whereas I've watched the Wire a few times and have already rewatched BCS.

    Community is a post-postmodern comedy. BCS is a post-postmodern drama. It can do what it likes formally and that is its quality. Its not afraid to push the boundaries.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #931
    Tarzana2
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,553 ✭✭✭Tarzana2


    Mardy Bum wrote: »
    BB had a lot of cliffhangers but they were nuanced and very well chosen but cliffhangers all the same e.g. Hank on the toilet.


    Season 5. Give me examples of cliffhangers from Seasons 1-4 or even early season 5.

    Nothing wrong with boundary-pushing but sometimes it just doesn't work. Here it doesn't IMO and like I said, comedies are different. Tonally uneven comedies are nothing new and it's because they are comedies that they have that freedom.

    Another huge minus against BCS is that Bob Odenkirk acting skills are not quite up to it, IMO. His range is far more limited than Bryan Cranston's. In a more minor character on a show, this doesn't matter so much. But for the protagonist, it's a biggie.

    Me, I'll watch season 2 but I'm not waiting in anticipation. Frequently, my boyfriend and I forgot to watch it the day it aired.


Advertisement