S05.E02: 50% Off

[Eulipian 5k]

19 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I seem to recall that when Stacey appeared on Breaking Bad that there was pretty universal belief by the audience (especially on TWoP) that she was taking advantage of Mike.

Wasn't it a need to buy a house for Stacey and Kalee that pushed Mike to take the job with Gus? As we saw this week, Mike wants to stay away from all of this. He certainly doesn't need the money to pay for his expensive wardrobe, fast cars, or pimento sandwiches..

[Clanstarling]

1 minute ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Wasn't it a need to buy a house for Stacey and Kalee that pushed Mike to take the job with Gus? As we saw this week, Mike wants to stay away from all of this. He certainly doesn't need the money to pay for his expensive wardrobe, fast cars, or pimento sandwiches..

That's the way I remember it. Though he was taking small shady jobs before that, to help her out.

[JudyObscure]

33 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

I suppose the old podcasts from Vince Gilligan et al. would clarify the intent for how she was suppose to be perceived,

Therein lies a subject I would love for all of us to argue through some time.

Back in the Madmen days I watched every episode over and over and had strong opinions about every character.  Then someone would link to Matthew Weiner saying how we were supposed to feel and I never believed I had to go his way.  I adore and appreciate these great writers, but once their script has gone through the actor's interpretation and our own perceptions and personal  baggage we might be seeing something quite different from the writer's intention -- and I think that's okay.

[DangerousMinds]

I’m fairly sure that Stacey never appeared on BB. She was mentioned and assumed to be there as Kaylee’s mom,  but that character never appeared onscreen.

[shapeshifter]

10 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

I’m fairly sure that Stacey never appeared on BB. She was mentioned and assumed to be there as Kaylee’s mom,  but that character never appeared onscreen.

In that case, I must be recalling fan opinions from earlier seasons of BCS. 

[Eulipian 5k]

19 minutes ago, DangerousMinds said:

I’m fairly sure that Stacey never appeared on BB. She was mentioned and assumed to be there as Kaylee’s mom,  but that character never appeared onscreen.

Apparently an extra played her in a hand off of Kalee:

Is that Lily of the Valley in the shrubbery? lol

Edited February 28, 2020 by Eulipian 5k

[Clanstarling]

2 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Therein lies a subject I would love for all of us to argue through some time.

Back in the Madmen days I watched every episode over and over and had strong opinions about every character.  Then someone would link to Matthew Weiner saying how we were supposed to feel and I never believed I had to go his way.  I adore and appreciate these great writers, but once their script has gone through the actor's interpretation and our own perceptions and personal  baggage we might be seeing something quite different from the writer's intention -- and I think that's okay.

I do too. We all connect based on our own experiences. One of the things I enjoy most about the forums is seeing how differently we react.

[sistermagpie]

2 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

I agree that her walking away is more impactful - and more likely to lead him into full on Saul. There will be no one in his life to restrain his worst impulses, and he will know that he'll never be good enough for a woman as good as Kim.

 

I agree--I think it would also be better because it would make her more like Chuck, in his eyes. He loved her, but she saw him as Slippin' Jimmy in the end, just as Chuck did. She just couldn't fully want to be with him.

2 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Therein lies a subject I would love for all of us to argue through some time.

Back in the Madmen days I watched every episode over and over and had strong opinions about every character.  Then someone would link to Matthew Weiner saying how we were supposed to feel and I never believed I had to go his way.  I adore and appreciate these great writers, but once their script has gone through the actor's interpretation and our own perceptions and personal  baggage we might be seeing something quite different from the writer's intention -- and I think that's okay.

I had my moment of feeling that way about Weiner, but realized as I listened to him more that even when he sounded like he was telling you how to feel, it almost never really applied to anything beyond that one moment, so your opinion about the character could still be right. Like there were times where I'd thought I completely disagreed with him and then the story would play out in a way that seemed to say he agreed with me.

So whatever they even say on the podcast, the same might be true.

[teddysmom]

4 hours ago, DangerousMinds said:

I’m fairly sure that Stacey never appeared on BB. She was mentioned and assumed to be there as Kaylee’s mom,  but that character never appeared onscreen.

You're right, I'm confusing it with BCS. Kaylee was on BB, we only saw Stacey waving to Mike. 

[Ohwell]

43 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

You're right, I'm confusing it with BCS. Kaylee was on BB, we only saw Stacey waving to Mike. 

Even if we only saw Stacey waving to Mike in that brief scene, she was still on BB, right? 

[teddysmom]

Just now, Ohwell said:

Even if we only saw Stacey waving to Mike in that brief scene, she was still on BB, right? 

Technically but I don't think it was the actress who played her now. 

She was on BB but no interaction with Mike, I guess? 

[Ohwell]

13 minutes ago, teddysmom said:

Technically but I don't think it was the actress who played her now. 

She was on BB but no interaction with Mike, I guess? 

Yeah, I guess nothing but the wave.

[PeterPirate]

Quote

I seem to recall that when Stacey appeared on Breaking Bad that there was pretty universal belief by the audience (especially on TWoP) that she was taking advantage of Mike. 

