Jump to content

Better Call Saul -- Season 3 Fring-ing The Gang Back Together Again


SpaceChampion

Recommended Posts

13 hours ago, RumHam said:

Whaat. I do not agree. I'm not saying Better Call Saul is better than Breaking bad (it might be) but to say that Breaking Bad is "leaps and bounds" better than Better Call Saul is crazy. 

 

Wouldn't be the first time I have been called crazy!  BTW, the ratings have consistently dropped since the debut episode. The first episode had twice as many viewers as every episode since, none have come close. To me that shows that it's initial hit was due to BB. It hasn't gained any viewers in three years, which is a bad sign. BB on the other hand had it's viewership climb every single year. Please don't get all bashy on me, I know quantity of viewers does not equal quality of show, but it does tell you something. BCS had an amazing start because of BB, and since then has lost around 75% of it's weekly viewers, that has to mean something.

I like the show and look forward to it every week, so count me in the group that will watch it until it ends, but I knew BB and BCS is no BB! (sorry a lame attempt at the whole, I knew JFK and you sir are no JFK)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

Better Call Saul is a very good show, beautifully written and filmed.  But, it's also really, really slow moving, and something of a vanity project for the showrunners in hitting on the bounds of just how slow a TV show can be and still have an audience. LOL.  I don't think it can really be compared as 'as good' as Breaking Bad overall.  

I think I was misremembering what happened with Gus and Hector.....

I agree on the pacing issues. This show is a really slow burn and I think it would be better viewed as a binge rather than weekly. I think the decision to have BCS run as long as BB was a mistake. BCS would have been better off as a four season (max) show. Although, I recall reading an interview with Gilligan and Gould where they say that they originally planned to have the Saul transformation happen much sooner but as the writing progressed, they realised that there was much more of the Jimmy story they wanted to tell.

I also agree with RumHam. BB had more action and higher stakes but I don't think it is vastly superior to BCS. I don't consider BB to be among the top tier of shows either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Regarding Michael Mando - watch the first episode of Orphan Black season 1, the premier EP.  Mando is so brilliant there, especially reading his letter at the "wake".  Truly a gifted actor, when you compare what he shows in Orphan Black to BCS.  Easily my favorite character on Saul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, dbunting said:

Wouldn't be the first time I have been called crazy!  BTW, the ratings have consistently dropped since the debut episode. The first episode had twice as many viewers as every episode since, none have come close. To me that shows that it's initial hit was due to BB. It hasn't gained any viewers in three years, which is a bad sign. BB on the other hand had it's viewership climb every single year. Please don't get all bashy on me, I know quantity of viewers does not equal quality of show, but it does tell you something. BCS had an amazing start because of BB, and since then has lost around 75% of it's weekly viewers, that has to mean something.

I like the show and look forward to it every week, so count me in the group that will watch it until it ends, but I knew BB and BCS is no BB! (sorry a lame attempt at the whole, I knew JFK and you sir are no JFK)

I do think rantings are meaningless. Both because they are not indicative of quality and because the way people watch TV has changed a lot in the past few years. I haven't managed to catch the first showing of an episode all season. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think BCS might be better. BB was more intense, it ratcheted up the tension better than any other show I know of, but something about BCS feels healthier. BB started to feel more and more morbid as we are strapped to this protagonist swiftly becoming an antagonist and are dragged down with him. By the end, I didn't know what I wanted to see with Walt.....it wouldn't have seemed fitting for his entire effort to be an utter failure, but he didn't deserve a victory either. Admittedly BCS has the same trajectory, but not to the same levels. I adore the pace of the show, I would watch an episode of Mike sat eating nuts on a stakeout. My only lingering question is with Gene and what they do with that whole epilogue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think BCS is the better show, since there are a lot more likable characters in it. From the first episode I did not like Walt and Jesse or wish them well and that didn't improve over time. Saul was awful but at least he was funny, Mike was the only truly likable character in the show. In BCS there are a lot of people to root for, even Jimmy, and just as much character development

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm starting to feel slightly vindicated as someone's who's spent the last couple seasons arguing in favour of Chuck and moreso Hamlin to my friends.

