S06.E03: Rock and Hard Place

[Bannon]

21 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

^ I agree that Kim’s motivations (unlike Jimmy’s) have not been sufficiently shown yet. We’ve gotten one childhood flashback showing an alcoholic undependable mom and a few brief sentences in a job interview about getting out of a small town—and I think that’s it? (Please correct me.)

But I have high confidence that, with 10 eps to go, TPTB will definitely fill us in more on Kim. :)

In that job interview, when asked what she wanted, which drove her to leave that small town in Nebraska, the answer was simply "more". I suspect that whatever that it was she had there was sufficiently terrible that the word "more" is concealing quite a bit. We shall see.

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, qtpye said:

I think Gilligan is an amazing writer but I really still do not understand what is going on with her.

I don't understand her either but it's not Gilligan; it's Gould.

Gilligan took a step back from the writers room in seasons 4 and 5 to work on other projects.  He still directed an episode a season but unlike seasons 1-3, where he at least co-wrote an episode and season 6 where he wrote one of the final episodes, he didn't write anything for those two seasons.  The writers room stopped being a two hander starting in season 4. I don't know what the dynamic is now. 

The decision to make Kim break bad happened (at 60 mph) at the end of season 5.

Maybe it's an unpopular opinion but I think the show peaked with Chuck's death so I wasn't terribly surprised to later learn that Gilligan wasn't as involved.  Season 4 and 5 were fine as entertainment but not as strong or tightly structured story wise.

I think back to learning that Chuck was the one preventing Jimmy from working at HHM and not Howard.  It was a shocking reveal that wasn't planned but that didn't matter, we knew enough about Jimmy and Chuck's relationship and personalities for it to work seamlessly.

I don't feel that way about Kim's turn.  I fear whatever happens is going to make sense to explain why Jimmy is the way he is but the reasons why she makes the choices she makes won't ever make sense to me.  Maybe I'm a Gilligan fan girl but I suspect it would have made more sense had Gilligan been in the room when the decision was made.

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Irlandesa

[gallimaufry]

Still need to rewatch the episode to get my thoughts but a few quick things:

The flower was a classic BB/BCS puzzle teaser.  I absolutely love the flower and the glass.  So perfect and poetic.  I commented the other day that I thought a problem with Nacho's death is that this seems to be a show about how to live a moral path and about carrying on and what would the death really tell us about that.  But the flower -- a pure life from pure-hearted sacrifice.  That's really beautiful.  

(And I think the comparison with Chuck is, again, instructive -- Chuck left nothing but ash and nobody wanted to "crawl around the fire-damaged wreck where [Jimmy's] brother died screaming".  I'll be interested to see if we have a similar sense of the legacy of Gus and Mike -- I assume we'll at least see how Kayleigh is post-Mike).

That said, I wouldn't like the other characters on this show to have so bleak an ending as Nacho and Chuck had.  We know Mike and Gus will die.  We can almost guarantee that Kim and Jimmy are going to be pretty wretched. 

I'm not entirely sure though why we had the camera seeming to hunt for it through the desert for the first half.  Was it supposed to be the point of view of a snake or to simulate someone looking around?  It seemed to call attention to itself more than a pan across would and I'm not quite clear what that was about. 

Manuel Varga's "What else is there to say" made me think: "I love you."  Of course the whole point is to leave that unresolved and I think both characters have demonstrated that love for each other.  But there is an edge of coldness.  Then again, without that, it would undermine the sacrifice -- it's a much deeper love that's expressed.

Hiding in the oil drum seemed risky to me - my first thought was that the Cousins would just blow the thing up rather than search it.  But then I forgot they wanted Nacho alive.

This felt like Nacho's "Five-O" - the episode that was really all about him and only peripherally about Jimmy.  I kind of hope Gus and even Howard get episodes like this before the end.  With Gus there's definitely so much to explore and I don't really like to think they'd leave too much on the table.  And Patrick Fabian has been doing brilliant but largely thankless work for several seasons now - the odd scene every couple of episodes, this season mostly at a distance.  I would really like to see us get under his skin in a big way.  Even though if we do, it'll probably be because he's leaving in a body bag.

I do hope Nacho isn't forgotten.  I want the death to be more than just a high note in the story but to fold into Mike's journey in a big way.  I guess through Manuel who does seem very exposed in the story right now. 

Quote

I used to love Kim.

She reminded me a lot of myself. I was a corporate lawyer that lost all my joy in the profession and went on to more satisfying things. I also come from a humble background.

I usually think Gilligan is a genius but I am still confused as to why the Hell Kim is so hellbent on destroying Howard?

Mechanistically, I can see why -- i.e. doing so is a means to an end that benefits her and benefits a lot of other people, and hopefully we can trust from 510 that her intention is only to deliver Howard a set-back, not destruction.

But it feels a little wearying seeing this version of Kim spiral.  I think the problem was that Season 2 Kim was so damn heroic and she was still written that way through to the middle of Season 4.  It was clear the car crashed changed things and being duped by Jimmy (albeit accidentally) in 410 changed things.  I also think Chuck's death had a big impact on her nearly as much as Jimmy.  But the turning point is 407-409 with the two consecutive cons and then 506 which weren't externally motivated so much as a response to Jimmy.  And there are some abrupt changes: she first lies to a client in 501 and by 503 she's plotting a massive deception.  I think they said they came to the twist in 510 quite late on and to be honest it feels like that -- an abrupt acceleration.  That said, I think it works and I can see how they've set it up.  But it feels conspicuous that the good, law-abiding side of Kim seems to have been almost entirely annihilated and I hope we get some kind of arbitration between the two sides of her sooner than later.

3 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I don't understand her either but it's not Gilligan; it's Gould.

Gilligan took a step back from the writers room in seasons 4 and 5 to work on other projects.  He still directed an episode a season but unlike seasons 1-3, where he at least co-wrote an episode and season 6 where he wrote one of the final episodes, he didn't write anything for those two seasons.  The writers room stopped being a two hander starting in season 4. I don't know what the dynamic is now. 

The decision to make Kim break bad happened (at 60 mph) at the end of season 5.

Maybe it's an unpopular opinion but I think the show peaked with Chuck's death so I wasn't terribly surprised to later learn that Gilligan wasn't as involved.  Season 4 and 5 were fine as entertainment but not as strong or tightly structured story wise.

I think back to learning that Chuck was the one preventing Jimmy from working at HHM and not Howard.  It was a shocking reveal that wasn't planned but that didn't matter, we knew enough about Jimmy and Chuck's relationship and personalities for it not to work seamlessly.

I don't feel that way about Kim's turn.  I fear whatever happens is going to make sense to explain why Jimmy is the way he is but the reasons why she makes the choices she makes won't ever make sense to me.  Maybe I'm a Gilligan fan girl but I suspect it would have made more sense had Gilligan been in the room when the decision was made.

 

I agree Season 3 is the show's peak.  Season 6 could well be a peak as well but of quite a different sort -- this was always the difficulty with a hybrid show like "Better Call Saul" which wants to grow organically but needs to grow into BB.

However, all credit to Peter Gould, he ran Season 3 as well.  And Vince has been in all S6 so there's plenty of time for him to course-correct if he feels that's warranted.  I tend to feel that Gilligan's instincts run darker -- look at the averted deaths of Walt Jr and Jesse, and the more nuanced version of Jane's death.  So I don't think him being in the room more would have changed the trajectory.  Perhaps the method of getting there would be different but then again there we never got a particularly strong sense of Marie's character (the shoplifting thing occasionally raised its head to cause conflict and then was forgotten) and I think a lot of the extreme twists with Skylar's character particularly in Seasons 3 and 5 took a leap.

