Better Call Saul ***Spoilers***

expectationlost

what the **** is kim doing?

I know the big firm heard what happened and we're so in need of keeping their big client they brush off the highly illegal thing too, but wtf Kim

Phoebas

davo2001 wrote: »

But why the name change then?

There's still a chance he gets disbarred and the name change is him taking the bar exam again under an alias.

(obviously for this theory to hold water, everyone who could recognise him has to die!!)

noodler

Seems reasonable to me that kin could just move away.

Saul wasn't exactly the type to make national news.

Whilst I won't comment on Kim's baps,... I have to say she is really growing on me.

I think chuck is borderline evil.

Keeping your brother down like that for years over a relatively small theft in your childhood is sickening. His rant at the end of season 1 told us all we need to know about his selfish attitude.

Ioved last season as well but definitely a step in class so far.

rubadub

johnpatrick81 wrote: »

https://www.reddit.com/r/betterCallSaul/comments/6916yg/theory_on_kims_bingo_in_the_latest_episode/

Many nail it above, Kim merely wanted to confirm there was a copy of the tape to ensure they could go ahead with the plan to make Chuck seem mad.

There are spoilers in that link, lads discussing the preview to next weeks show, mentioning stuff I would rather not have read. I will not mention any.

Besides that, there were guys mentioning the photo of the lantern on the paper. I was saying before that the date was possibly visible and could be used to prove it was a recent photo. When I saw the photos taken I thought it was Jimmy doing it to prove its a recent photo, but wondered who was supposed to have taken the photos. The reddit guys were saying Chuck might spot the dates and use it as proof he got in somehow.

Alcoheda wrote: »

He should have argued that the battery represents a potential difference, not a flowing currant, hense no electromagnetic radiation :pac:
.

then he would appear even more crazy or lying, as moments before he confirmed a battery definitely would do it, he also threw it away. He has been getting people to routinely leave phones outside for ages, I am sure people would have preferred to have been allowed just take the battery out, I think it might have even been asked about before. He seemed to be very well informed about the condition.

Not sure if people do not read future episode names to avoid hints, if not do not read this-

episode 10 is called "Lantern".

irishgirl19

Is that the last episode of the series?

RobbingBandit

Chuck earned his place at HHM, Howard didn't, both resent Jimmy for becoming a lawyer.Howard as Jimmy isn't rich and entitled, Chuck because Jimmy is and always will be his toerag, till dipping scumbag little brother. Kim loves Jimmy she sees him as the man who loves his brother maybe even Idolises him and aspires to be like him, she sees that being a lawyer is what Jimmy was born to be, he is good to the old people he helps and treats them not as potential rubes to hustle but as clients to help. He will always be Slipping Jimmy to Chuck and the mail room guy/Charlie Hustle to Howard. Funny that Howard is almost calling him Chuck Hustle in a way, in their eyes he will always be the anti Chuck even when he did so much work for the SandPiper case.

AlmightyCushion

RobbingBandit wrote: »

Chuck earned his place at HHM, Howard didn't, both resent Jimmy for becoming a lawyer.Howard as Jimmy isn't rich and entitled, Chuck because Jimmy is and always will be his toerag, till dipping scumbag little brother. Kim loves Jimmy she sees him as the man who loves his brother maybe even Idolises him and aspires to be like him, she sees that being a lawyer is what Jimmy was born to be, he is good to the old people he helps and treats them not as potential rubes to hustle but as clients to help. He will always be Slipping Jimmy to Chuck and the mail room guy/Charlie Hustle to Howard. Funny that Howard is almost calling him Chuck Hustle in a way, in their eyes he will always be the anti Chuck even when he did so much work for the SandPiper case.

Chuck is the one who blocked jimmy from joining the company. Howard had nothing to do with it, he just took the heat for it. After that was revealed, I never got the impression Howard hated Jimmy, if anything he has a certain admiration for him.

rubadub

irishgirl19 wrote: »

Is that the last episode of the series?

If you mean the one I named in the spoiler then yes.

I was picturing the very end of the season, Chuck looking over the photo and zooming in on the date on the paper and it dawning on him, similar to Hank on the toilet reading the book. Bit too similar though. Or his house burns down

serfboard

I reallly liked this episode and I think that season 3 is the best so far.

Overall, the acting in BCS, as in BB, is superb, and there is some fantastic cinemtography as well. The script sometimes lives up to that, and sometimes doesn't but it defintely feels better to me this season.

storker

bajer101 wrote: »

I've been re-watching it from the start over the last week. Howard is alright.

Agreed. We've had a few different views of Howard, and I think he tries to do what is right, keeping in mind the interests of HHM. Also, I think his android-like movements, poses and expressions are kind of funny.

There will always be a big personality clash between Howard and Jimmy, but that doesn't make Howard bad.

Note, though, the look of death he gave Kim after he got off the stand. That point about nepotism must have stung. Hard to imagine him and Chuck not anticipating it though.

optogirl

storker wrote: »

Agreed. We've had a few different views of Howard, and I think he tries to do what is right, keeping in mind the interests of HHM. Also, I think his android-like movements, poses and expressions are kind of funny.