Hamlin's easy to dislike at first cause he's a bit smarmy, up himself and had a hand up through nepotism but he's also hard working, loyal, seems to give everyone a fair shake and acts way more rationally than anyone else on the show. His put down of Jimmy this last episode has been one of my favourite moments of the season.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Talleyrand said:

I'm starting to feel slightly vindicated as someone's who's spent the last couple seasons arguing in favour of Chuck and moreso Hamlin to my friends.

Hamlin's easy to dislike at first cause he's a bit smarmy, up himself and had a hand up through nepotism but he's also hard working, loyal, seems to give everyone a fair shake and acts way more rationally than anyone else on the show. His put down of Jimmy this last episode has been one of my favourite moments of the season.

 

I'm with you on Chuck and Howard, but I think the vast majority of the audience still totally hates Chuck and will not be sorry when whatever bad thing that is probably going to happen to him,happens.  I'm trying to figure out what happens to Jimmy's $1M pay out, because he can't get that and still end up at the strip mall, LOL.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I'm trying to figure out what happens to Jimmy's $1M pay out, because he can't get that and still end up at the strip mall, LOL.

It would be entirely in keeping with Jimmy's character to have literally walked out of the bingo hall, assume his plan had worked, and gone straight to Kim to celebrate. It'd be great if Irene had just thought 'actually, fuck them and their payout' as soon as he left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, DaveSumm said:

It would be entirely in keeping with Jimmy's character to have literally walked out of the bingo hall, assume his plan had worked, and gone straight to Kim to celebrate. It'd be great if Irene had just thought 'actually, fuck them and their payout' as soon as he left.

That's true, but I think there will be another more complicated reason why Jimmy doesn't get that $1M.  I think Irene is going to settle but there will be some legal issue that arises...what he did, talking to her about the settlement is probably against the rules as it is.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

I'm with you on Chuck and Howard, but I think the vast majority of the audience still totally hates Chuck and will not be sorry when whatever bad thing that is probably going to happen to him,happens.  I'm trying to figure out what happens to Jimmy's $1M pay out, because he can't get that and still end up at the strip mall, LOL.

I actually started on the Chuck-sympathy train, though I'm starting to lean towards the Chuck's an asshole camp. Though I still fully believe that Jimmy is (and was from the beginning) on much lower ethical grounds. Although I never thought Chuck was obligated to hire Jimmy, it's incredibly scummy to pretend he was on Jimmy's side and make Hamlin take the fall for it. And while we do know that it's wrong for Jimmy to be a practicing lawyer, I think the recent court episode demonstrated that Chuck is far more driven by sibling resentment than he is by the integrity of law. (Note the contrast between his "fake" testimony, and the real one that bursts out at the end.) So he's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. 

That said, I think it's amazing how people still rationalize that Jimmy is the way he is because Chuck didn't give him a chance. That's obvious BS. Jimmy has been stealing from his dad, scamming people, and just generally having no sense of basic ethics long before he wanted to join HHM. I'd still feel 1000x better knowing a man like Chuck was a lawyer than to know that Jimmy is one. 

As for BB vs BCS. I think BCS has a more interesting and subtle approach to taking a morally grey character and making us sympathize with him. But, to me, it loses major points because of Mike's half. While that half of the show is entertaining (particularly for Ignacio) I think it's just lazily written and relies too heavily on our Breaking Bad nostalgia. It doesn't stand alone very well. They also (in the first two seasons) heavily overplayed the Mike being a badass angle, in a way that makes him very uninteresting. I do think that Jimmy's plot is at least as compelling as Walter's if not more so, and if the whole show was of that quality I'd give BCS the edge. But, as it is now, I'd give BB the edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, Bridgeburners said:

I actually started on the Chuck-sympathy train, though I'm starting to lean towards the Chuck's an asshole camp. Though I still fully believe that Jimmy is (and was from the beginning) on much lower ethical grounds. Although I never thought Chuck was obligated to hire Jimmy, it's incredibly scummy to pretend he was on Jimmy's side and make Hamlin take the fall for it. And while we do know that it's wrong for Jimmy to be a practicing lawyer, I think the recent court episode demonstrated that Chuck is far more driven by sibling resentment than he is by the integrity of law. (Note the contrast between his "fake" testimony, and the real one that bursts out at the end.) So he's doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. 

