Better Call Saul

[rico]

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.

Thoughts?

DISCUS!!!!

[Fire Me Boy!]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I don't think there's a ton of evidence of that. Jimmy had a teenager step in front of a car for a payday. It wasn't until Jimmy was on the hook defending a client that was about to get blown out of the water that he made the morally correct decision to return his bribe (but only after he hired someone to break into their home). Even then, had he not known that he was going down as part of a conspiracy by accepting the bribe, he wouldn't have given that money back.

It's the sainthood of Jimmy that I don't quite understand here. This is a guy who, in BB, not so subtly encourages Walt to commit more than one murder.

Chuck might be a bad brother; I'll grant you. So far, that's the only bit of insight we have to his underlying character. Moreover, even as a bad brother, he helped Jimmy to the point that he was able to build that case into anything at all and then worked with Hamlin to get him a damn sweet deal.

I know he's supposed to be the black hat here and Jimmy's supposed to be the flawed anti-hero, but I don't see any reason to hold up Jimmy as virtuous here while blasting Chuck.

Fair enough. Jimmy is a better brother. Chuck is a POS brother.

Both are lawyers, therefore questionable human beings.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

Prior to Chuck giving it to him without lube the first time, he didn't do anything impermissible, he just went to an online school, of which he obviously busted his butt to learn the law and learned enough to pass the bar. After Chuck ****ed him in the asshole, then he had went back to do desperate/dumb things. It wouldn't have been inappropriate for Jimmy to be come an associate at the firm, as long as he wasn't reporting to Chuck.

What Jimmy should have done was to go get a job at a different firm, rather than try to set out on his own. I don't think they addressed that in the show, but it would have been a lot easier road for him if he would have got on at a different firm.

Not hiring a guy from an online law school to a silk-stocking law firm is most assuredly not '****ing him in the asshole'.

No large, prestigious firm in the country would have even let Jimmy in the door.

All Chuck did was act as a responsible steward for his partners and employees. Had Jimmy done exactly what you're suggesting he do: get on with a different firm, establish his bonafides, then go build a practice, he could easily have then gone out and hung his own shingle and come up with Sandpiper. At that point Chuck's analysis is almost certainly going to be different.

That's not what happened.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Fire Me Boy!

Fair enough. Jimmy is a better brother. Chuck is a POS brother.

Both are lawyers, therefore questionable human beings.

Little argument there. If only I had been better at calculus...

[NewChief]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

I don't think there's a ton of evidence of that. Jimmy had a teenager step in front of a car for a payday. It wasn't until Jimmy was on the hook defending a client that was about to get blown out of the water that he made the morally correct decision to return his bribe (but only after he hired someone to break into their home). Even then, had he not known that he was going down as part of a conspiracy by accepting the bribe, he wouldn't have given that money back.

It's the sainthood of Jimmy that I don't quite understand here. This is a guy who, in BB, not so subtly encourages Walt to commit more than one murder.

Chuck might be a bad brother; I'll grant you. So far, that's the only bit of insight we have to his underlying character. Moreover, even as a bad brother, he helped Jimmy to the point that he was able to build that case into anything at all and then worked with Hamlin to get him a damn sweet deal.

I know he's supposed to be the black hat here and Jimmy's supposed to be the flawed anti-hero, but I don't see any reason to hold up Jimmy as virtuous here while blasting Chuck.

The setup with the "teenager" was with a couple of cons working against a couple of crooks. There were no innocents involved in that, if you'll remember. We've also seen Jimmy be charitable, honest, and even kind to the elderly as he's worked with them.

And the sainthood is because Jimmy hasn't become Saul Goodman yet. That's the whole point of the show: watching Jimmy break bad and become Saul Goodman. If he's already there, then he's a static character, and there's no real point or evolution.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by NewChief

The setup with the "teenager" was with a couple of cons working against a couple of crooks. There were no innocents involved in that, if you'll remember. We've also seen Jimmy be charitable, honest, and even kind to the elderly as he's worked with them.

And the sainthood is because Jimmy hasn't become Saul Goodman yet. That's the whole point of the show: watching Jimmy break bad and become Saul Goodman. If he's already there, then he's a static character, and there's no real point or evolution.

Eh, you don't just become someone that will encourage murder.

He may have emerged from a cocoon as the underhanded, morally bankrupt Saul that he became, but he went into it as a pretty shitty caterpillar.

[raybec 4]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Not hiring a guy from an online law school to a silk-stocking law firm is most assuredly not '****ing him in the asshole'.

No large, prestigious firm in the country would have even let Jimmy in the door.

All Chuck did was act as a responsible steward for his partners and employees. Had Jimmy done exactly what you're suggesting he do: get on with a different firm, establish his bonafides, then go build a practice, he could easily have then gone out and hung his own shingle and come up with Sandpiper. At that point Chuck's analysis is almost certainly going to be different.

That's not what happened.

You can't just gloss over the fact that Chuck didn't want Jimmy working at the firm but made Hamlin deliver the blow. And then Chuck used Jimmy's phone to make the late night call to Hamlin to squeeze him out of the case that he generated. There's a point where being a good steward and being a good brother could have intersected but Chuck chose differently.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by raybec 4

You can't just gloss over the fact that Chuck didn't want Jimmy working at the firm but made Hamlin deliver the blow. And then Chuck used Jimmy's phone to make the late night call to Hamlin to squeeze him out of the case that he generated. There's a point where being a good steward and being a good brother could have intersected but Chuck chose differently.

Hypothetical: Jimmy never finds out.

Which yields a happier Jimmy? That his brother dropped the guillotine on him, or that a guy he already hated did it?