There will always be a big personality clash between Howard and Jimmy, but that doesn't make Howard bad.

Note, though, the look of death he gave Kim after he got off the stand. That point about nepotism must have stung. Hard to imagine him and Chuck not anticipating it though.

I can only ever think of Buzz Lightyear when Howard is on screen!

Dyr

Murrisk wrote: »

Well, into the third season, I officially give up on BCS. My OH watches so I have by proxy and I just... don't like it.

The reason I have quoted the above is because it's a prevalent view amongst BCS fans, I find, but is so simplistic and binary. It's not a choice between liking character development or liking fights and explosions. More than any show, the reaction towards people who don't like the show tends to veer towards insulting.

For me, I don't care about what happens to the characters and the show is just too slow. People seem to argue that BB was just as much of a slow burn as BCS, but that is a crock. The first two seasons of BB are like a lava flow on a steep gradient compared to BCS. SO much happened in that two seasons whilst at the same, characters were developed. Ditto something like Sopranos. These shows were multilayered, something that I think BCS is missing.

To me, it reads like the writers are having trouble coming up with a story for how Jimmy ends up becoming Saul. The more likely thing would be that he was always a bit of a shyster and they have tried to do the opposite. Portraying him as a thoughtful guy just reads clunky and false to me. It also reads like they realise they have to drag out the transformation to Saul because when that happens, the show is probably over. And that dragging out doesn't work, IMO.

I was very reluctant to write this post. I have read a lot of message board threads on BCS and the attitude towards people who dislike the show is mostly insulting. Likewise, the critical acclaim is almost universal, moreso than Breaking Bad, with some critics suggesting it surpasses BB! :eek: Even BB didn't get universal acclaim throughout its run.

I tend not to watch many tv shows. Especially not American ones. Never watched breaking bad so I don't have to worry about or judge BCS based on what comes after it. Which is where a lot of people probably fall down.

It is very, very good. Not Sopranos good but still top drawer. And the slow pace is what makes it work, you buy into everything because it ditches the conventions and clich?s that TV shows use as a shorthand for the audience.

ardinn

Bambi wrote: »

I tend not to watch many tv shows. Especially not American ones. Never watched breaking bad so I don't have to worry about or judge BCS based on what comes after it. Which is where a lot of people probably fall down.

It is very, very good. Not Sopranos good but still top drawer. And the slow pace is what makes it work, you buy into everything because it ditches the conventions and clich?s that TV shows use as a shorthand for the audience.

be interesting to see when this is over how you found bb after watching bcs first!

Murrisk

Bambi wrote: »

I tend not to watch many tv shows. Especially not American ones. Never watched breaking bad so I don't have to worry about or judge BCS based on what comes after it. Which is where a lot of people probably fall down.

It is very, very good. Not Sopranos good but still top drawer. And the slow pace is what makes it work, you buy into everything because it ditches the conventions and clich?s that TV shows use as a shorthand for the audience.

Yeah, I think it's hard for a lot of us to extricate it from Breaking Bad. The show doesn't help itself in that regard when it brings back characters like the 'Ken Wins' guy. Totally pointless and anyone who watched BB will know him straight away. If it wants to be seen as a standalone, why do that? In fact, I'm not convinced the creators want it to be viewed as a standalone at all.

I find it too slow or rather I don't think the storylines are interesting enough to indulge the slow pace. The stakes are too low. As said previously, I have no problem with slow pace in and of itself. I had no problem with Mad Men's slow pace, for example.

I just think the universal acclaim, which even the very best shows never got, is OTT. I'll be interested to see if the view of it changes once we're a few years out from the end of the show.

Alcoheda

rubadub wrote: »

then he would appear even more crazy or lying, as moments before he confirmed a battery definitely would do it, he also threw it away. He has been getting people to routinely leave phones outside for ages, I am sure people would have preferred to have been allowed just take the battery out, I think it might have even been asked about before. He seemed to be very well informed about the condition.

Nah, they're just being a bit lazy and sloppy with the details.
Chuck is supposed to know about this stuff.

storker

I was late to the Breaking Bad party, so there wasn't that much of a gap between the end of BB and the arrival of BCS. I had no problem getting over BB and adjusting to BCS's different mode of attack. The essentials are still there; character-based drama with actions having consequences. Compelling, memorable characters, who you care about and who do things or have things happen to them that keep you coming back to see what happens next.

I'm not one of those who clamours for the appearance of more BB characters, but I don't think the appearance of Ken did any harm, and I think it's good to see Mike and Gus's back stories filled out. I would not be interested in seeing Walter or (impossible anyway) Jesse. We've had enough about them already. We know their stories. It's easy to see how Jimmy's, Gus's and Mike's life journeys are converging, whereas Walt, one assumes, is busy teaching chemistry somewhere and not suffering with cancer. His convergence is still years away so there's no reason to include him.

I'm going to stick my head above the parapet and say that for me, BCS is better than BB, perhaps because it's a little more down-to-earth and believable. But it's all about personal preference anyway. Of course, there is no "Book of Better", except perhaps in our own heads.