That said, I think it's amazing how people still rationalize that Jimmy is the way he is because Chuck didn't give him a chance. That's obvious BS. Jimmy has been stealing from his dad, scamming people, and just generally having no sense of basic ethics long before he wanted to join HHM. I'd still feel 1000x better knowing a man like Chuck was a lawyer than to know that Jimmy is one. 

As for BB vs BCS. I think BCS has a more interesting and subtle approach to taking a morally grey character and making us sympathize with him. But, to me, it loses major points because of Mike's half. While that half of the show is entertaining (particularly for Ignacio) I think it's just lazily written and relies too heavily on our Breaking Bad nostalgia. It doesn't stand alone very well. They also (in the first two seasons) heavily overplayed the Mike being a badass angle, in a way that makes him very uninteresting. I do think that Jimmy's plot is at least as compelling as Walter's if not more so, and if the whole show was of that quality I'd give BCS the edge. But, as it is now, I'd give BB the edge.

This is why I love the writing, because Chuck is totally an asshole, but also, he's right about Jimmy and has been right about him all down the line, and while he has done some terrible things related to Jimmy, I do believe his reverence for the law is an honest one, even if it does spill over into OCD at times.

I have more sympathy for Jimmy than I did for Walt, but much like Walt, Jimmy has had many chances to 'go straight' and he always chooses to cut corners for whatever reason he rationalizes.  

I love Mike and can't help myself, I am still mad that Walt killed him.  I also think that Nach is BCS version of Jesse....he does bad things and is involved in a criminal enterprise, but we see he has a conscience and that he attempts to minimize the harm in his wake.  And much like Jesse, I really really do not want him to die, but he probably will.  Or his father will.  Or both will.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

34 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

This is why I love the writing, because Chuck is totally an asshole, but also, he's right about Jimmy and has been right about him all down the line, and while he has done some terrible things related to Jimmy, I do believe his reverence for the law is an honest one, even if it does spill over into OCD at times.

I have more sympathy for Jimmy than I did for Walt, but much like Walt, Jimmy has had many chances to 'go straight' and he always chooses to cut corners for whatever reason he rationalizes.  

I love Mike and can't help myself, I am still mad that Walt killed him.  I also think that Nach is BCS version of Jesse....he does bad things and is involved in a criminal enterprise, but we see he has a conscience and that he attempts to minimize the harm in his wake.  And much like Jesse, I really really do not want him to die, but he probably will.  Or his father will.  Or both will.

While Chuck does have reverence for the law, I'm really not convinced that that's his main driving force for trying to get Jimmy disbarred. The rest of the show shows subtle hints of resentment, but I think the court scene is what convinced me of that. It's just so obvious that his outburst reflects his true feelings more than his initial testimony. Recall the initial testimony; it says everything he's "supposed" to say. I.e. "I love my brother, but I believe the law is sacred and I just don't think he's fit to practice it." (I'm paraphrasing). But in the outburst (similar to his end of season 1 outburst) he emphasizes the point that he has been working his life for his legal practice, and Jimmy just, kind of, "slipped" into it. The ease with which Jimmy got his career can't be relevant to upholding the ethics of law. That would be like rejecting a scientific publication because the author "hasn't worked long enough in the field". It should be based on the merit of the paper, not the character who wrote it. Similarly, if Chuck's distaste for Jimmy's bar license was entirely ethically "pure", it would be based entirely on what he has done, not on how he got there. Of course, his outburst still brings other valid points against Jimmy being a lawyer (i.e. what he has done as a lawyer), but it still intuitively feels resentment-driven. 

I think when it comes to Jimmy vs Walt, Walt being worse is simply a mater of scale, which I try not to take into account. I mean, yeah, forging legal documents and soliciting clients with a conflict of interest is not the same as poisoning kids and ordering prison hits. But when it comes to the level of deep delusion of the benevolence of one's actions, and blindness to your own shortcomings (and willingness to blame the negative effects of your actions on others), Jimmy and Walter are on par IMO; maybe Jimmy's even worse. In fact, just by comparing their relative intelligence and proneness to cognitive biases, I think Jimmy is far less likely than Walt to wake from his delusions and realize the error of his ways.