Quote

Criticism isn't hate, though, and I haven't seen too much more than pretty mild criticism or any evidence of hate watching. I was let down by the season premiere and as I said, it might be partly that I was cranky about waiting a year and a half. My expectations were probably too high. I appreciate the details and efforts that go into these episodes, but I think it's perfectly valid to register comparisons to past performance.

Things were worse during the TWoP era, when they had a policy of not allowing "boards on boards" comments.  Which meant that one person could post something that someone else found offensive, but the second poster was not allowed to express their opinion.  In particular, any post that included some form of the word "misogyny" was sure to be deleted.  This empowered some people to go full-out with negative comments about some female characters.  The rules were changed during the reincarnation, and the current FAQ's specifically state that "Members...are allowed to generally discuss the boards."  In my opinion this has been a yuuuge improvement.    

 

Quote

Back in the Madmen days I watched every episode over and over and had strong opinions about every character.  Then someone would link to Matthew Weiner saying how we were supposed to feel and I never believed I had to go his way.  I adore and appreciate these great writers, but once their script has gone through the actor's interpretation and our own perceptions and personal  baggage we might be seeing something quite different from the writer's intention -- and I think that's okay.

Mileage does vary.  I know that the intent of the PTB is to portray Jimmy as a good guy who slowly devolves into Saul, but I have always seen them as one in the same.  I do my best to have a two-track approach to watching any fiction, first allowing myself to have my own reaction to the story, and then going back and trying to analyze the intent of the show's creators.   Listening to a director's commentary or a critical analysis is more worthwhile when I'm in the second track.

Edited February 28, 2020 by PeterPirate

[sistermagpie]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

Mileage does vary.  I know that the intent of the PTB is to portray Jimmy as a good guy who slowly devolves into Saul, but I have always seen them as one in the same.  I do my best to have a two-track approach to watching any fiction, first allowing myself to have my own reaction to the story, and then going back and trying to analyze the intent of the show's creators.   Listening to a director's commentary or a critical analysis is more worthwhile when I'm in the second track.

I feel like the change is just his losing something--he was always Saul, but there was a warmth there that's died. Where as with Walt becoming Heisenberg it felt like he got released or woke up as Walt himself says.

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, sistermagpie said:

I feel like the change is just his losing something--he was always Saul, but there was a warmth there that's died. Where as with Walt becoming Heisenberg it felt like he got released or woke up as Walt himself says.

I think that's a good distillation of them both. For me, Chuck telling Jimmy he never cared about him, though not true, was such a huge blow that I don't think can ever be undone.

[nuraman00]

On 2/25/2020 at 2:22 AM, shapeshifter said:

Maybe Mike was purposely alienating Kaylee because he was afraid just knowing him would kill her like it did his son/her father? If so, this is a set up for Mike not interacting with her anymore —instead supporting her financially only.

But he does still interact with her.  Years later, on Breaking Bad, he plays Hungry Hungry Hippos with her, and watches her on the swings at the park.

 

I do think it's unrealistic that an 11-12 year old would still enjoy the swings at that age, or Hungry Hungry Hippos.  But I guess they're simple things to do with Pop Pop.

[nuraman00]

On 2/25/2020 at 5:01 AM, ShadowFacts said:

Why are they all sitting in a car doing a play-by-play within view of the police?

I thought about this too when I was watching.

 

My thinking was that if they started the car and drove, that would attract more attention.

 

It was better to be silent, and wait for the police to leave.

On 2/25/2020 at 5:54 AM, icemiser69 said:

I hate to get all technical, but shouldn't a tree house be built in a tree?   It should have been called a playhouse, not a tree house.

I was thinking the same thing.

[nuraman00]

On 2/26/2020 at 12:20 PM, thuganomics85 said:

Confused over why they focused on the realtor at the end.  Was she shown before?  Setting her up to play a bigger part down the line?  Or just showing her frustration that Jimmy and Kim probably weren't serious about buying it (yet?)

The realtor thought Kim and Saul were idiots for turning on the shower with their clothes on.  And making a mess in the bathroom.

 

The disdain on her face was great.

[Irlandesa]

15 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

Back in the Madmen days I watched every episode over and over and had strong opinions about every character.  Then someone would link to Matthew Weiner saying how we were supposed to feel and I never believed I had to go his way.  I adore and appreciate these great writers, but once their script has gone through the actor's interpretation and our own perceptions and personal  baggage we might be seeing something quite different from the writer's intention -- and I think that's okay.

Vince Gilligan would agree with you.  His opinions feel less prescriptive than Weiner or Shonda Rhimes.  He will even say things like "I think..." before sharing his opinion on what drives the characters. 

5 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

I feel like the change is just his losing something--he was always Saul, but there was a warmth there that's died.

But isn't there also some bitterness there?

On 2/27/2020 at 11:29 AM, Ohwell said:

My issue with Stacey has always been that she acts like Mike has no life outside his relationship with her and Kaylee.

Well he kind of doesn't.  His life is Kaylee.  Moving to NM is for her.  He works to earn money for her. 