The one thing that worries me about Peter Gould is saying that we wouldn't necessarily have or want answers to every question about characters like Kim and Gus.  And there is certainly a space to let these characters be open to interpretation but I think the lesson of episodes like "Five-O" and "Salud" is that if you pay off a character's mysteries in the right way then it will feel supremely satisfying.  Just because the finale is the hardest part of the card trick doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted.

[Irlandesa]

55 minutes ago, gallimaufry said:

 I tend to feel that Gilligan's instincts run darker -- look at the averted deaths of Walt Jr and Jesse, and the more nuanced version of Jane's death.  So I don't think him being in the room more would have changed the trajectory.  Perhaps the method of getting there would be different but then again there we never got a particularly strong sense of Marie's character (the shoplifting thing occasionally raised its head to cause conflict and then was forgotten) and I think a lot of the extreme twists with Skylar's character particularly in Seasons 3 and 5 took a leap.

That's fair, although I do think that Skylar made sense in the end.  And Marie's kleptomania was presented as a facet of her character from the beginning so I don't think they needed to do more explanation on that.

It's also not the darkness I object to.  I would absolutely be fine with the trajectory we're on if I felt more connected to her motivation.

[qtpye]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

Maybe it's an unpopular opinion but I think the show peaked with Chuck's death so I wasn't terribly surprised to later learn that Gilligan wasn't as involved.  Season 4 and 5 were fine as entertainment but not as strong or tightly structured story wise.

I think back to learning that Chuck was the one preventing Jimmy from working at HHM and not Howard.  It was a shocking reveal that wasn't planned but that didn't matter, we knew enough about Jimmy and Chuck's relationship and personalities for it to work seamlessly.

I don't feel that way about Kim's turn.  I fear whatever happens is going to make sense to explain why Jimmy is the way he is but the reasons why she makes the choices she makes won't ever make sense to me.  Maybe I'm a Gilligan fan girl but I suspect it would have made more sense had Gilligan been in the room when the decision was made.

That gives me less faith. I honestly have not been as engaged since Chuck's death, as well.  The show is still good but it feels much more meandering.

1 hour ago, scenario said:

IMO the Kim we are seeing now is the real Kim. She's always been there but was forcing herself to stay on the straight and narrow for years. Jimmy and Kim saw that in each other and that's one of the things that attracted them.  They slowly, step by step egged each other on. 

The way Kim said A Rat tells me she has personal experience with it. Either she was the Rat and hates herself for it. Or someone ratted her out and she's on the run because of it. 

 

Ironically, that would make her more like Walter than Skyler

1 hour ago, Bannon said:

Nobility does not grow from lacking flaws, or even lacking terrible flaws. It comes from being willing to sacrifice that which you value, without prospect of personal gain, for other people. Yes, Nacho was extremely flawed. He grew to recognize that, and in the end, he willingly sacrificed his life for his father. That's noble. Extremely so.

Did he save his father? He knew he was going to die anyway and he made some very dangerous people extremely angry right before he shot himself. What is going to keep Hector from going after his father or destroying his business? This is a man who irrationally shoots a dead corpse a million times. He now knows Nacho put him in his wheelchair and has no one but the father to take out his revenge. I still hope the father is safe and we do not hear about him again for the rest of the series.

There was a certain nobility or dignity to his death but not in the decisions that got him in this predicament which were motivated by greed. The actor is extremely likable but the character was dead the minute he got caught up in the war between Gus and Hector. Like Jessie, he sealed his doom but unlike Jessie, he really should have known better. 

I will miss him, though and I hope the actor gets plenty of work in the future.

[anoninrva]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Isn't this basically canon? Walt absolutely thought he was going to be really successful. That's why they called it a starter house. And failure made Walt give up and disappear.

It's been a while since I saw Breaking Bad, but I thought it was more hubris with Walt not wanting to accept his partners' terms, and falling back to teaching.  Teaching was not his initial plan.  Walt shows a lot of pride through the series.

[anoninrva]

1 hour ago, gallimaufry said:

Mechanistically, I can see why -- i.e. doing so is a means to an end that benefits her and benefits a lot of other people, and hopefully we can trust from 510 that her intention is only to deliver Howard a set-back, not destruction.

But it feels a little wearying seeing this version of Kim spiral.  I think the problem was that Season 2 Kim was so damn heroic and she was still written that way through to the middle of Season 4.  It was clear the car crashed changed things and being duped by Jimmy (albeit accidentally) in 410 changed things.  I also think Chuck's death had a big impact on her nearly as much as Jimmy.  But the turning point is 407-409 with the two consecutive cons and then 506 which weren't externally motivated so much as a response to Jimmy.  And there are some abrupt changes: she first lies to a client in 501 and by 503 she's plotting a massive deception.  I think they said they came to the twist in 510 quite late on and to be honest it feels like that -- an abrupt acceleration.  That said, I think it works and I can see how they've set it up.  But it feels conspicuous that the good, law-abiding side of Kim seems to have been almost entirely annihilated and I hope we get some kind of arbitration between the two sides of her sooner than later.

I'm not sure if the writers intend this quite so blatantly, but in a way, Kim quitting corporate law and pursuing pro-bono work full time (how she manages that financially, with subordinates is a mystery to me) is just doing what feels good to her.  Likewise, screwing over Howard, running scams with Jimmy, messing with the Kettlemans.  They do establish her feeling bad about her job running the old man off his property, and her hardscrabble life with her mother, sure, but she's still a hedonist.  There may not be much more to it than that.

[PeterPirate]

4 hours ago, anoninrva said:

I'm not sure if the writers intend this quite so blatantly, but in a way, Kim quitting corporate law and pursuing pro-bono work full time (how she manages that financially, with subordinates is a mystery to me) is just doing what feels good to her.  Likewise, screwing over Howard, running scams with Jimmy, messing with the Kettlemans.  They do establish her feeling bad about her job running the old man off his property, and her hardscrabble life with her mother, sure, but she's still a hedonist.  There may not be much more to it than that.

Exactly. 

For that matter what evidence do we have that Kim is a "good" person?  Some people identify with Kim and maybe they project their own goodness onto her.  Or maybe in the current era, female characters are automatically assumed to be good.  Or maybe her crappy childhood gives her license that someone with privilege doesn't get. 

But I see nothing in Kim's present or her past that tells me she is a "good" person who genuinely cares about the well-being of other people.  Indeed, she was already good friends with Jimmy when he passed the bar, and I find it ludicrous to believe that she didn't know why he was working in the mailroom of his brother's law firm.   

Edited April 27, 2022 by PeterPirate
To keep ranting.

[Bannon]

5 hours ago, qtpye said:

That gives me less faith. I honestly have not been as engaged since Chuck's death, as well.  The show is still good but it feels much more meandering.

Ironically, that would make her more like Walter than Skyler

Did he save his father? He knew he was going to die anyway and he made some very dangerous people extremely angry right before he shot himself. What is going to keep Hector from going after his father or destroying his business? This is a man who irrationally shoots a dead corpse a million times. He now knows Nacho put him in his wheelchair and has no one but the father to take out his revenge. I still hope the father is safe and we do not hear about him again for the rest of the series.

There was a certain nobility or dignity to his death but not in the decisions that got him in this predicament which were motivated by greed. The actor is extremely likable but the character was dead the minute he got caught up in the war between Gus and Hector. Like Jessie, he sealed his doom but unlike Jessie, he really should have known better. 

I will miss him, though and I hope the actor gets plenty of work in the future.