But if we go back to accounting for scale, I think we know that Jimmy will eventually fall to a similar scale of moral depths as Walt. Maybe this is a controversial position, but I think Saul is just as bad as Walter ended up being. Sure, he drew the line at Walter poisoning a kid, but I think that's just based on a misfiring of our moral intuition to value kids more than adults. I definitely think that ordering the prison killing of an adult is worse than giving a child a nonlethal dose of poison (even if it's callous and might possibly kill them), and we know where Saul stood on the former.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm.  I can't remember what Saul's involvement was with Walt doing the prison hit...was he involved or a passive bystander?  I don't think Saul ever reached the level of depravity that Walt did, I was never 100% sure how serious he was when he suggests that both Jesse and Badger be killed.   I agree that the prison killing was much worse than poisoning the child, since I have faith that Walt was a good enough chemist to make sure he didn't die, you could even argue that poisoning someone with the sole purpose of emotionally manipulating another person is whqt made it truly evil....there was literally nothing Walt would not do in order to get his way.  

Also we don't yet know what kind of destruction "Saul" is going to cause for those around him, for Chuck, for Kim, for Hamlin.  We already know that Walt destroyed everyone around him, every single person.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't really think Chuck is the moral guy some of you think he is. He's been very dishonest, sneaky, and underhanded with Jimmy. He just uses the law as an excuse. He has some kind of resentful superiority to Jimmy he likes to lord over him, which is why he is so weird about Jimmy practicing law specifically- that's the biggest thing he has to hold over him. And while Jimmy is a really sketchy dude, he is a great lawyer. He's been doing a good job for his clients whenever we see him practicing law, which is what he's supposed to do. And while he doesn't have the right reasons for doing it and I hated watching what he did to Irene, he is totally right that drawing out a settlement on poor elderly people in a nursing home is going to mean many of them never get to see their payout. They're 80, not 20, and more money years from now is not going to do them as much good as the money they were scammed out of (plus some damages) sooner. And I think that is more what bothers Chuck than Jimmy's morals, is that he is a good lawyer. I think Jimmy and Chuck are very similar in that they are both underhanded, motivated, dishonest, and very convincing. Chuck just doesn't wanna see himself in Jimmy.

 

Also as an aside I totally don't get why Kim didn't just hire Jimmy as her paralegal. He's not allowed to be a lawyer but I'm sure he could do that, she's mentioned needing one, she is clearly needing help that Jimmy could provide, and she has the money. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chuck definitely resents Jimmy, for being Jimmy, for being so likeable, that even their own parents preferred the son who stole from them, lied to them, got bored at the hospital....to the son who attempted to save their business, was always there for them, who was there at the bedside when they died...only to see that it was Jimmy who was wanted.  Jimmy who was out for a bite to eat because bedside vigils for your dying parents are dull.  

I have assumed that she didn't hire Jimmy because he can't be involved in the law at all, including working as a paralegal or a researcher, but I don't know that for a fact..it could also be that she doesn't want Mesa Verde any more tainted by Jimmy than it already is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Kelli Fury said:

I don't really think Chuck is the moral guy some of you think he is. He's been very dishonest, sneaky, and underhanded with Jimmy. He just uses the law as an excuse. He has some kind of resentful superiority to Jimmy he likes to lord over him, which is why he is so weird about Jimmy practicing law specifically- that's the biggest thing he has to hold over him. And while Jimmy is a really sketchy dude, he is a great lawyer. He's been doing a good job for his clients whenever we see him practicing law, which is what he's supposed to do. And while he doesn't have the right reasons for doing it and I hated watching what he did to Irene, he is totally right that drawing out a settlement on poor elderly people in a nursing home is going to mean many of them never get to see their payout. They're 80, not 20, and more money years from now is not going to do them as much good as the money they were scammed out of (plus some damages) sooner. And I think that is more what bothers Chuck than Jimmy's morals, is that he is a good lawyer. I think Jimmy and Chuck are very similar in that they are both underhanded, motivated, dishonest, and very convincing. Chuck just doesn't wanna see himself in Jimmy.

