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.

I think one reason I don't find it remotely problematic that Jimmy would chuck in his freedom in such a dramatic fashion is that he's always moved in big, impulsive gestures without regard to consequence, at least as far back as the Chicago Sunroof. Chuck counted on it when he set up the sting for Jimmy in 302. Objectively, Jimmy has a lot to repent for and clearly is a danger to the public and doesn't learn or stop himself so it makes sense for him to have a long sentence. I think he forces himself to override his self-interest. Yes, it's heroic but it's essentially a more positive expression of the same behaviour we've seen from him all along. One thing I will say: if there's any episode of anything where someone deserved an Emmy, surely it's Bob Odenkirk in this. He's not flashy with it at all but it's incredible how many different iterations of the same character, each very subtly different, he presents: - Pre-BCS Jimmy - BCS S5 Neophyte Saul - BB-era Saul - Gene - Saul - James In one scene, he transitions from Gene to Saul; in another, he plays James acting as Saul until the reveal. In every flashback, there's a tension between the two. It's really masterful.

I think on a completely objective basis, Jimmy deserves to die in prison. He is literally a career criminal, ran a meth empire, drugged people, had a burglars on call, poisoned a child, worked for the cartel and for Nazis. I don't really think he should be blamed directly for the deaths of Hank and Gomez but he certainly covered up the deaths of Jane, Howard and Gale. Jimmy's so likeable and his regret does feel sincere so that it's easy to root for him getting a sentence that doesn't keep him behind bars into his 80s but if he existed in the real world I think life would be a fair judgment.

A team of lawyers or one Saul Goodman. Thinking about it, I wish they'd incorporated some of this into Jimmy's ending. Having a few minutes of him helping people in prison who clearly needed help with well-meaning advice that is serving justice for the wronged not trying to help people evade it. I think it's implied but that longing to serve his clients -- something that he was really honest about in his hearing in 409 -- would finally be satisfied with this. It's also self-evidently something Kim would love and respect although I don't think this is why he'd do it.

Although his sentence suggests that he will die in prison, it's by no means certain - I noticed Peter Gould made some comment to the effect that he thought it's unlikely Jimmy wouldn't find some way to reduce that sentence. For one thing, pinning on him the deaths of Gomez and Schrader - which seem to be a huge part of the prosecution's case - seems a real reach since not only was he nowhere remotely close but he also scrammed immediately so he can hardly have been said to be involved after the fact. I guess he obstructed justice by not staying to give the names and identities of Uncle Jack's gang but he did have legitimate grounds to fear for his life there. The nature of his confession suggests that he was conceding those on, I guess, moral grounds and so I assume 86 years reflects culpability but I have to think on a more rigorous appeal that would be overturned at least. I can imagine if they do a Kim spin-off sometime in the 2030s and give it a contemporary setting then they could have Jimmy approaching the end of a 20-30 year sentence. Granted, I'm sure this would be some dramatic licence in view of the scale of his crimes, but it's a concession I'd personally be happy to see. This would still put him in his 70s by the time he's released but allows a window of hope and still give the sense that he had paid his debt.

Ohhh, I love this. I agree. Although I love BB, I do think there are some rocky parts to the early seasons and one of the big problems for me in terms of delivering on the premise of "Mr Chips to Scarface" is that I never ever saw any indication of a Mr Chips capacity in Walt. He loved his subject but I never saw any indication that he was a great educator - his students were always presented as apathetic at best, lazy and disruptive at worst, and the only relationship he seems to have built with any of them was with Jesse, whom he instantly derided and sought to manipulate. The scenes of him trying to teach Jesse are funny but also show he really doesn't communicate his subject effectively. Nor, from his cold relationship with his wife to his dutiful relationship with his son and sigh-and-bear-it relationship with his brother-in-law do we see someone who actually seems to like people very much. If it weren't for the fact that Walt was given the worst hand of cards anybody could be given in the pilot episode, I think there'd be precious little reason to find him sympathetic at all. Not to say that what Vince did was bad or that he should have gone in a different direction - I recognise the Chips/Scarface elevator pitch was never meant to be a definitive summation of the show. But if that was the intention, I never felt BB delivered on the first half of that. Love this take too.