Yes, he was extremely flawed, due to his greed. He also, when presented with a potential avenue of escape, deliberately called some of his executioners, in pursuit of deliberately arranging his death. He had these executioners smuggle him back into the U.S., and beat him, in an effort to sell a lie to the other faction of his executioners. He risked extreme torture prior to death, if the ruse did not work, and there's a reasonable chance that his final words helped sell the story about the Peruvians to the Salamancas and Bosa, and thus will distract from any tendency to take further vengeance on a already dead Nacho, by attacking the civilian Manuel. I think forgoing a real chance of escape, to instead willingly contact and surrender to one's executioners, willingly undergo a beating to sell a story to another faction of executioners, willingly risk extreme torture prior to death, and killing yourself in front of the executioners, in an effort to sell a lie to the other faction, and thus increase the odds that another person won't be harmed, is an extremely noble thing to do, even if it can't guarantee the other person will be saved, and even if the dying person's greed is the origin of the situation. I form this judgement solely from the facts of the matter, and not from the terrific performance of the actor. It's ok for us to disagree.

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

Exactly. 

For that matter what evidence do we have that Kim is a "good" person?  Some people identify with Kim and maybe they project their own goodness onto her.  Or maybe in the current era, female characters are automatically assumed to be good.  But I see nothing in her present or her past that tells me she really cares about the well-being of other people.  Indeed, she was already good friends with Jimmy when he passed the bar, and I find it ludicrous to believe that she didn't know why he was working in the mailroom of his brother's law firm.  

This is a very good point. The writing of Kim's character has been extremely subtle; she has, up until late last season, been written extremely sympathetically, while never showing that she will forswear wrongdoing simply on the basis of innate immorality. When she has objected to Jimmy's scams, it has been on the basis of the risk involved being too large. While she has put forth rationalizations that some of the wrongdoing ultimately will benefit the less privileged, thus mitigating the immorality, she also engages in it to some extent for the dopamine hit it delivers to her brain. I really like that these writers don't create simple major protagonists. When I first watched season 5,  I thought Kim's shift to extreme risk-taking was too abrupt, upon rewatching the show from the start over the past 6 months, I, while still wanting more illumination about the origin of her psyche, better appreciate the anger/pain that motivates her. I'm willing to wait for the story to be fully told.

[Dianaofthehunt]

Will someone here please state the first episode (and the season that contains it) where Nacho makes his first appearance. I want to rewatch it to really zero in on him.
 

[Gobi]

3 minutes ago, Dianaofthehunt said:

Will someone here please state the first episode (and the season that contains it) where Nacho makes his first appearance. I want to rewatch it to really zero in on him.
 

First season, second episode, “Mijo”.

[chick binewski]

17 hours ago, Gobi said:

One of the interesting questions the show presents is whether Jimmy could have broken good. If Chuck had taken Jimmy under his wing and mentored him, perhaps. Yet Kim, who should have been a good influence, was herself corrupted by Jimmy. Howard, in his own way, liked Jimmy and tried to help him, to no avail. Cliff Main failed, as well.

While I think Jimmy had good in him (just by reflecting on how he took care of Chuck, then Kim to a lesser degree) this is a character who continuously stole from his dad's business since he was a kid and now as a middle-aged man thinks any act with integrity should get him a cookie. Jonathan Banks - referring to Jimmy & Chuck -  said in an interview that there are some people you just have to cut out of your life. In my opinion Jimmy & Chuck were never capable of having a solid relationship and in their final years in each others lives I actually put that on Chuck. 

17 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

Michael Mando is 41, so Nacho wasn’t that young when he made his very bad choices. His dad’s honest business wasn’t flashy enough for him, and it led him to his death. Jesse I do agree was very young and had no idea what he was getting himself into.

Yeah, I would actually compare Nacho to Crazy 8 when watching the show rather than Jesse. Two children of immigrants who had built something but both chose a criminal life instead. 

16 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

Mike is a stone cold killer who willingly got into this game. I’m disappointed that once again, I’m noticing (not just you, specifically) a lot more judgment and disdain for the female characters than for the male ones, who are far and away the most amoral and destructive. I’m referring to Kim and even Stacy (Mike’s DIL) here, and Marie and Skylar in BB. I remember so much misogyny, hate and contempt being flung at Skylar from the start, just for being the more dominant one in her marriage much of the time.

I understand the interwebs were pretty unforgiving re Skylar back in the day. And while I do think women are judged with a different lens and the misogyny is ridiculous, I did find the way the character was written would inspire me to shout at the television. For storyline purposes we're watching a woman who has no clue about the whirlwind we've all been viewing episode after episode and that can make her seem (unfairly) a little dumb. Then when she finds out, she (like Kim) is told where this road will lead. Skylar (much like when Carmella Soprano goes to the shrink) is told to leave immediately and given the reasons why in clear language. Skylar chooses to stay whilst claiming moral high ground. Then, when we see how smart Skylar actually is she's using that intelligence to launder money while wishing dead the man bringing it in.

Mike's character has said that our series of choices make us what we are, and I think his clearheadedness may make people view his actions differently. Also, to me there seem to be degrees to Mike's fall. He went to Vietnam (possibly drafted) and trained to be a sniper. He came home to become a cop, not realizing how deep corruption was in his area. He played along as he understood it to be the only way, until finally that game took his son.

I think Gunn did a terrific job AND the character she played could be unsympathetic. Banks is amazing in the role of a killer, but is also written as someone who takes responsibility for all his choices. It stands out in a show where some folks think they are entitled to their bad behavior.

11 hours ago, scenario said:

I liked Walt and Skyler from the beginning. My head canon is that Walt and Skyler fell in love and got married. Skyler's dream was the husband and children and house with the picket fence which she got. Walt had no idea what he wanted so he followed Skyler's dream. He hated it and that turned him bitter and angry but he still loved Skyler so he went along because he didn't think he had any other alternative. She loved her life and couldn't understand why he's acting like he is when they've got everything they'd ever wanted.

Skylar seemed to be a good wife & mom who put her head down to get things done. And we did see her & Walt as happy during the house-buying flashback. But an underlying theme in BB to me was that Walt was living his Second Choice life. He lost Gretchen and he gave up his stake in Grey Matter because of (much like Saul & Kim) pride, anger and resentment. 

8 hours ago, Bannon said:

In that job interview, when asked what she wanted, which drove her to leave that small town in Nebraska, the answer was simply "more". I suspect that whatever that it was she had there was sufficiently terrible that the word "more" is concealing quite a bit. We shall see.

I think about this scene A LOT (and how unspecific Kim was) especially when she does stuff like grab Jimmy for sexytimes immediately after a con. 

Edited April 27, 2022 by chick binewski

[qtpye]

6 hours ago, anoninrva said:

I'm not sure if the writers intend this quite so blatantly, but in a way, Kim quitting corporate law and pursuing pro-bono work full time (how she manages that financially, with subordinates is a mystery to me) is just doing what feels good to her.  Likewise, screwing over Howard, running scams with Jimmy, messing with the Kettlemans.  They do establish her feeling bad about her job running the old man off his property, and her hardscrabble life with her mother, sure, but she's still a hedonist.  There may not be much more to it than that.

 

3 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Exactly. 

For that matter what evidence do we have that Kim is a "good" person?  Some people identify with Kim and maybe they project their own goodness onto her.  Or maybe in the current era, female characters are automatically assumed to be good.  Or maybe her crappy childhood gives her license that someone with privilege doesn't get. 

But I see nothing in Kim's present or her past that tells me she is a "good" person who genuinely cares about the well-being of other people.  Indeed, she was already good friends with Jimmy when he passed the bar, and I find it ludicrous to believe that she didn't know why he was working in the mailroom of his brother's law firm.   

I had an associate in my law firm who worked 60 plus hours a week, was raising a family, and still found time to volunteer for every charity you could imagine.

I told her that I wished I were more like her because she seemed like a saint. She told me that she got a dopamine rush from doing good deeds and she was so generous with her precious free time for totally selfish reasons.

I think we found Kim sympathetic for the same reason we found Walter White sympathetic in the first episode of BB, the writing totally wanted us to feel this way and Gilligan is a brilliant writer (and he was writing for this show in the first 3 seasons).