On 2/27/2020 at 12:26 PM, chick binewski said:

During S1 & 2 I really thought this was where Kim & Howard were going. However, this season feeling especially ominous I don't see anyone benefitting in the end.

I am getting an ominous feeling too.  Once upon a time, I thought that she'd end up back at HHM as well.  And at the time it made sense to me since I believed Jimmy could see her choosing big or "respectable" law as a rejection of him and their ideals.  And it'd give him the bitter undertones I think he had in BB.  But with Kim's actions in these first two episodes, I suspect she is headed for a rejection of him but I think it'll be at a point where it's too late for her.

[nuraman00]

17 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I watched the scene where he yells at Kaylee again and he repeatedly shouts, "You're done!"  I wonder if that has some second meaning?

I don't think there's a second meaning.

 

I think it's just the way he talks.  He just meant that he didn't want Kaylee painting the steps of the playhouse anymore, because he made it seem that she was doing a bad job.

[nuraman00]

I know Nacho is a criminal, but I feel bad for him.  Before, he was controlled by Hector.  Now, he's controlled by Gus.

Both used the threat of killing his father, against him.

It hurt to see Mike lose control and lash out at Kaylee.  First time we've seen Mike lash out at family.

There was also something called an "Extended Look at Season 5" back on 2/17, but I'm not going to watch it until the season is over.  I don't want spoilers.

 

I'm confused about one thing.  When Nacho was kidnapped and taken in a sedan in front of a taqueria, it seemed like his dad was in there.  What was his dad doing there?

 

I thought his dad worked at an upholstery store.

 

Or was Gus following Nacho's dad off-screen, and he happened to know that Nacho's dad was going to dine-in at the taqueria late at night?  (As opposed to taking the food to-go?)

 

And so while he was dining in, he then sent his men to kidnap Nacho?

 

How can he do all of that in time?  If he's following Nacho's dad, first he sees the dad order food.  Ordering and dining taqueria food shouldn't take more than 30-40 minutes, end to end.  Including 2-3 minutes at the salsa bar.

 

So would that be enough time to then tell his men to go to Nacho's house; kidnap him; bring him back to the taqueria; have one of his men leave the car and order coffee in the taqueria; have Gus give his orders to Nacho; then have the guy who ordered coffee come back into the car?  Is all of that possible in 30-40 minutes?

[shapeshifter]

5 minutes ago, nuraman00 said:

17 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I watched the scene where he yells at Kaylee again and he repeatedly shouts, "You're done!"  I wonder if that has some second meaning?

I don't think there's a second meaning.

 

I think it's just the way he talks.  He just meant that he didn't want Kaylee painting the steps of the playhouse anymore, because he made it seem that she was doing a bad job

Kaylee was putting strips of non-skid material on the steps. Mike yelled about her not putting them on straight, but it seemed she was doing okay. There is probably at least one double entendre to be gleaned from the words and actions, whether intended or not. 

[nuraman00]

Just now, shapeshifter said:

Kaylee was putting strips of non-skid material on the steps. Mike yelled about her not putting them on straight, but it seemed she was doing okay. There is probably at least one double entendre to be gleaned from the words and actions, whether intended or not. 

I agree she was doing an ok job.

 

I think "you're done" just meant stop what you're doing.  But left unsaid is that it wasn't about her actual work on the steps, but about the topic of her dad.

 

I've heard a parent say "you're done" to a child before.  It was meant that they couldn't do the activity they were doing anymore, and were about to be punished.

 

On the TV show, this had the same feeling.  Except this time, Kaylee wasn't doing something poorly, or talking back to her grandparent.  So she wasn't really doing anything wrong, other than bringing up an uncomfortable topic.

 

I also liked how they used the reference of the Eagles in the 2005 SuperBowl to help learn their times table for 7.

[Christina]

In this episode, we apparently learn how Crazy 8 got his name. After a second watch, I still missed it. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

[Xena]

Edited because I was in the right show, but wrong episode thread.

P.S. Christina - I think it was because he folded in the poker game (he was bluffed), he had a pair (or three?) of eights, it was crazy of him to fold.   Anybody correct me if wrong, I was doing other things while watching!

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by Xena

[PeterPirate]

7 hours ago, nuraman00 said:

But he does still interact with her.  Years later, on Breaking Bad, he plays Hungry Hungry Hippos with her, and watches her on the swings at the park.

 

I do think it's unrealistic that an 11-12 year old would still enjoy the swings at that age, or Hungry Hungry Hippos.  But I guess they're simple things to do with Pop Pop.

I am baffled about how the show is going to repair the relationship between Mike and Kaylee.  The way they interact on BB, it's like nothing bad ever happened between them.  

ETA:  I missed the "Crazy 8" part too.  I just checked, and Lalo called him "Ocho Loco" more than once after Domingo folded.  

Edited February 29, 2020 by PeterPirate

[shapeshifter]

36 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

I am baffled about how the show is going to repair the relationship between Mike and Kaylee.  The way they interact on BB, it's like nothing bad ever happened between them.  