What's interesting is that this is the third consecutive season to end with the finger guns but before they have always been breaking points testing their relationship. I took it that their bond was built around the scam and so this is how Jimmy expresses his love and affection in a way that cuts through words. It's also kind of ironic since he's behind bars and has added decades to his sentence in the interest of reforming. But it seems to acknowledge that spark. For Kim, it wouldn't be appropriate to respond in that way but you can see in the nuances of Rhea's expressions that she appreciates the message and is heartened by it. But she can't reciprocate as she's not that person any more. What I thought was clever by not having her reciprocate is that you wanted her to reciprocate as a romantic gesture and yet it is absolutely right that it doesn't. And for me, the first time I saw the episode I was still caught up in the moment of thinking she might turn back and reciprocate when I was almost jolted by the cut to black. I think that was a perfect ending because it's so emblematic of Kim's feelings - Jimmy represents both genuine love and understanding as well as absolute chaos and those finger guns would not bode anything healthy for them. But Jimmy knows she will walk away and Kim knows she must walk away and so it is both sad but also incredibly romantic. I prefer Rhea Seehorn's viewpoint that she would continue to visit. I see no reason why she wouldn't even though I don't think she'd make a habit of sneaking him a cigarette. However, I can also see a case to be made that she would never visit again and would need to get on with her own life outside Jimmy's orbit. I feel like it's okay to read it either way. I don't actually think they are poison together so much as that Jimmy is poison and Kim got sucked into his way of thinking. But if you list Jimmy's independent ventures against the ones he did with Kim I think she greatly reduced the chaos. (And of course she begged him not to work for Lalo and it was that decision which ultimately blew things up for them). However, I guess it comes down to whether or not you think Jimmy can ever change. The Chuck view would be that he has this big show of remorse but he never learns long-term and will ultimately only hurt people. The Mike view would be that even if you try to get off the bad choice road, sooner or later you're back on it again. The more romantic view (and, I think, Kim's view) is that giving up his freedom was a realisation that he'd rather go back and try to make amends even if this means he is never free again than continue to make the same mistakes. One thing I've been fascinated by is how many names Jimmy as. If you include when he's referred to by his slogans we have at minimum: Jimmy Slipping Jimmy James M. McGill, esquire Jimmy McGill, A Lawyer You Can Trust Gimme Jimmy Saul Goodman Saul Goodman, Speedy Justice for You Better Call Saul Gene Takovic But only once to my recollection does he ever refer to himself as James McGill. I do think this indicates the self-knowledge has stuck. A separate thing I really like about the series as a whole is how meaningful and impactful Howard's death was. So often in television -- including on BB and BCS -- deaths are baked into the character's arc. Nacho's death was a surprise and was sad but his life always foretold the possibility of this kind of ending. Equally, there are lots of deaths which would have been huge and consequential to the people directly affected but we don't see or at least don't deeply experience that loss -- Fred from Travelwire. And of course there are long-running shows where killing a character is a move or a product of a contract dispute or because the plot needs to move in a particular direction. I suppose technically Howard's death falls into the final category but it really does feel more like... a kind of horrific and irrevocable thunderclap. It just feels really rare to have a character who is as fully formed as Howard and then show the impact of his abrupt murder. The only equivalent of this I can think of in drama is in probably Russell T Davies' best show (albeit not one of his more popular ones) where he really shows the vibrancy and variety and uniqueness and comedy and tragedy and whimsy of a character's life before their utterly abrupt and meaningless death. The title of the show is spoilered because... well, almost all his work is terrific and the moment deserves to creep up on you but if you must know it's in... But we knew Howard for a much longer time, flaws and all. It felt like his character arc would veer in one direction and then suddenly, no. There was just nothing in Howard's life that made it likely it would be abruptly cut short and because he was such a fleshed-out character for other reasons right to his final seconds, it feels somehow even more tragic. And way that moment of off-hand cruelty from Lalo that we've seen so many times on BCS and BB in cartel stories suddenly had a home. You could see the deep gut-wrenching impact on Kim and Jimmy, let alone Cheryl and Cliff and even Mike. I think what particularly brought it home was how Bob Odenkirk portrayed Jimmy choking on Howard's name in court. As many vile and terrible things as he's done since, the deep-seated trauma of that moment really hit home. This is where I do kind of wish we'd got more of Howard all the way along. I always thought he (and Nacho) were underserved, especially in seasons 4 and 5. A full-on Howard episode showing his world and how he rebuilt his life after Chuck would have been amazing but I think even the pen portrait shown by his small appearances across Season 4 told a compelling story. Thanks. Sounds intriguing. And I need to fill that BCS shaped void now!

