gallimaufry

A nuance that just occurred to me. The line about the thing with Chuck not being a crime and Jimmy saying "yeah, it was". One of the major themes of the show was what's right and what's legal - that upholding the law didn't make you a "good man". Chuck thought the two went hand-in hand. It's a real sign of Jimmy's maturity that he still understands, on a deeper level than Chuck ever did, a more fundamental morality. Great scene.

Interesting comments. Given how most television series paint a completely unrealistic picture of what's affordable, I love that Jimmy was always living hand-to-mouth. I'm not sure if the 410 flashback was in their place. Either way, I think Jimmy at the start of BCS is probably spending a lot of money on a few "loss-leaders" that don't go very far including some impressive suits. As for Kim, remember the timelines on this - at the end of S3, she's only been with Mesa Verde for a few months. She took back the debt that Howard was willing to write off (although it's not clear if he ever accepted it), she has her home and car, a paralegal and the administrative costs of a new business. I'd guess there are some charity donations and other expenses too. And then she's potentially paying rent on a place twice as big as she needs when for 12 of the first 16 months she's got nobody to help her pay. Anyway, if this is the most far-fetched thing about the show, it's in a good place!

Sensational news. I guess when Vince said he wanted to do a new show to keep the team together, he didn't just mean the crew. I'll be fascinated to see where the BB/BCS writers land (and hopefully as many of them stick together as possible). Thomas Schnauz seems likely to stick with Vince as they go back such a long way. I really hope Peter Gould has a new show soon but if not perhaps he'll consult. Gordon Smith is an incredible talent and I'd love to see him start his own show or showrun something alongside Peter or Vince. Moira Walley-Beckett has been curiously quiet since "Anne with an E" ended - would love to see her re-partner with the team even though I assume she'd be trying to launch something of her own. Imagine if Gennifer Hutchison could be tempted back from Middle-Earth. And what's Ann Cherkis doing? Sam Catlin has a deal with Apple... Also, I hope that even though this will clearly be completely different, they will keep some elements of BCS's sensibility: the slower, character-focused approach, the use of wides and scenery (I imagine that will remain as if the whole point is to keep the ABQ crew, they're surely not going to resile from using those incredible landscapes).

I mean, in a sense, I think Bob and Rhea's biggest showcase episodes were all in 6B. To me, 6A should have been an opportunity to celebrate Michael Mando's phenomenal performance as much as anything. Of course, the Emmys are just an Internet poll with a narrower electorate and superior party planning and perhaps less credibility so... eh.

I don't know about "The Rings of Power". Tolkien to me is in the books and to some extent the rather excellent 1981 radio adaptation of LOTR. The Jackson films were all wrong to me (I never saw "The Hobbit" ones to be fair). Ironically, the kind of slow and thoughtful pace of BCS was what I'd have wanted from a LOTR series. But TRoP fanficcing off the world as a whole just feels... I dunno... somewhat icky somehow in a way I can't put my finger on. Not saying I'll never watch it - I do have a lot of time for Genny Hutchison especially - but I currently don't have any inclination to. I did watch the new GoT series. I have zero investment in GoT and found that I could kind of half-watch the original. Some plots I found so boring I literally have no idea what went on cos I never paid attention (anything involving the wall or the zombies really) but I did like some of the palace politics stuff and I realised that having started, since the main attraction was the preposterous twists, I'd have no chance of avoiding spoilers if I didn't keep up. As such, I didn't expect to get on board for the spin-off but then - Matt Smith. So I'm following it. It feels more focused, more nuanced but less energised than the original and it looks cheaper too (or perhaps my standards are changing). I watched "The Orville" on my summer break. Never got what it was supposed to be from the hype but seeing Jon Cassar of "24" fame was involved, I thought I'd try. It's pretty good fun. I'm not sure it's an all-time great show but it feels like it's doing exactly what it's trying to do. I tried Discovery and it didn't gel for me at all and I love how shamelessly nostalgic this is. Still nothing to scratch that BCS itch even slightly. Except perhaps that another GoaT series, "Gargoyles", is coming back in December, albeit in comic form.

One link that occurred to me today. We associate mint chocolate chip ice cream (representing the cream of illicit activities) with ants (representing death) because of the 603 scene. What stops Jimmy here is that he tries to wind back the clock - to parlay Howard's death into ice cream. But that, as Walt would say, is not possible.

Should he have though? In 305, he indicates that it was confidential under the Family and Medical Leave Act. Kim dunked on him for hiding Chuck's condition from their clients and there are certain times when he did that at Chuck's insistence - most notably with Mesa Verda - which explains why Kim would be bitter about that. And of course, Howard was always concerned with the reputation of the firm. But I don't see he did anything wrong or even especially dubious by keeping Chuck's condition confidential if he so wished just as if it were cancer instead of mental illness.