Good point. I’m guessing we will see a scene in which Pop-pop sincerely apologizes —except that would require Kaylee getting over her fear and her own likely anger at his angry behavior. He already brought a dog, and I don’t think they have room for a pony. Stay tuned. 

[MaryPatShelby]

Across these boards and BB boards, I have seen such admiration for Gus Fring, and writing of "squealing" with excitement when he appeared on BCS. 

I, for one, don't understand it.  He is a terrible, terrible person, and if we didn't know that before we certainly figured it out tonight. To me he is not a person worthy of admiration; he's a repellent person who would threaten to kill a hard-working innocent old man to get his way, and he'd go ahead with that murder if it helped him.  

[MaryPatShelby]

On 2/24/2020 at 9:41 PM, Dev F said:

...but this week's twist is pretty ingenious . . .

We're meant to think, right, that Domingo isn't actually a rat -- that Lalo is going to use him to feed Gus's dealers to the DEA?

It also means that Jimmy's boneheaded stunt is actually responsible for the downfall of Gus's entire empire, since it set in motion the only chain of events -- Domingo becomes an informant and ultimately gives up his own cousin, Jesse's partner Emilio, to the DEA -- that would bring together Jesse and Walt. 

This is an example of why I'm not crazy (Krazy? lol) about the drug storylines in this show.  I find it challenging to follow all the machinations of the trade, much less remembering everything that happened in BB!

I need a better brain. 

[Clanstarling]

On 2/29/2020 at 4:19 AM, PeterPirate said:

I am baffled about how the show is going to repair the relationship between Mike and Kaylee.  The way they interact on BB, it's like nothing bad ever happened between them. 

Children have a way of accepting that kind of behavior (not that they aren't damaged by it). Which isn't to say she wouldn't be scarred by it, or wouldn't be a walking on eggshells period after.

On 2/28/2020 at 10:55 PM, nuraman00 said:

I'm confused about one thing.  When Nacho was kidnapped and taken in a sedan in front of a taqueria, it seemed like his dad was in there.  What was his dad doing there?

 

I thought his dad worked at an upholstery store.

 

Or was Gus following Nacho's dad off-screen, and he happened to know that Nacho's dad was going to dine-in at the taqueria late at night?  (As opposed to taking the food to-go?)

It looked to me that Nacho's father was there having dinner and/or playing some sort of game with friends. I imagine it would be a regular thing, and Gus would already know where to find Nacho's father, because he's a detail person and would know the weak points for everyone he deals with. Nacho's father seems to be the only person on the show with a social life. 😉

I'm confused about the discussions about Kim going back to HHM. As I recall, Kim joined the law firm that was the other side in the retirement home case, and talked them into making her head of the banking division - bringing along Mesa Verde. She did this so she would be able to keep Mesa Verde (who were pissed at her for not taking a call when she was helping with the case with the young woman). This allowed her to hire associates do the grunt work, do pro bono work, and still keep Mesa Verde happy. 

Did I miss her getting fired from that law firm?

Edited March 2, 2020 by Clanstarling

[Ailianna]

She wasn't fired.  She quit. That's why she ended up running around at the oil wells and in her car crash--she's on her own now essentially  Once or twice she has been shown with a secretary or intern (but we know they lost the secretary last season, and no interns lately).

[Clanstarling]

39 minutes ago, Ailianna said:

She wasn't fired.  She quit. That's why she ended up running around at the oil wells and in her car crash--she's on her own now essentially  Once or twice she has been shown with a secretary or intern (but we know they lost the secretary last season, and no interns lately).

I finally had time to look it up. In season 4, she got hired at Schweikart's law firm. I finally had the time to look it up. Here's her storyline for Season 4 - which means that at the beginning of this season, she's still employed (unless something's happened off screen that we haven't seen.)

Quote

Season 4

See also: Better Call Saul (season 4)

Following Chuck's suicide, Kim tries without success to break Jimmy out of his despondent mood. Howard tells Jimmy and Kim he thinks that his decision to force Chuck's retirement from HHM after their malpractice insurance rates rose led to Chuck's death. Jimmy conceals his role in causing the rate increase, allows Howard to shoulder the blame, and regains his usual happy-go-lucky demeanor. Unaware of Jimmy's actions, Kim later berates Howard for mistreating Jimmy. Kim works on Mesa Verde's rapid regional expansion, but is increasingly bored with banking law, so she begins taking pro bono criminal defense cases, which she finds more interesting and satisfying. After she is reprimanded by Paige for putting her pro bono work ahead of Mesa Verde's, Kim persuades Schweikart & Cokely to hire her as a partner to manage a new banking division, which enables her to handle the Mesa Verde work while continuing to devote time and effort to criminal defense cases. With her career becoming more successful, she becomes more distant from Jimmy, who works a boring job as a cellular phone store manager while he serves out the suspension of his law license. By 2004 Jimmy has a lucrative side business reselling prepaid cellular phones on the street under the alias Saul Goodman, and hires Huell Babineaux as his bodyguard. Huell has a run-in with a police officer, who arrests him, and Jimmy convinces Kim to defend Huell to keep him from receiving a prison sentence. Finding it impossible to convince the prosecuting attorney to enter into a plea bargain, Kim and Jimmy run a con to fake a show of support for Huell in his hometown. They keep Huell out of prison, and then engage in a con that enables Kim to replace approved plans for a Mesa Verde branch in Lubbock, Texas with plans for a larger building, saving time and expense by bypassing the city zoning and planning approval processes. After his suspension is over, Kim helps Jimmy win reinstatement to the bar by faking remorse for Chuck's death. He promises to do justice to the McGill name, but after winning reinstatement shocks Kim by announcing that he does not intend to practice under his own name. As Kim questions Jimmy about his plan, he tells her "S'all good, man!