In WW, I saw a man working himself to death to support a family he loved with two jobs. He had a great kid with special needs, a baby on the way, and a wife who had the luxury of staying home to write a novel.  I can understand if people did not like Walter because not everyone likes every character but I sure did find him sympathetic.

I also had a bias because I feel like teaching is a noble profession that is undervalued in our society.

I also felt sorry for him because he did not want a birthday party when he turned 50 and got a surprise birthday party (my worst nightmare). He also had his brother-in-law be the star alpha male in a celebration that was supposed to be about him.

Later I realized that he was a total asshole.

With Kim, I saw a fiercely independent and intelligent woman who worked herself up from the mailroom just using her own talents. She met Jimmy when he was on his best behavior and doing the same thing as her, though from a much more shady law school...Go Land Crabs!!!

She was also a comparatively noble character in a show that was littered with compelling and charismatic scumbags. I love the characters of Mike and Nacho but they were doing things that were much more horrible than anything Kim was trying.

2 hours ago, Bannon said:

Yes, he was extremely flawed, due to his greed. He also, when presented with a potential avenue of escape, deliberately called some of his executioners, in pursuit of deliberately arranging his death. He had these executioners smuggle him back into the U.S., and beat him, in an effort to sell a lie to the other faction of his executioners. He risked extreme torture prior to death, if the ruse did not work, and there's a reasonable chance that his final words helped sell the story about the Peruvians to the Salamancas and Bosa, and thus will distract from any tendency to take further vengeance on a already dead Nacho, by attacking the civilian Manuel. I think forgoing a real chance of escape, to instead willingly contact and surrender to one's executioners, willingly undergo a beating to sell a story to another faction of executioners, willingly risk extreme torture prior to death, and killing yourself in front of the executioners, in an effort to sell a lie to the other faction, and thus increase the odds that another person won't be harmed, is an extremely noble thing to do, even if it can't guarantee the other person will be saved, and even if the dying person's greed is the origin of the situation. I form this judgement solely from the facts of the matter, and not from the terrific performance of the actor. It's ok for us to disagree.

I totally respect your opinion and understand that this is a point where there is no right or wrong answer.

We just see things a little differently but are probably not as far apart as they might first seem. I also agree to disagree.

[Ottis]

18 hours ago, Gobi said:

Yet Kim, who should have been a good influence, was herself corrupted by Jimmy.

Kim is the most interesting character in BCS to me. I don't know that Jimmy corrupted Kim. It might depend on how you define "corrupted." Because Kim has had multiple opportunities to exit this course, including the option she shared with Jimmy in this ep for him to come clean and go into witness protection, and time after time she has declined to change her path. And it isn't about love, or at least not only about love. Kim *likes* these scams, and she *likes* using her skills to "win" (for example, her intuitive leap and gamble about the Kettlemans' committing tax fraud). She is a more cerebral Jimmy. She may have been that way all along. Jimmy was a catalyst to Kim letting it out.

10 hours ago, qtpye said:

I usually think Gilligan is a genius but I am still confused as to why the Hell Kim is so hellbent on destroying Howard?

It has been so long since prior seasons that I very likely have forgotten things, but I don't get the impression Kim is hellbent on anything but the challenge of concocting a complex con and the thrill of pulling it off. She is almost like a gambling addict who knows she should stop, but just loves the chase too much. And ruining Howard is a risky con requiring a lot of complexity *and* lawyer knowledge.

10 hours ago, qtpye said:

I always retconned that Skylar and Walt thought that they were going to be much more successful than they actually were. Walt figured that he would be a very well-paid scientist and Skylar thought she would be a successful novelist. They never imagined that they would barely be able to afford their starter home. They never thought that she would be a failed novelist that sells crap on E-bay and he would peak as a high school teacher.

What's interesting about this is that Walt and Skyler were the vanguard of a whole generation of people who seem to feel this way in America. For decades the mantra was work hard and you will find opportunities. There were many inequities baked into that, but for a long time, if you didn't succeed the general consensus was it was your fault and even those who didn't reach the level of "greatness" they had hoped accepted that (the vast majority, anyway).

Today, social media and even traditional media are filled with people complaining that they can't succeed, or didn't succeed, because others keep them from succeeding. It's not their fault - it is everyone else's fault. Sometimes that is true sometimes not, but IMO this is the motivation behind a lot of harm being done every day. My wife has a 30yo cousin who dropped out of 3 colleges and goes from unskilled job to unskilled job (often being let go for not doing them well) and her cousin rails constantly about how unfair everything is and cites home prices reaching $900k in CA while she lives in a small, Midwestern town where homes are easily available at $100k and often less. "Everything is stacked against us," the cousin posts frequently, though who "us" is we're not sure.

Anyway, Walt and Skyler are like the founding pop culture figures of generally normal people who decide "not our fault, so we deserve this no matter what it takes."

Edited April 27, 2022 by Ottis

[qtpye]

14 minutes ago, Ottis said:

What's interesting about this is that Walt and Skyler were the vanguard of a whole generation of people who seem to feel this way in America. For decades the mantra was work hard and you will find opportunities. There were many inequities baked into that, but for a long time, if you didn't succeed the general consensus was it was your fault and even those who didn't reach the level of "greatness" they had hoped accepted that (the vast majority, anyway).

This is a really great point.

It is also worthy to note that Breaking Bad premiered not too long after The Great Recession when many people who "worked hard" saw all their dreams slipping away for various reasons.

16 minutes ago, Ottis said:

Today, social media and even traditional media are filled with people complaining that they can't succeed, or didn't succeed, because others keep them from succeeding. It's not their fault - it is everyone else's fault. Sometimes that is true sometimes not, but IMO this is the motivation behind a lot of harm being done every day. My wife has a 30yo cousin who dropped out of 3 colleges and goes from unskilled job to unskilled job (often being let go for not doing them well) and her cousin rails constantly about how unfair everything is and cites home prices reaching $900k in CA while she lives in a small, Midwestern town where homes are easily available at $100k and often less. "Everything is stacked against us," the cousin posts frequently, though who "us" is we're not sure.

Anyway, Walt and Skyler are like the founding pop culture figures of generally normal people who decide "not our fault, so we deserve this no matter what it takes."

It reminds me of how Walt blamed everyone else but himself for his failures. He always claimed that Grey Matter stole his work when in truth he happily signed away his rights to what he thought was a failing company.

His real beef was that the company became incredibly successful WITHOUT HIM and probably never would have reached that level of success under his leadership.

It is like when he abandoned Gretchen for daring to come from a prominent family. It made absolutely no sense beyond it just made him feel small in comparison.

He thought his genius would lead him to easily have a very upscale life but instead, he feels like a loser (at least in his own mind).

It is much easier to blame the system than to own up to your shortcomings, even though the system can be flawed.

 

[Bannon]

13 minutes ago, Ottis said:

Kim is the most interesting character in BCS to me. I don't know that Jimmy corrupted Kim. It might depend on how you define "corrupted." Because Kim has had multiple opportunities to exit this course, including the option she shared with Jimmy in this ep for him to come clean and go into witness protection, and time after time she has declined to change her path. And it isn't about love, or at least not only about love. Kim *likes* these scams, and she *likes* using her skills to "win" (for example, her intuitive leap and gamble about the Kettlemans' committing tax fraud). She is a more cerebral Jimmy. She may have been that way all along. Jimmy was a catalyst to Kim letting it out.

It has been so long since prior seasons that I very likely have forgotten things, but I don't get the impression Kim is hellbent on anything but the challenge of concocting a complex con and the thrill of pulling it off. She is almost like a gambling addict who knows she should stop, but just loves the chase too much. And ruining Howard is a risky con requiring a lot of complexity *and* lawyer knowledge.