Chuck saw a path of least resistance that, if he'd have just executed a little better, would have led to Jimmy being happier and likely with a princely sum of money in his pocket.

Sure, there may have been selfish motivations as well - afterall, who wants to crush their sibling? But there is also a very real benevolent justification for using Hamlin as the hatchet man.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Hypothetical: Jimmy never finds out.

Which yields a happier Jimmy? That his brother dropped the guillotine on him, or that a guy he already hated did it?

Chuck saw a path of least resistance that, if he'd have just executed a little better, would have led to Jimmy being happier and likely with a princely sum of money in his pocket.

Sure, there may have been selfish motivations as well - afterall, who wants to crush their sibling? But there is also a very real benevolent justification for using Hamlin as the hatchet man.

The execution was careless, especially for a lawyer as smart as Chuck is supposed to be.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Not hiring a guy from an online law school to a silk-stocking law firm is most assuredly not '****ing him in the asshole'.

No large, prestigious firm in the country would have even let Jimmy in the door.

All Chuck did was act as a responsible steward for his partners and employees. Had Jimmy done exactly what you're suggesting he do: get on with a different firm, establish his bonafides, then go build a practice, he could easily have then gone out and hung his own shingle and come up with Sandpiper. At that point Chuck's analysis is almost certainly going to be different.

That's not what happened.

Already been posted, but the ass****ing came from lying to him about it, if he'd have been upfront, Jimmy might have been pissed, but I think he'd have understood. But he lied about it like a little bitch.

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

Hypothetical: Jimmy never finds out.

Which yields a happier Jimmy? That his brother dropped the guillotine on him, or that a guy he already hated did it?

Chuck saw a path of least resistance that, if he'd have just executed a little better, would have led to Jimmy being happier and likely with a princely sum of money in his pocket.

Sure, there may have been selfish motivations as well - afterall, who wants to crush their sibling? But there is also a very real benevolent justification for using Hamlin as the hatchet man.

The happiest Jimmy is probably one that gets treated with candor and respect from his brother. At least that's what would lead to the happiest Buehler445.

[KC_Connection]

It's not that anybody is holding up Saul Goodman in BB as some kind of heroic character. Far from it. He's quite the opposite of that. But he very clearly never gets to that point if his brother (who Jimmy clearly idolizes) actually believed in him rather than just paying lip service to the idea of Jimmy's rehabilitation and treating him as a lesser person.

You can argue that Chuck had some rational reasons for doing that (even if they were just a front for his own selfish pride), but they still involved him making the choice to ignore the obvious positive qualities that Jimmy had and focus on the bad instead.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by Buehler445

The happiest Jimmy is probably one that gets treated with candor and respect from his brother. At least that's what would lead to the happiest Buehler445.

100% honesty is always something people like more in theory than they do in practice.

At your next family reunion, how 'bout you tell everyone that it's time for an airing of grievances and complete candor about their respective flaws. I'm gonna guess that barbecue doesn't go over terribly well.

I've found that most people that claim that they're just brutally honest are actually assholes that get off on seeing other people's vulnerabilities laid bare.

The happiest Jimmy is the one that thinks he has his brother's support. The Jimmy that turns into Saul is the one that knows he doesn't. Ignorance would've been better for all involved.

[ottawa_chiefs_fan]

Best line of the show - that was just the monumental cut - "Slippin Jimmy with a law degree is like a chimpanzee with a machine gun." (paraphase)....no coming back from that one.

[KC_Connection]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

The happiest Jimmy is the one that thinks he has his brother's support. The Jimmy that turns into Saul is the one that knows he doesn't. Ignorance would've been better for all involved.

What would have been even better was his actual support. Unfortunately, it's clear at this point he's never getting it.

[DJ's left nut]

Originally Posted by KC_Connection

What would have been even better was his actual support. Unfortunately, it's clear at this point he's never getting it.

Chuck's appears to be, what, 15 years older than Jimmy? When Chuck was in this 30s building a law practice and getting reports about his ****up brother getting in trouble again (a brother he likely never really lived with), where do you think that support was going to come from?

I think the age gap is overlooked here. Jimmy was probably around 3 when Chuck likely left the roost and Chuck was in his self-absorbed teenage years even when Chuck was an baby. There's going to be very little in the way of familiarity and the bonds that come from growing up together.

Chuck knows Jimmy almost secondhand; Jimmy's as much a distant cousin as he is a brother.

I just don't think it's fair to expect unwavering support from Chuck here - there wasn't a history together to build it on.

[Buehler445]

Originally Posted by DJ's left nut

100% honesty is always something people like more in theory than they do in practice.

At your next family reunion, how 'bout you tell everyone that it's time for an airing of grievances and complete candor about their respective flaws. I'm gonna guess that barbecue doesn't go over terribly well.

I've found that most people that claim that they're just brutally honest are actually assholes that get off on seeing other people's vulnerabilities laid bare.

The happiest Jimmy is the one that thinks he has his brother's support. The Jimmy that turns into Saul is the one that knows he doesn't. Ignorance would've been better for all involved.

There is a pretty big difference between: "You're a hypocritical sack of **** whose only bona fide occupational qualification is ****ing anything with hang down and chucking out kids like a damn quarter machine at the grocery store."

And

"Jimmy, this place has its pick of the best of the best from
Prestigious law programs. I think it would be best if you established yourself as a lawyer at a different firm before coming on at HHM to ensure there is no nepotism."

Look dude, I'm directly involved with 12 related party business arrangements and have a cursory understanding of several others. Unequivocally the answer is ALWAYS honesty and a clear understanding of the circumstances. Always.

Not hiring Jimmy is not bad.

Lying to him about it is.