The article is here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Wexler

Edited February 29, 2020 by Clanstarling

[sistermagpie]

10 hours ago, nuraman00 said:

But he does still interact with her.  Years later, on Breaking Bad, he plays Hungry Hungry Hippos with her, and watches her on the swings at the park.

I do think it's unrealistic that an 11-12 year old would still enjoy the swings at that age, or Hungry Hungry Hippos.  But I guess they're simple things to do with Pop Pop.

It seems like she's not supposed to be that old because you're right, there's no way they think that's what it's like to spend time with a kid that age. Those scenes in BB were obviously intended to show him interacting with a little girl. But maybe they also needed her to be old enough here to have conversations like the one here. Sometimes it's hard to tell how old kids really are.

9 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

But isn't there also some bitterness there?

I agree. In general he becomes a more hardened person. A lot of it is grief, but I think there's also resentment and bitterness too.

3 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I am baffled about how the show is going to repair the relationship between Mike and Kaylee.  The way they interact on BB, it's like nothing bad ever happened between them.  

 

I don't think it would be that hard. People who deal with each other a lot can get over a time when one of them snapped at them, even times when "snapped at them" is a ridiculous understatement. Mike's put in lots of time being the World's Best Grandpa and he can make it right. Even if Kaylee never forgets the interaction.

[nodorothyparker]

Kim's solo work and falling asleep at the wheel happened before she joined Schweikart and Cokely.  It was their party that Jimmy made an ass out of himself at last season.  While Kim was definitely engaging in questionable if not downright illegal behavior getting caught up in Jimmy's schemes (Coushetta, anyone?), we've been given no indication yet that Kim is looking to leave S&C or that they have any inkling of what else she's been up to that might result in their parting ways. 

I admit to being a little surprised that HHM is supposedly doing "better than ever" when last we saw, Jimmy was yelling at Howard to get his shit together after they seemed in danger of folding, but I guess we'll see.  That they're still on the canvas and Howard seemed rather anxious to get together with Jimmy would suggest that there's still something there and that it might bring Kim's story full circle to back where she started. It's a possibility.  I thought all along the operatic feud between the brothers McGill would end up bringing down the house Chuck built, but it would also probably be pretty devastating to Jimmy if Kim rejected him to choose the entity that rejected him and cut him out over and over.

[PeterPirate]

3 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

Children have a way of accepting that kind of behavior (not that they aren't damaged by it). Which isn't to say she wouldn't be scarred by it, or wouldn't be a walking on eggshells period after. Speaking as a person with a volatile parent.

I suppose that's how they will handle it.  Option B is that Mike performs a Jimmy Swaggart mea culpa and gets both Kaylee and Stacey to take him back into their hearts. 

Option C is that Kaylee ends up having a MENSA-level IQ, figures out her Pop Pop is a gangster, and blackmails him into buying her ice cream and mylar balloons, and also putting all his money into an off-shore bank account in her name.  

 

Howard and HHM seemed to have recovered by the end of season 4.  My own speculation is that Howard is going to figure out that Chuck was right about Jimmy--and might even dig up evidence of malfeasance by Kim--and do something to cause problems for them.  

Edited February 29, 2020 by PeterPirate

[Irlandesa]

4 hours ago, MaryPatShelby said:

Across these boards and BB boards, I have seen such admiration for Gus Fring, and writing of "squealing" with excitement when he appeared on BCS. 

I, for one, don't understand it.  He is a terrible, terrible person, and if we didn't know that before we certainly figured it out tonight. To me he is not a person worthy of admiration; he's a repellent person who would threaten to kill a hard-working innocent old man to get his way, and he'd go ahead with that murder if it helped him.  

This show, and Breaking Bad, are largely shows about criminals or people doing criminal behavior. In both shows, I tend to root for the non-criminals but there are so few that I have to find something enjoyable in the criminals too. 

With Gus, I enjoy the performance and how businesslesslike he was.  I loved the chess game he played with Walt and Jesse.  So many of the stories in BB and BCS involved one criminal enterprise against another.  It's natural to have a preference for one.

3 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

Children have a way of accepting that kind of behavior (not that they aren't damaged by it). Which isn't to say she wouldn't be scarred by it, or wouldn't be a walking on eggshells period after. Speaking as a person with a volatile parent.

Yes.  And this is unusual behavior for him with her so I'm guessing it'll be pretty easy for her to forgive him. 

Quote

I'm confused about the discussions about Kim going back to HHM.