What's interesting about this is that Walt and Skyler were the vanguard of a whole generation of people who seem to feel this way in America. For decades the mantra was work hard and you will find opportunities. There were many inequities baked into that, but for a long time, if you didn't succeed the general consensus was it was your fault and even those who didn't reach the level of "greatness" they had hoped accepted that (the vast majority, anyway).

Today, social media and even traditional media are filled with people complaining that they can't succeed, or didn't succeed, because others keep them from succeeding. It's not their fault - it is everyone else's fault. Sometimes that is true sometimes not, but IMO this is the motivation behind a lot of harm being done every day. My wife has a 30yo cousin who dropped out of 3 colleges and goes from unskilled job to unskilled job (often being let go for not doing them well) and her cousin rails constantly about how unfair everything is and cites home prices reaching $900k in CA while she lives in a small, Midwestern town where homes are easily available at $100k and often less. "Everything is stacked against us," the cousin posts frequently, though who "us" is we're not sure.

Anyway, Walt and Skyler are like the founding pop culture figures of typical people who decide "not our fault, so we deserve this no matter what it takes."

I agree with nearly all of this but I'd say her utter and withering contempt of Howard was extremely well earned by Howard. That doesn't justfy her behavior in the least, but I completely buy that she despises Howard, for good reason, and her extreme contempt for him forms part of the motivation for her behavior. Part of what makes this well written is that Howard is one of the few (now with Nacho dead, maybe the only?) characters who is making an actual effort at being a better human being, and succeeding. To top it off, it was Jimmy's Come to Jesus speech to Howard, in which Jimmy tells him to stop feeling sorry for himself, get off his ass, and earn his position of authority and extreme material gain, that was part of the impetus for Howard to resolve to be a better human being. That's really good storytelling.

[Bannon]

3 minutes ago, qtpye said:

This is a really great point.

It is also worthy to note that Breaking Bad premiered not too long after The Great Recession when many people who "worked hard" saw all their dreams slipping away for various reasons.

It reminds me of how Walt blamed everyone else but himself for his failures. He always claimed that Grey Matter stole his work when in truth he happily signed away his rights to what he thought was a failing company.

His real beef was that the company became incredibly successful WITHOUT HIM and probably never would have reached that level of success under his leadership.

It is like when he abandoned Gretchen for daring to come from a prominent family. It made absolutely no sense beyond it just made him feel small in comparison.

He thought his genius would lead him to easily have a very upscale life but instead, he feels like a loser (at least in his own mind).

It is much easier to blame the system than to own up to your shortcomings, even though the system can be flawed.

 

I agree, but I think it likely Walt was worse than that. I suspect he mostly convinced himself that Grey Matter was failing, as a rationalization for leaving, and it was mostly misplaced pride and jealousy that drove the decision. That ridiculous pride only grew, to the point that he chose to risk the well being of everyone he claimed to love, rather than accept health insurance and an ideal job for his situation from Grey Matter. He only returns to save Jesse, and try to once again secure a financial future for Skyler and kids,  when he gets his pride wounded again, by seeing Gretchen and husband being lauded on t v., and claiming all the credit for Grey Matter's success.

[Eulipian 5k]

16 hours ago, Colorado David said:

Man, such great "what the hell is all this for" feelings from Banks,

Heh, it's always a long way from Miller time! with Mike. Those eyes are soo done with all of it/them

 

16 hours ago, Colorado David said:

any actor who can be villainous and YET have us root for them is great in my book.

Your avatar says as much, 😎.  Tony Dalton is also doing wonderful work with Lalo. Esposito, Banks, Mando, Margolis and Dalton are telling half this story with just their faces!

[qtpye]

22 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I agree, but I think it likely Walt was worse than that. I suspect he mostly convinced himself that Grey Matter was failing, as a rationalization for leaving, and it was mostly misplaced pride and jealousy that drove the decision. That ridiculous pride only grew, to the point that he chose to risk the well being of everyone he claimed to love, rather than accept health insurance and an ideal job for his situation from Grey Matter. He only returns to save Jesse, and try to once again secure a financial future for Skyler and kids,  when he gets his pride wounded again, by seeing Gretchen and husband being lauded on t v., and claiming all the credit for Grey Matter's success.

It was when he refused Elliot's offer that I lost all sympathy for the character.

As for Kim, I hope her trajectory is satisfying...whatever it might be.

[Penman61]

Jimmy's car chat with Huell is a really, really important reality-check perspective, not just for Jimmy (where it fails), but for US as viewers who tend to get super-aligned with our main characters and their own rationalizations/justifications.

Here are Kim and Jimmy, two lawyers with (mostly) decent lawyer jobs, financial security and the promise of more, and with other career options, if they choose. True, they don't have much going on socially and family-wise, but they do have each other, so Huell's point is good: Why are you doing this crime stuff?!? The answer isn't Jimmy's "Greater good"; that's their rationalization. The answer is "Because we want to, and because [so far], we can."

The show's question is "Why?" We, like Kim & Jimmy, get so caught up in the thrill of the con, the heist, the criming of it all that we easily forget the utter truth for them, for Walter, for Mike:

You didn't have to do this. [But we see now why you did.]

Edited April 27, 2022 by Penman61

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, qtpye said:

I had an associate in my law firm who worked 60 plus hours a week, was raising a family, and still found time to volunteer for every charity you could imagine.  I told her that I wished I were more like her because she seemed like a saint. She told me that she got a dopamine rush from doing good deeds and she was so generous with her precious free time for totally selfish reasons.   

I wonder if that is "good" enough, since there are so many people who get that dopamine rush from harming people.  

 

1 hour ago, qtpye said:

With Kim, I saw a fiercely independent and intelligent woman who worked herself up from the mailroom just using her own talents. She met Jimmy when he was on his best behavior and doing the same thing as her, though from a much more shady law school...Go Land Crabs!!!

Yes, but as a beautiful blonde woman in a prestigious law firm that was paying (or lending) her way through law school, she still chose to bond with the bad boy.  That was some kiss she planted on Jimmy when she read the letter saying he had passed the bar exam.  

 

1 hour ago, qtpye said:

With Kim, I saw a fiercely independent and intelligent woman who worked herself up from the mailroom just using her own talents. She met Jimmy when he was on his best behavior and doing the same thing as her, though from a much more shady law school...Go Land Crabs!!!

She was also a comparatively noble character in a show that was littered with compelling and charismatic scumbags. I love the characters of Mike and Nacho but they were doing things that were much more horrible than anything Kim was trying.

That's what makes Kim so compelling.  The bad signs are subtle and require a lot of thought.

For example, consider the scene  in the season 3 finale where Jimmy is telling Kim about his inability to restore Irene's reputation in the eyes of her friends.  This means that Kim was aware of Jimmy's shenanigans to destroy Irene and did nothing to stop him.   

[Bannon]

19 minutes ago, Penman61 said:

Jimmy's car chat with Huell is a really, really important reality-check perspective, not just for Jimmy (where it fails), but for US as viewers who tend to get super-aligned with our main characters and their own rationalizations/justifications.

Here are Kim and Jimmy, two lawyers with (mostly) decent lawyer jobs, financial security and the promise of more, and with other career options, if they choose. True, they don't have much going on socially and family-wise, but they do have each other, so Huell's point is good: Why are you doing this crime stuff?!? The answer isn't Jimmy's "Greater good"; that's their rationalization. The answer is "Because we want to, and because [so far], we can."

The show's question is "Why?" We, like Kim & Jimmy, get so caught up in the thrill of the con, the heist, the criming of it all that we easily forget the utter truth for them, for Walter, for Mike:

You didn't have to do this. [But we see now why you did.]

It takes some courage by writers in heavily serialized drama to deliberately avoid writing any major protagonist as a hero. I wish more writers had it. 