_Kaiser_

Bambi wrote: »

I tend not to watch many tv shows. Especially not American ones. Never watched breaking bad so I don't have to worry about or judge BCS based on what comes after it. Which is where a lot of people probably fall down.

It is very, very good. Not Sopranos good but still top drawer. And the slow pace is what makes it work, you buy into everything because it ditches the conventions and clich?s that TV shows use as a shorthand for the audience.

I'd have to disagree . Sopranos is hugely overrated IMO and only really picks up later in its run when they remember it's supposed to be about mobsters, not teenage angst and the wife's potential affair.

BB I missed first time round but it's pretty solid throughout as I recall. BCS had a bad 2nd season in my view (I outlined why on a previous page) but this season they've really stepped it up.

storker

Alcoheda wrote: »

Nah, they're just being a bit lazy and sloppy with the details.

If you want to see what real lazy and sloppy looks like, try The Walking Dead.

De Bhál

storker wrote: »

If you want to see what real lazy and sloppy looks like, try The Walking Dead.

is it worth investing the time into, it's on my to-do list.

AlmightyCushion

De Bhál wrote: »

is it worth investing the time into, it's on my to-do list.

As someone who stuck with it for a long time, no. I wish I had gave up on it a lot sooner.

Mousewar

De Bhál wrote: »

is it worth investing the time into, it's on my to-do list.

Season 1 and no more.

storker

De Bhál wrote: »

is it worth investing the time into, it's on my to-do list.

That's a really tough question. For all that's wrong with it, I still watch it, so I don't regret the time I've put into it. I just regret that it has the writers it has. However, I've seen others declare that they were bailing out at various points and I couldn't say I disagree with their decision.

I'd say start off with it, and as soon as you start to notice people doing stupid things for no apparent reason and silly, manufactured tensions then that would probably be a good time to walk away, because it won't get any better.

Jobs OXO

De Bhál wrote: »

is it worth investing the time into, it's on my to-do list.

Take it off your list asap

De Bhál

Jobs OXO wrote: »

Take it off your list asap

ok, thanks all.

johnpatrick81

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'd have to disagree . Sopranos is hugely overrated IMO and only really picks up later in its run when they remember it's supposed to be about mobsters, not teenage angst and the wife's potential affair.

You're entitled to be wrong;)

Sopranos is perfect. It will never be beaten. Even on rewatches it stands up against anything out there.

And it's about a family, called The Sopranos, who happen to be heavily involved in the mob.

Now go and say 10 Hail Marys to Lord Anthony.

ScumLord

De Bhál wrote: »

is it worth investing the time into, it's on my to-do list.

It all got a bit meh, there's almost too much misery. It really plays into the American ideal that the apocalypse will come and they'll become bad asses with an infinite supply of guns and ammo and everyone else is a bad guy so you have to be a lone wolf that doesn't need nothin' from nobody. Which just isn't going to be the way real humans deal with something like this.

What really annoyed me was the zombies, one minute they're soft as goo and you could stick a pen through their skull and the next minute they're somehow strong enough to overpower a living person and somehow bite through their skin.

I think it painted itself into a corner fairly early on and just got stuck in repeating the same tropes over and over again.

Dyr

ScumLord wrote: »

It all got a bit meh, there's almost too much misery. It really plays into the American ideal that the apocalypse will come and they'll become bad asses with an infinite supply of guns and ammo and everyone else is a bad guy so you have to be a lone wolf that doesn't need nothin' from nobody. Which just isn't going to be the way real humans deal with something like this.

I just assumed zombies were now accepted code in America for blacks or something

Murrisk

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

I'd have to disagree . Sopranos is hugely overrated IMO and only really picks up later in its run when they remember it's supposed to be about mobsters, not teenage angst and the wife's potential affair.

The show was about his two families and the domestic stuff was a feature throughout its entire run. That never went away and thank heavens for that. The Sopranos was never supposed to be just about mobsters and it never became just that. It was also a commentary on American society at large.

leggo

Murrisk wrote: »

The show was about his two families and the domestic stuff was a feature throughout its entire run. That never went away and thank heavens for that. The Sopranos was never supposed to be just about mobsters and it never became just that. It was also a commentary on American society at large.

This. It originally looked to put you into the shoes of a gangster by making him relatable and giving him every day problems, hence the psychology aspect. Then it became a case study in the type of person that gets into the mob, what it takes and what it takes out of you. Then it widened its scope in later seasons to look at a changing America as a whole. To view it as a generic mob thriller is to miss the point IMO. Season 1 is television at its peak for me.

Jobs OXO

leggo wrote: »

This. It originally looked to put you into the shoes of a gangster by making him relatable and giving him every day problems, hence the psychology aspect. Then it became a case study in the type of person that gets into the mob, what it takes and what it takes out of you. Then it widened its scope in later seasons to look at a changing America as a whole. To view it as a generic mob thriller is to miss the point IMO. Season 1 is television at its peak for me.

Sopranos thread >>>>>>>>>