She still works at the other big law firm.  I think people are speculating about HHM because Howard is still around and we're wondering how he'll fit into the show going forward.   

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

I admit to being a little surprised that HHM is supposedly doing "better than ever" when last we saw, Jimmy was yelling at Howard to get his shit together after they seemed in danger of folding, but I guess we'll see. 

I do think we saw a brief glimpse at HHM that made it appear as if it was recovering.  I don't remember the specific scene, though.

[TVFan17]

6 hours ago, MaryPatShelby said:

Across these boards and BB boards, I have seen such admiration for Gus Fring, and writing of "squealing" with excitement when he appeared on BCS. 

I, for one, don't understand it.  He is a terrible, terrible person, and if we didn't know that before we certainly figured it out tonight. To me he is not a person worthy of admiration; he's a repellent person who would threaten to kill a hard-working innocent old man to get his way, and he'd go ahead with that murder if it helped him.  

Yes, I believe that I am the one (or one of the ones) who said I squealed with excitement or would squeal with excitement over seeing Gus on Better Call Saul.  And I stand by that statement -- 100%!!

I'm not watching Better Caul Saul to see good people doing good things.  I can get that kind of thing on other channels or in other content, and I do watch plenty of positive, wholesome content with non-criminals too.  I am watching BCS (just as I watched Breaking Bad) to see how good people -- although flawed -- end up doing not-so-good things, and how they end up getting into dire situations because of their choices, and how those choices impact the people around them, etc. 

I am also watching to see the different levels of bad guys -- because some of them seem so reprehensible and erratic that they have no line in the sand and will do anything to anyone at the drop of a hat, whereas some of them seem terrible but still have some sort of limit or perhaps won't do certain extreme things until pushed.  For example... Tuco and Gus are two totally different types of terrible people in the way they conduct themselves.  Lalo and the Salamanca Cousins/Brothers are also totally different in how they behave.

I don't mind that Gus is a terrible guy on BCS or on BB because he is interesting to me.  Villains are inherently compelling.  (Also, knowing what his ultimate fate will be helps a lot!)  He is charismatic and enigmatic, and he has a presence onscreen that is ominous.  He doesn't even have to speak.  He can stand there and be silent and he is still menacing.  The way his face subtly changes from 'happy, pleasant, Los Pollos Hermanos Gus' to 'I've had enough of these shenanigans and you're trying my patience Gus' is fascinating and quite scary.  This, of course, is due in no small part to the skills of the masterful, magnificent Giancarlo Esposito.

(Spoiler for a different series ahead...) The character of Gus Fring is so iconic now that when Giancarlo Esposito appeared -- as a villain, of course --

Spoiler

on a couple of episodes in Season 1 of The Mandalorian on Disney+, people were referring to his character (Moff Gideon) as "Space Gus" or "Moff Fring."  He's back in Season 2 of that show as well -- he's been talking openly about it in media and he was even talking about The Mandalorian at his recent appearance at the Winter TCAs to promote Better Call Saul!-- and I am delighted that he is back because of his ominous presence, dramatic speeches and fabulous cape!  However, he poses a threat to the main characters on the show and I hope he is defeated.  When Moff Gideon appears onscreen in The Mandalorian for the first time, it's hard to not think of Gus right away.

 

Edited February 29, 2020 by TVFan17

[meira.hand]

On 2/25/2020 at 10:30 PM, Bryce Lynch said:

But, 50% of a criminal lawyer's fees is still more than most meth heads have lying around.  Plus, having a lawyer is not a get out of jail free card.   There is no way a 50% discount from a lawyer would affect anyone's behavior.  The show has started to get a bit silly.  

Exactly. I must admit this whole plot point eludes me. I kept thinking that I must have missed something here, because it never made sense, not when KIm suggested it and even less when the dumb pair went thru their rampage. The only point that sort of contributed to the story was that they went for a much larger drug buy, which is probably what resulted in the packets being stuck in the drain pipe.

[MrWhyt]

8 hours ago, MaryPatShelby said:

Across these boards and BB boards, I have seen such admiration for Gus Fring, and writing of "squealing" with excitement when he appeared on BCS. 

I, for one, don't understand it.  He is a terrible, terrible person, and if we didn't know that before we certainly figured it out tonight. To me he is not a person worthy of admiration; he's a repellent person who would threaten to kill a hard-working innocent old man to get his way, and he'd go ahead with that murder if it helped him.  

I don't think anyone watching wants Gus to be their BFF. I like him because

a: he's an interesting character

2: It's a great performance

iii: it's enjoyable to watch competent people carrying out their plans/schemes

Edited February 29, 2020 by MrWhyt

[nuraman00]

6 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

It looked to me that Nacho's father was there having dinner and/or playing some sort of game with friends. I imagine it would be a regular thing, and Gus would already know where to find Nacho's father, because he's a detail person and would know the weak points for everyone he deals with. Nacho's father seems to be the only person on the show with a social life. 😉

 

That's a good idea.  I think you're right, that he was probably playing a game with friends.  Hence why he would be at a taqueria for a long time.