[qtpye]

14 minutes ago, Bannon said:

It takes some courage by writers in heavily serialized drama to deliberately avoid writing any major protagonist as a hero. I wish more writers had it. 

Most of the writers go the other way and make their protagonists Gary Stews or Mary Sues.

People that they tell us we have to love but give us no reason to do so beyond telling us (instead of showing us) that they are awesome.

This show never does that.

[sistermagpie]

9 hours ago, qtpye said:

There was a certain nobility or dignity to his death but not in the decisions that got him in this predicament which were motivated by greed. The actor is extremely likable but the character was dead the minute he got caught up in the war between Gus and Hector. Like Jessie, he sealed his doom but unlike Jessie, he really should have known better. 

Jesse was young and naive, but it still seems like most of the choices he made that got him where he was he absolutely knew better. 

9 hours ago, anoninrva said:

It's been a while since I saw Breaking Bad, but I thought it was more hubris with Walt not wanting to accept his partners' terms, and falling back to teaching.  Teaching was not his initial plan.  Walt shows a lot of pride through the series.

Yes, that's what I mean, I think. It's canon that Walt, arrogant as ever, thought his life was going to turn out very differently. A lot of his rage came from his sense of wronged entitlement.

1 hour ago, Ottis said:

What's interesting about this is that Walt and Skyler were the vanguard of a whole generation of people who seem to feel this way in America. For decades the mantra was work hard and you will find opportunities. There were many inequities baked into that, but for a long time, if you didn't succeed the general consensus was it was your fault and even those who didn't reach the level of "greatness" they had hoped accepted that (the vast majority, anyway).

 

Eh, I think the general consensus still is that it's your fault even when the system actually has been obviously rigged. That's how we condescending lists about how to budget as if that's the reason people can't live on a minimum wage. Or stories about people who saved enough for a manion by cutting out lattes that forget to mention the enormous income they inherited! Ironically, it's probably more often the people for whom the system is rigged towards, like Walt, who are most likely to blame their disappointments on unfairness, though. Walt's pretty typical in deciding that since the system didn't work for him as he thought it should he was justified in becoming a monster rather than deciding he wanted to work to fix it for everyone.

That might be the way Kim's stumbling now. She does seem to want to help the little guy, but she's always identified with that little guy maybe. When she's not aware of her own emotions they can lead her astray--just like Jimmy. And Chuck. And lots of people in this universe!

[Ed-]

The most interesting theory for me is that Kim must have created Saul, or at least a big part of him, maybe for her own gain.

What stood out in this particular episode are first the physical parts: Kim's colorful post-it notes, the dress-up with the cufflinks. Then later the awkward "what do you think we should do" from Saul - "You should do whatever you want, Jimmy.[---]" - "You think I should do it?" conversation. Then, the "[---]Do you want to be a friend of the cartel or do you want to be a rat?" is a Hobson's choice. Remember the cup with the bullet hole scene? Kim must realize Saul is on borrowed time. Does anyone feel like Kim sees Saul as imminently expendable and may have plans to disappear once she gets ahold of Saul's cartel or settlement or whatever BIG money? Her escape (attempt) would devastate Saul and complete his transition.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Ed-

[peeayebee]

13 hours ago, qtpye said:

I also think that Jimmy and Kim like the cons because they enjoy being the smartest people in the room. This is ego, which is usually the kiss of death in Gilligan's world (I so wanted to type Gilligan's Island).

I like your point. It's true with lots of driven people -- They like being the smartest person in the room, whether or not they are. Both Jimmy and Kim, individually, are very smart and have often been able to outsmart whomever they wanted. That's a rush. 

 

12 hours ago, gallimaufry said:

I'm not entirely sure though why we had the camera seeming to hunt for it through the desert for the first half.  Was it supposed to be the point of view of a snake or to simulate someone looking around?  It seemed to call attention to itself more than a pan across would and I'm not quite clear what that was about. 

That shot didn't strike me as odd, esp with this show and BB. I remember the shovel-cam shot from BB that really bothered me. So self-indulgent. But both these shows have interesting camerawork. As far as the opener for this ep, I was mesmerized. There was an unusual white rock that caught my eye. Some of the bare (dead?) branches looked like snakes. All visually arresting. Of course it took a while for us to learn why this spot was very special. I think that event deserved a meandering yet poetic visit.

 

11 hours ago, qtpye said:

Did he save his father? He knew he was going to die anyway and he made some very dangerous people extremely angry right before he shot himself. What is going to keep Hector from going after his father or destroying his business? This is a man who irrationally shoots a dead corpse a million times. He now knows Nacho put him in his wheelchair and has no one but the father to take out his revenge. I still hope the father is safe and we do not hear about him again for the rest of the series.

You're right that Nacho may have unintentionally put his father back on Hector's radar by disclosing what he did with the heart pills. If he had confessed only to being responsible for Lalo's "death" then Hector would probably have let it all go since he knows that Lalo is alive. But Nacho couldn't help rub salt in the wound. Now Hector will probably want revenge.

 

[scenario]

1 hour ago, peeayebee said:

I like your point. It's true with lots of driven people -- They like being the smartest person in the room, whether or not they are. Both Jimmy and Kim, individually, are very smart and have often been able to outsmart whomever they wanted. That's a rush. 

 

That shot didn't strike me as odd, esp with this show and BB. I remember the shovel-cam shot from BB that really bothered me. So self-indulgent. But both these shows have interesting camerawork. As far as the opener for this ep, I was mesmerized. There was an unusual white rock that caught my eye. Some of the bare (dead?) branches looked like snakes. All visually arresting. Of course it took a while for us to learn why this spot was very special. I think that event deserved a meandering yet poetic visit.

 

You're right that Nacho may have unintentionally put his father back on Hector's radar by disclosing what he did with the heart pills. If he had confessed only to being responsible for Lalo's "death" then Hector would probably have let it all go since he knows that Lalo is alive. But Nacho couldn't help rub salt in the wound. Now Hector will probably want revenge.

 

Telling Hector that he caused the stroke on purpose made it personal. Hector understands personal revenge very well. That means he's more likely to swallow the story hook line and sinker and get Gus off the hook. If a full fledged gang war breaks out, his dad will die in the crossfire. Someone would kill him. Nacho is relying on Mike to get Gus to protect his dad. Gus's reputation of someone you can trust if you don't cross him is important. 

[Cinnabon]

1 minute ago, scenario said:

Telling Hector that he caused the stroke on purpose made it personal. Hector understands personal revenge very well. That means he's more likely to swallow the story hook line and sinker and get Gus off the hook. If a full fledged gang war breaks out, his dad will die in the crossfire. Someone would kill him. Nacho is relying on Mike to get Gus to protect his dad. Gus's reputation of someone you can trust if you don't cross him is important. 

His outburst at the end telling Hector he was responsible for his stroke was probably ill advised, but completely understandable. It was similar to Walt’s outburst when he told Jesse that he watched Jane die. Brutal. 

[PeterPirate]

There is a third party to consider, namely the cartel.  Nacho was smart to remind Juan Bolsa that it was Gus who saved Hector's life.   Even if they believe that Gus might have been involved in the assault on Lalo, they have no reason to allow the Salamancas to attempt revenge on Gus, who after all produces more revenue for them.  The cartel also won't look too kindly on the murder of a civilian as it might bring even more attention on the Salamancas and possibly even the cartel itself.  

Also, I wonder if even the twins would be willing to carry out such an order from Hector.  

Edited April 27, 2022 by PeterPirate

[Bannon]

2 hours ago, Ed- said:

The most interesting theory for me is that Kim must have created Saul, or at least a big part of him, maybe for her own gain.