Although by the time S1 ratings would have come back, it would have been too late to change course on S1.

These are so good and I wish they'd release lots more table reads as well as the scripts. Hopefully the S6 set will have some. Interesting details here I hadn't noticed before: - Kim explicitly mentions (and implicitly proscribes) ripping off bars for tequila before she goes along with ripping off Ken. - The fallacy of sunk costs makes a big impact on Kim: she refers back to it in S3 and avoiding it clearly motivates her decision to leave S&C. - Rhea is a little bit more flattered at Jimmy fairly openly asking about their relationship at the start. As I recall, her actual performance is a lot more guarded.

To be fair, not only was that their trajectory as they were writing, I really think you can see where they detoured from the course and came back on. Their original concept was that Chuck was a Mycroft character supporting Jimmy - you can see how this becomes Kim. Moreover, if you think about it, Nacho doesn't encounter Jimmy between 104 and 502 and there's nothing particularly in their history (setting aside Lalo, Gus etc.) that prevents them encountering each other earlier. You can see how Jimmy could become a cartel lawyer by the end of S1 which makes his name and mints him as Saul Goodman in S2 in the same way he ultimately makes it big as "Salamanca's Guy" in S6. I'm not sure how much the specifics of this interaction with Jimmy and the cartel were in their mind given they work "brick by brick" but they said they wanted to do a "Laurence of Arabia" episode with Mike and Jimmy in S1 and so I rather suspect that good chunks of what ultimately got used in S5 were being discussed for S1.

To me, the key difference is that spitballing about murder about people he's never met and doesn't know -- or people who are, as in Jesse's case in S5, really dangerous to him -- is that there's no way he'd actually be pulling the trigger himself. In 612, he was put in the position where he would have to do the deed himself. It's like, you might buy a burger but would you butcher a cow?

Good catch. The box was the one he retrieved with Marco from the ceiling tiles of his parents' store in 308. He hid rare coins in it including one he used during a scam. Appropriate I guess that the box is now, for the first time perhaps, empty. No bandaids left for Saul.

I have no problem with Rebecca up until 306 but there's absolutely no evidence she stuck around past 306. Sure, she couldn't see him THAT NIGHT but did she write, did she speak to Howard, did she consult doctors? In 309... And for her to say that Jimmy should "do what's right" for Chuck shows she really didn't pay attention in court to the nature and cause of Chuck's disability. Jimmy had tried for a year or more to manage this on his own but was just making the situation worse because he was the cause. Granted, she wasn't currently married to him but she was when his illness evidently -- albeit with the benefit of hindsight -- started. Morally, it seems to me she made a vow and she had a duty of care to Chuck -- and even to some extent to Jimmy who she knew had his own struggles and issues and was clearly ill-equipped to deal with his condition. I love S3 but I do regret that we didn't get more time with Chuck in the second half of this season. For the last two seasons, it had been Chuck and Jimmy battling each other like they're two ends of a weathervane but here Chuck has a genuine chance to change and reflect and develop and there's so much I would have liked to see explored here, not least how his relationship with Rebecca evolves.

Although Kim using her bar card to see Jimmy 1:1 probably is criminal (I don't know US law), I think there are some mitigating factors: 1. How much of a responsibility does the prison bear to make proper checks? I'm reminded of the case in 108 where Jimmy got the Sandpiper documentation and it wasn't breaking and entering because, as he put it, "a hobo could use it as a wigwam". If she shows the card as identification but doesn't say she's a practising lawyer and they treat her as a lawyer, does that make her responsible or the prison for being negligent? 2. What is the worst punishment she would receive? She has very little to lose and at this point I don't get the impression she has the vaguest intention of trying to reinstate her law licence. I think she sees an opportunity to have a true goodbye with Jimmy and takes it. 3. I happen to think if it were ever contested that she would take full responsibility because that's who she is now. Now it's true that if you wanted to see Kim go completely straight-arrow, this feels like an element of OldKim that may be unwelcome but... Kim always contained these multitudes and especially where Jimmy was concerned. Moreover, I think it works in the context of their cigarette scene as their last conspiracy, one which truly is victimless. It also feels like she's meeting him on his journey: he gave up his freedom to follow the right path and she stepped off the path to show him what it meant to her. I dunno, I get why people dislike it but it completely works for me.

See, I think (for the sake of comparison) the "Breaking Bad" finale requires way more suspension of disbelief. You need to believe that Walt MacGuyvers a system to shoot a machine gun, is able to park his vehicle in the exact right spot, has all his enemies in range at the right time before they can go for their weapons and manages to duck and avoid bullets long enough to finish what he started. It's absolutely preposterous. But it's great television. Saul's ending comes down to whether you believe a character decision is believable or not and actually I think it is. Given the choice between being free without the respect of Kim or in prison but with Kim's regard, I completely buy why Jimmy chooses as he does.