 

Also as an aside I totally don't get why Kim didn't just hire Jimmy as her paralegal. He's not allowed to be a lawyer but I'm sure he could do that, she's mentioned needing one, she is clearly needing help that Jimmy could provide, and she has the money. 

I think you're focusing too much on the satisfaction of Jimmy's clients, and not the ethics of his practice. Chuck's stated issue with Jimmy is the latter, not the former (though I agree with you that it's just a pretext for his true motivating factor, which is sibling resentment). The fact that Jimmy has satisfied clients does not, in any way, counter the many times he's done illegal solicitation with a conflict of interest, gone rogue and sabotaged his firm while using the short term benefit as an excuse, used deceptive methods to attract people to his firm, or all-out sabotaged a case. Jimmy is incapable of drawing ethical boundaries in any scenario where those boundaries are even slightly subtle. He's not a "great lawyer", he's a terrible lawyer who's successful. There's a big difference there. And let's be real about Jimmy's "less time to spend" argument. Even if there's some merit to it, it's ridiculously obvious that that's not what's motivating him to push for a settlement, not even in the least bit. It's an example of his tendency to rationalize. It's no more compelling than Walter's "I'm doing this for my family".

Everything Chuck is guilty of is being a bad brother. To me, that's nowhere near the ethical shadiness of Jimmy's actions. But that's very much a normative claim so we probably can't settle that disagreement.

24 minutes ago, Cas Stark said:

Hmmm.  I can't remember what Saul's involvement was with Walt doing the prison hit...was he involved or a passive bystander?  I don't think Saul ever reached the level of depravity that Walt did, I was never 100% sure how serious he was when he suggests that both Jesse and Badger be killed.   I agree that the prison killing was much worse than poisoning the child, since I have faith that Walt was a good enough chemist to make sure he didn't die, you could even argue that poisoning someone with the sole purpose of emotionally manipulating another person is whqt made it truly evil....there was literally nothing Walt would not do in order to get his way.  

Also we don't yet know what kind of destruction "Saul" is going to cause for those around him, for Chuck, for Kim, for Hamlin.  We already know that Walt destroyed everyone around him, every single person.

Saul was not involved with the prison hits at all. I was referring to his insistence to kill Badger. I think there's no reason to think he wasn't genuine about it. He brought it up many times, and when they ultimately went with a different (more expensive) option, he made the comment on how expensive it is to be moral. To be clear on the poisoning case, I still think it's worse than what you're illustrating. I'm not convinced that Walter knew the kid wouldn't die, so I think he's ethically responsible for putting a kid at risk of dying. But that's still less bad (IMO) than guaranteeing the death of an adult, though the moral difference there isn't very large.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Jimmy is a very good lawyer, he is obviously not as good of a lawyer as Chuck or we wouldn't have Hamlin constantly saying how brilliant Chuck is........but still, he's well above average.

Jimmy's problem is that being a good lawyer isn't good enough for him, so he's always ready to bend and break the rules when he has rationalized himself into it.   That's the difference.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Cas Stark said:

I think Jimmy is a very good lawyer, he is obviously not as good of a lawyer as Chuck or we wouldn't have Hamlin constantly saying how brilliant Chuck is........but still, he's well above average.

Jimmy's problem is that being a good lawyer isn't good enough for him, so he's always ready to bend and break the rules when he has rationalized himself into it.   That's the difference.  

agreed.... Jimmy *could* be a successful lawyer... but ultimately, he yearns for the thrill of the con .... so matter how well he does, he'll self-destruct eventually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I still think Jimmy is a great lawyer when that's what he's doing, he just has a compulsion to buck authority and morals. But when he's arguing a case, he does a great job. Remember, sandpiper only became a case because Jimmy was looking out for his clients getting wills done (which he was doing for a low price and to their satisfaction- imo, a great job). When he's done legal work for Mike, he did a great job. He knows his business and he's good at winning an argument. Chuck didn't want to see him succeed with Davis and Main either. Hamlin has actually been a really good guy through all of this except for trying to embarrass Kim in front of Mesa Verde, he's just been the fall guy for Chuck's assholery. And we've seen Chuck bend the law with telling Ernie it'd be illegal for him to tell Jimmy things, which he knew it isn't. I think they are a lot more similar than they seem and in a lot of ways Chuck is less compassionate

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...