What stood out in this particular episode are first the physical parts: Kim's colorful post-it notes, the dress-up with the cufflinks. Then later the awkward "what do you think we should do" from Saul - "You should do whatever you want, Jimmy.[---]" - "You think I should do it?" conversation. Then, the "[---]Do you want to be a friend of the cartel or do you want to be a rat?" is a Hobson's choice. Remember the cup with the bullet hole scene? Kim must realize Saul is on borrowed time. Does anyone feel like Kim sees Saul as imminently expendable and may have plans to disappear once she gets ahold of Saul's cartel or settlement or whatever BIG money? Her escape (attempt) would devastate Saul and complete his transition.

Kim running a long con on Jimmy would be as hard as hard core gets. That'd fully certify this show as the saddest ever.

[Bannon]

28 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

There is a third party to consider, namely the cartel.  Nacho was smart to remind Juan Bolsa that it was Gus who saved Hector's life.   Even if they believe that Gus might have been involved in the assault on Lalo, they have no reason to allow the Salamancas to attempt revenge on Gus, who after all produce move revenue for them.  The cartel also won't look too kindly on the murder of a civilian as it might bring even more attention on the Salamancas and possibly even the cartel itself.  

Also, I wonder if even the twins would be willing to carry out such an order from Hector.  

I'm really interested in the Salamanca command structure after Lalo gets clipped, or imprisoned, which seems inevitable, given his absence in BB. Soon to be released Tuco is a moron, and when we first meet Hector (who really dislikes the fact that Tuco is a moron), Hector is not in a nursing home, but is rather being tended to by the moron. Who are the Cousins answering to in Mexico?

As to Lalo, he's now the kind of guy who, if re-apprehended,.with maybe some money laundering charges added, would get the attention of the Feds, and if convicted, they may think he's a perfect candidate for the ADX facility in Florence, CO.. Lalo spending the decades until his death in solitary, cut off from contact from any human beings, slowly going mad, might be worse than death.

[Ottis]

4 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

Eh, I think the general consensus still is that it's your fault even when the system actually has been obviously rigged. That's how we condescending lists about how to budget as if that's the reason people can't live on a minimum wage.

I think the actual lesson there is that minimum wage jobs are supposed to be temporary as the individual adds skills and/or education and moves onward (and upward), but this is probably starting to stray afield. More on point, my comment was that so many people today claim they can't succeed instead of accept that they played a major (if not the major) role in their lack of success, not whether society still does or doesn't then say they need to own their failure.

3 hours ago, Ed- said:

Does anyone feel like Kim sees Saul as imminently expendable and may have plans to disappear once she gets ahold of Saul's cartel or settlement or whatever BIG money?

That's an interesting take. I don't see that, yet. It seems like Kim likes being the follower (with great suggestions) because that allows her to be part of the cons but not responsible for them. Could she become that? Maybe. Though IMO that would be disappointing, because as a viewer I care more about Kim than Jimmy and if she goes fully to the dark side, then there is no difference.

2 hours ago, peeayebee said:

As far as the opener for this ep, I was mesmerized. There was an unusual white rock that caught my eye. Some of the bare (dead?) branches looked like snakes. All visually arresting.

Mrs. Ottis asked me at that point "what was all that supposed to mean," and I loved that this show made me think about it and reply that it was either a shot of a piece of glass or pottery that would become important in the episode, or it stood for people being broken somehow. Few shows make me think about the meaning of an artfully done opening shot!

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by Ottis

[sistermagpie]

20 minutes ago, Ottis said:

I think the actual lesson there is that minimum wage jobs are supposed to be temporary as the individual adds skills and/or education and moves onward (and upward), but this is probably starting to stray afield. More on point, my comment was that so many people today claim they can't succeed instead of accept that they played a major (if not the major) role in their lack of success, not whether society still does or doesn't then say they need to own their failure.

The point of a minimum wage was that you could live on it. The idea that jobs that pay that are supposed to be temporary or done by teenagers (which doesn't justify paying that little either) is a modern argument against raising them to protect people who don't want to pay a living wage. It turns a systemic problem into a personal one.

But of course, systemic problems can exist alongside personal ones. Walt not becoming rich off grey matter had nothing to do with any system being against him. It was a consequence of his own arrogance. As Huell pointed out in this ep, Jimmy and Kim have no reason to be doing the stuff they're doing, financially.

Quote

That's an interesting take. I don't see that, yet. It seems like Kim likes being the follower (with great suggestions) because that allows her to be part of the cons but not responsible for them. Could she become that? Maybe. Though IMO that would be disappointing, because as a viewer I care more about Kim than Jimmy and if she goes fully to the dark side, then there is no difference.

I have to admit, I can't see Kim doing the things described in that example. As cold as she can be when she wants to be, like with the Kettlemans, she doesn't seem like a cold person who would at all relish betraying someone like that.

 

Edited April 27, 2022 by sistermagpie

[Dev F]

3 hours ago, Bannon said:

I'm really interested in the Salamanca command structure after Lalo gets clipped, or imprisoned, which seems inevitable, given his absence in BB. Soon to be released Tuco is a moron, and when we first meet Hector (who really dislikes the fact that Tuco is a moron), Hector is not in a nursing home, but is rather being tended to by the moron. Who are the Cousins answering to in Mexico?

I think there's a tendency among the fans to overstate the importance of the Salamancas to the cartel, as if Eladio, Bolsa, and Hector were the triumvirate in charge of everything. But I always saw the Salamancas as primarily the cartel's muscle, valuable not because they were important leaders but because they were especially ruthless and violent in defense of the leaders' interests. After all, Hector's role in Max's execution is not that he was one of the cartel bosses who marked Gus's partner for death but that he was the gross thug who pissed in Eladio's pool and then pulled the trigger for him.

So I don't know how much of the Salamancas' power comes from having a formal command structure per se, and how much of it is just the bosses are afraid that if they get too unhappy they'll turn their violent tendencies against the cartel's interests. There are probably other Salamancas like Hector: old soldiers who killed a lot of people and did some time, and now everyone calls them "Don" and they've been gifted some nice bit of territory as a sign of respect. But they probably don't have a formal chain of command beyond Something fucked-up is happening in Albuquerque, and Lalo is a smart guy who's family, so we'll send him up there to see if we need to start shooting people in the head.

Edited April 27, 2022 by Dev F

[Bannon]

16 minutes ago, Dev F said:

I think there's a tendency among the fans to overstate the importance of the Salamancas to the cartel, as if Eladio, Bolsa, and Hector were the triumvirate in charge of everything. But I always saw the Salamancas as primarily the cartel's muscle, valuable not because they were important leaders but because they were especially ruthless and violent in defense of the leaders' interests. After all, Hector's role in Max's execution is not that he was one of the cartel bosses who marked Gus's partner for death but that he was the gross thug who pissed in Eladio's pool and then pulled the trigger for him.

So I don't know how much of the Salamancas' power comes from having a formal command structure per se, and how much of it is just the bosses are afraid that if they get too unhappy they'll turn their violent tendencies against the cartel's interests. There are probably other Salamancas like Hector: old soldiers who killed a lot of people and did some time, and now everyone calls them "Don" and they've been gifted some nice bit of territory as a sign of respect. But they probably don't have a formal chain of command beyond Something fucked-up is happening in Albuquerque, and Lalo is a smart guy who's family, so we'll send him up there to see if we need to start shooting people in the head.

Yeah, I'm mostly interested in who runs the Cousins, with Hector debilitated, Lalo ( I presume) to be out of service soon, and Tuco the Halfwit soon sprung. I see a lot of potential for chaos, and wonder how that bleeds (literally) into the lives and plans of Saul, Kim, and (hopefully not, but ya' never know) Howard's life.

 

 

 

 

[Dobian]

NACHOOOOOO!!!  One of my favorite characters is gone.  But he went out like a champ.  Way to stick it to Hector.