[nuraman00]

5 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

It seems like she's not supposed to be that old because you're right, there's no way they think that's what it's like to spend time with a kid that age. Those scenes in BB were obviously intended to show him interacting with a little girl. But maybe they also needed her to be old enough here to have conversations like the one here. Sometimes it's hard to tell how old kids really are.

I agree. In general he becomes a more hardened person. A lot of it is grief, but I think there's also resentment and bitterness too.

I don't think it would be that hard. People who deal with each other a lot can get over a time when one of them snapped at them, even times when "snapped at them" is a ridiculous understatement. Mike's put in lots of time being the World's Best Grandpa and he can make it right. Even if Kaylee never forgets the interaction.

I think what happened is that on BB, they made it seem like she was a little girl, but accidentally gave her an older age, around 11 - 12 years old.

 

Then on BCS, she is supposed to be younger.  But the various actresses are probably older than the one on BB, and that's why on BCS, the actresses have more complicated verbal interactions.

 

If, on BB, they wanted Pop Pop to interact with Kaylee, but still have her 11-12 years old, a more realistic scene would be in a mall, or movie theater, or amusement park.  They could have still had Mike abandon her at one of those places, because he had to go get his Go Bag.

 

If they were going to have her at a park, instead of the swings, he could have been watching her play a game with friends, like frisbee, or throwing a baseball around, etc.  I don't think they had swings at my middle school playground.  Just basketball courts.

Edited February 29, 2020 by nuraman00

[PeterPirate]

Kaylee is 10 in BB (revealed in Madrigal), so she is no more than 8 in this episode.  The actress who played Kaylee in this episode is also 10.  Kaylee's age is somewhat hard to pin down.  On the one hand, she had some pretty long lines for a young child.  On the other, she was not good in math.  

[SoMuchTV]

I feel like with the adults, between BB and BCS, we can kind of look the other way about the age issues, but with Kaylee, that’s the one thing we’re just gonna have to accept that that’s the only way to make the story work  and move on. 

[ShadowFacts]

8 hours ago, MaryPatShelby said:

Across these boards and BB boards, I have seen such admiration for Gus Fring, and writing of "squealing" with excitement when he appeared on BCS. 

I, for one, don't understand it.  He is a terrible, terrible person, and if we didn't know that before we certainly figured it out tonight. To me he is not a person worthy of admiration; he's a repellent person who would threaten to kill a hard-working innocent old man to get his way, and he'd go ahead with that murder if it helped him.  

I get why people like to watch him, but I'm tiring of him. He's coming across as too one-note. He's not showing any of the gentlemanly charm that was part of his Breaking Bad persona and made him interesting. I get that he doesn't have to be charming with fellow thugs. But when he recently intoned to Mike to be careful what he said next, I just laughed. Threatening to hurt Nacho's father like he did was overkill, not even necessary, since he killed Victor right in front of Nacho which would seem to be enough of a threat.

[TVFan17]

35 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

I get why people like to watch him, but I'm tiring of him. He's coming across as too one-note. He's not showing any of the gentlemanly charm that was part of his Breaking Bad persona and made him interesting. I get that he doesn't have to be charming with fellow thugs. But when he recently intoned to Mike to be careful what he said next, I just laughed. Threatening to hurt Nacho's father like he did was overkill, not even necessary, since he killed Victor right in front of Nacho which would seem to be enough of a threat.

He killed Victor in front of Walt, Jesse and Mike.  Nacho wasn't around in the Box Cutter episode.  I think you mean he killed the other guy in front of Nacho.  Was his name Arturo, or am I thinking of someone else?

[ShadowFacts]

14 minutes ago, TVFan17 said:

He killed Victor in front of Walt, Jesse and Mike.  Nacho wasn't around in the Box Cutter episode.  I think you mean he killed the other guy in front of Nacho.  Was his name Arturo, or am I thinking of someone else?

Yes, sorry not Victor, Arturo.

[DoctorAtomic]

On 2/28/2020 at 7:51 AM, JudyObscure said:

Then someone would link to Matthew Weiner saying how we were supposed to feel and I never believed I had to go his way.  I adore and appreciate these great writers, but once their script has gone through the actor's interpretation and our own perceptions and personal  baggage we might be seeing something quite different from the writer's intention -- and I think that's okay.

This is the correct way to watch tv shows, and I have many things to say about this issue.

I really despise this trend and frankly it's insulting to your viewership. I don't watch/listen/read anything from showrunners. (kind of joke) - Like the Doctor, showrunners *lie*. I don't care what they have to say in the run of a show. Maybe after a series has ended, ok, I might be interested in their pov on how the show actually got made. I think this started with Lost because they just threw anything that was anything into the show even though it was patently absurd, and they had to make viewers thing there was some logic behind it because otherwise no one would watch. 

Could you imagine, you go to a museum, look at a painting, and tell your friend how it makes you feel, and then the artist runs in and tells you that you're wrong? It's patently ridiculous. Or if you listen to a song and the writer tells you that your experience isn't what they wanted. Why would a tv show be different?