I see it more that it's the inverse of the situation it's always been. James McGill was always looked down upon as Slipping Jimmy so he created Saul Goodman who people would look up to. But Slipping Jimmy wasn't who he was at his heart and nor is Saul now. One thing I really liked about the teaser to this finale was that it made sense of Jimmy's relationship with money. I've always been puzzled as to why money seems such a big deal to Jimmy when his life with Kim is the very opposite of lavish. Granted, a lot of this is clearly Kim's influence as he is pushing for Chuck to get more money, is clearly tempted by the Kettleman's haul, tries to win Kim back by showing her a fancy house and of course takes money from the cartel. Peter Gould said in an interview recently that he sees the money as a way to "keep score" more than anything which makes sense but I really liked the idea presented in the teaser here that money is a way for Jimmy to try to make himself untouchable. If he can just earn enough, he'll have everyone's respect and he'll never have to worry about, for example, losing his office with Kim again. It's a delusion and he seems to know it even then. But it does make more sense to me of what is, on the quiet, the most drastic and consequential "break bad" of the entire show which is his decision to take Lalo's bagman job when Lalo did offer him an out. (Granted, how much you could rely on Lalo to keep his word would be in question but there's at least a decent chance he would have seen Saul as useful enough to keep around even if he couldn't be used as a bagman.) One other thing I just realised... Saul's 7 year term would have started in 2010 which means if he'd accepted, he would be out five years ago in real terms. This means they could probably have got away with an ending where he serves a 7 year term as an unreformed Saul and still shown more story with Jimmy and Kim after. However, I think it's fair to say that there would never have been as good or as just an opportunity to seek to make amends for his crimes than via prison so I think it was the right choice. Another moment I like is during his confession where Saul gives a look to the prosecutor who gives him a look back of almost grudging respect - he knows this guy has run rings around him but is now doing the right thing. Super performances. The judge in that scene was perfect too.

Pretty sure it was Mark Proksch (aka Daniel Wormald) but not 100%.

I could see a Jesse spin-off absolutely working and I think even absent any BB connection, having Aaron Paul be a fugitive in Alaska trying to make a new life for himself but struggling with the demons of his past sounds like a great TV show pitch. But the problem with the concept is that there are really only three endings I foresee: either he gets captured and put in prison (which is the BCS ending), or he dies (the BB ending) or he stays free which is the ending he already got at the end of "El Camino" (and BB). I don't think anyone would want to see Jesse dying or in prison and having him stay free feels like calling the show "Chekhov's gun" and not firing a bullet. Whereas I do think Kim has a forward trajectory. Her reputation is destroyed. Her life is in pieces. Her past is murky. Her future is uncertain. She has noble goals but a dark side. I think she has a lot more potential. That said, I didn't think "El Camino" was a success overall and while it certainly wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination, I don't think it really added anything of tremendous value to BB. I don't know that I'd want a Kim movie that was harmless and disposable fanservice. In fact, I'm not really sure I want movies in this universe at all - at minimum, a mini-series. But once Rhea, Peter Gould, Vince Gilligan and even other Kim writers like Cherkis and Hutchison are all on different shows and contractually unavailable the odds of a series become quite remote. So I'm not sure I see it happening. And I don't think by any means it needs to happen. But I do think after this ending there's a lot more potential with it than I would have suspected even a few days ago. I kind of agree, although I'm happy that we got an indication that she did get her deal in 612. As for Walt Jr, I think we have to assume that Walt's plan worked and he and Holly ended up financially secure. I worry that revisiting them would only tarnish that ending.

I mean, 86 years isa. pretty big one Good Thing. I don't think he did it for Kim although I do think he wanted Kim to see and to know that he wasn't the man she feared he had become - and perhaps also he wanted Kim to be there to help him stick the landing. I think he did it for Chuck and he did it for himself because he fears that he would always revert back to the grift and he's actually (as the 7 years shows) really good at it.