I mean, ok, I don't think that aliens came down and gave Jimmy magic colorful suits that turned him into Saul. The showrunner is well within the margins to point out that the show isn't about aliens. I do actually have the mental capacity to watch the show, pay attention, and take something away from it. For me, what I am seeing this season so far, and I think it was underscored here was that Kim is checking out of this relationship and that's what's really going to put Saul on the path of a 'criminal. lawyer', which is kind of his fault, and infuses the show with some of the classical tragedy of Breaking Bad. I think that's interesting, and that's why I'm watching. I'm rooting for 'Gene' too. If that's not what the showrunner intended, I don't really care. And why should he care to correct what I think? I'm watching the show. That's really the main point. 

 

[Ellaria]

On 2/28/2020 at 9:51 AM, JudyObscure said:

Then someone would link to Matthew Weiner saying how we were supposed to feel and I never believed I had to go his way.  I adore and appreciate these great writers, but once their script has gone through the actor's interpretation and our own perceptions and personal  baggage we might be seeing something quite different from the writer's intention -- and I think that's okay.

7 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

I really despise this trend and frankly it's insulting to your viewership. I don't watch/listen/read anything from showrunners. (kind of joke) - Like the Doctor, showrunners *lie*. I don't care what they have to say in the run of a show. Maybe after a series has ended, ok, I might be interested in their pov on how the show actually got made. I think this started with Lost because they just threw anything that was anything into the show even though it was patently absurd, and they had to make viewers thing there was some logic behind it because otherwise no one would watch. 

Could you imagine, you go to a museum, look at a painting, and tell your friend how it makes you feel, and then the artist runs in and tells you that you're wrong? It's patently ridiculous. Or if you listen to a song and the writer tells you that your experience isn't what they wanted. Why would a tv show be different?

100% agree with these statements. I don’t need anyone to advise me on my viewing experience - not a friend or a columnist or a show runner. I’ve been burned too many times by show runners (Lost, Mad Men, GOT). It is art. Everyone involved in it’s creation puts their own touch on it, however minimal. And everyone involved in viewing it experiences it in a unique way. I hate being told what I’m supposed to think by a show runner. It negates the entire purpose. 

[Christina]

On 2/29/2020 at 6:56 AM, Xena said:

P.S. Christina - I think it was because he folded in the poker game (he was bluffed), he had a pair (or three?) of eights, it was crazy of him to fold.   Anybody correct me if wrong, I was doing other things while watching!

 

 

On 2/29/2020 at 7:19 AM, PeterPirate said:

ETA:  I missed the "Crazy 8" part too.  I just checked, and Lalo called him "Ocho Loco" more than once after Domingo folded.  

Thank you both. I figured it was part of the poker game so I payed more attention the second time and still missed it. It was probably because I was annoyed by Lalo's mere presence.

[Clanstarling]

8 hours ago, DoctorAtomic said:

This is the correct way to watch tv shows, and I have many things to say about this issue.

I really despise this trend and frankly it's insulting to your viewership. I don't watch/listen/read anything from showrunners. (kind of joke) - Like the Doctor, showrunners *lie*. I don't care what they have to say in the run of a show. Maybe after a series has ended, ok, I might be interested in their pov on how the show actually got made. I think this started with Lost because they just threw anything that was anything into the show even though it was patently absurd, and they had to make viewers thing there was some logic behind it because otherwise no one would watch. 

Could you imagine, you go to a museum, look at a painting, and tell your friend how it makes you feel, and then the artist runs in and tells you that you're wrong? It's patently ridiculous. Or if you listen to a song and the writer tells you that your experience isn't what they wanted. Why would a tv show be different?

I mean, ok, I don't think that aliens came down and gave Jimmy magic colorful suits that turned him into Saul. The showrunner is well within the margins to point out that the show isn't about aliens. I do actually have the mental capacity to watch the show, pay attention, and take something away from it. For me, what I am seeing this season so far, and I think it was underscored here was that Kim is checking out of this relationship and that's what's really going to put Saul on the path of a 'criminal. lawyer', which is kind of his fault, and infuses the show with some of the classical tragedy of Breaking Bad. I think that's interesting, and that's why I'm watching. I'm rooting for 'Gene' too. If that's not what the showrunner intended, I don't really care. And why should he care to correct what I think? I'm watching the show. That's really the main point. 

 

 

17 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

100% agree with these statements. I don’t need anyone to advise me on my viewing experience - not a friend or a columnist or a show runner. I’ve been burned too many times by show runners (Lost, Mad Men, GOT). It is art. Everyone involved in it’s creation puts their own touch on it, however minimal. And everyone involved in viewing it experiences it in a unique way. I hate being told what I’m supposed to think by a show runner. It negates the entire purpose. 

I go out of my way to avoid what showrunners are saying. I don't need to be spoonfed or pumped up about an upcoming episode. If I like the series, I'll watch it, and will form my own opinions.  I find if I have no particular expectations, I enjoy it more and tend to be a little more forgiving with weak episodes or endings.  Which doesn't mean there aren't episodes I don't like. I'm just more chill than I used to be. There are enough things in the world to get upset about, I don't need to add another thing to the list.