Regarding the posts about Kim’s motivations, I think they have done a good job explaining through the events of the show her gradual descent to the dark side.  I read an article recently about it.  Kim has grown steadily disillusioned with how the legal system, corporate institutions, old boys networks, and life in general works, and she has always had that rebellious streak in her.

It’s been fun watching this show evolve from the Jimmy McGill Adventures, with the emphasis on Chuck and Sandpiper and other things, to full-on Breaking Bad.

[Cinnabon]

Maybe I missed it, but how did Gus explain how Nacho ended up with him in the US?

[aghst]

On 4/25/2022 at 7:13 PM, Sharper2002 said:

Oh no, Nacho. 😢

My only question is how did Gus explain being the one to bring Nacho in? If there was suspicion cast on him already, wouldn’t it be raised further since he wasn’t caught by the shiny suit twins or any of the other soldiers, but Gus magically finds him?

Yeah I don't know how well they could pull it off but Nacho trolling Hector probably helped sell it.  Hector pumped his corpse full of lead to show how pissed he was.

I understand his motivations but still very hard to trade his life for his father's life.

This is where my recollections of previous seasons probably is coming up short.  If Lalo died like he was suppose to, they wouldn't have had to sacrifice him?  Wasn't he under suspicion or at least the Salamancas were treating him like dirt and it was only a matter of time before they took advantage of him and his father?

It's plausible but they had written an interesting character and they had to dispose of him before the BB timeline.  It feels abrupt, though it's been 6 seasons or 5 seasons and part of season 6 for the character.

 

[Melonie77]

On 4/26/2022 at 8:27 AM, Adiba said:

I did wonder why Nacho didn’t at least take out Bolsa or anyone else before taking his own life? He knew Mike was there to take him out anyway if he was rushed by the twins?

I wondered about this too - it sort of didn't make sense that he would NOT try to do so. But then I remembered that all the other characters in the scene end up in Breaking Bad (if I'm remembering correctly).
At least Nacho got to turn into magical blue desert flowers!

[JudyObscure]

9 hours ago, Dobian said:

Regarding the posts about Kim’s motivations, I think they have done a good job explaining through the events of the show her gradual descent to the dark side.  I read an article recently about it.  Kim has grown steadily disillusioned with how the legal system, corporate institutions, old boys networks, and life in general works, and she has always had that rebellious streak in her.

I agree with that, but I think  the feeling is older than disillusionment would imply.

I'm beginning to think that while Kim sincerely cares about the poor people to whom she has now dedicated her career  she is equally passionate in her hatred for the people she has always seen as spoiled, privileged and undeserving.

 Kim's happiness after a day in pro-bono work is only partly from helping someone needy, it's also,  maybe even more so, from sticking it to the prissy white shoe establishment.  You can feel the hatred when she's around Howard or the woman who was telling her about Lalo.

I think she fell in love with Jimmy because he was clever and charming, but also because he wasn't one of them.

[Melonie77]

On 4/26/2022 at 11:35 PM, qtpye said:

I usually think Gilligan is a genius but I am still confused as to why the Hell Kim is so hellbent on destroying Howard?

Yes, he could be a shitty manager (doc review) but HHM put her through law school and forgave her debt when she went on to a rival firm. I was fully on board with her leaving HHM but this is too much

I think Gilligan is an amazing writer but I really still do not understand what is going on with her.

I'm right there with you.
Aspects of Kim's breaking-bad don't make sense to me either. It's too much of a descent for her and Howard doesn't deserve such a severe 'punishment'. 

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, JudyObscure said:

I think she fell in love with Jimmy because he was clever and charming, but also because he wasn't one of them.

I'm going to theorize that the love Kim has for Jimmy is messing with her mind, and that is part of the reason she is breaking so badly.  The idea to take down Howard came right after Kim witnessed Jimmy traipse across the desert with cartel money and come home with bullet holes in the coffee mug that she gave him.  And then she had to face down a murderer in her own place of residence.  What the hell kind of life has she gotten herself into?  Any sane person would get out of Dodge.  But Kim loves Jimmy, so she is going to stick around, and that is producing cognitive dissonance in her mind.   

Kim needs to have a rationale for staying with Jimmy.  She and her man need to use their powers for good, and that good must outweigh the evil they have gotten wrapped up with.  Helping poor clients is a good thing.  But bringing down Howard is also a good thing because he personifies class privilege, which of course is way worse then dealing drugs and murdering store clerks.  Plus he banished her to the Cornfield, which was a crime against humanity. 

Edited April 28, 2022 by PeterPirate

[Gobi]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

I'm going to theorize that the love Kim has for Jimmy is messing with her mind, and that is part of the reason she is breaking so badly.  The idea to take down Howard came right after Kim witnessed Jimmy traipse across the desert with cartel money and come home with bullet holes in the coffee mug that she gave him.  And then she had to face down a murderer in her own place of residence.  What the hell kind of life has she gotten herself into?  Any sane person would get out of Dodge.  But Kim loves Jimmy, so she is going to stick around, and that is producing cognitive dissonance in her mind.   

Kim needs to have a rationale for staying with Jimmy.  She and her man need to use their powers for good, and that good must outweigh the evil they have gotten wrapped up with.  Helping poor clients is a good thing.  But bringing down Howard is also a good thing because he personifies class privilege, which of course is way worse then dealing drugs and murdering store clerks.  Plus he banished her to the Cornfield, which was a crime against humanity. 

And Howard paid her law school tuition, all but telling her that she would never be able to pay it on her own. Patronizing bastard.

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, Melonie77 said:

I'm right there with you.
Aspects of Kim's breaking-bad don't make sense to me either. It's too much of a descent for her and Howard doesn't deserve such a severe 'punishment'. 

Kim's contempt for Howard is very, very, rational, even if Howard has become a better human being than he was before, particularly before Chuck's death. If you dumped a mountain of money into the lap of your boss, and his response was to continue to punish you, would you not think your boss is garbage, especially when the punishment started in good measure because your boss was a lazy, entitled, incompetent, coward, who continually looked everywhere but the mirror, when looking to assign responsibility? Would you not think your boss is garbage if he went out of his way to inform someone you love that their brother died in agony, instead of his sleep, simply because the boss wanted to assauge his own feelings of guilt? Would you not hold that now former boss in contempt if he continually showered you with contempt, by acting as if you had no agency? 

Where that contempt evolves into seething rage and hatred, with an appetite for extreme risk and an overwhelming desire for revenge, is where we leave the universe of rationality, and once you leave that unuverse, well, to steal a line from a now classic movie, which was too fresh to be a classic that Jimmy and Kim would rent in the BCS universe, "Deserve's got nuthin' to do with it" with regard to what Kim is trying to do to Howard. Howard's just become a vessel, an inanimate object, into which Kim wants to pour a lifetime of accumulated resentments, grief, and pain. So far, we've only been given hints of the origins of those resentments, grief, and pain. I strongly suspect the writers are going to illuminate this element further for us.

[peeayebee]

8 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

Maybe I missed it, but how did Gus explain how Nacho ended up with him in the US?

I don't see any real issue with this. Nacho was being hunted. He was able to elude the Cousins and others. But he was (theoretically) on his own, running, tired. It's easy to assume that he made a mistake and got caught by Gus's people.

5 hours ago, aghst said:

This is where my recollections of previous seasons probably is coming up short.  If Lalo died like he was suppose to, they wouldn't have had to sacrifice him?  Wasn't he under suspicion or at least the Salamancas were treating him like dirt and it was only a matter of time before they took advantage of him and his father?

I'm unclear on what you're saying. Re the bolded: Are you saying that if Lalo had actually been killed, Nacho could have been allowed to live?

Quote

It's plausible but they had written an interesting character and they had to dispose of him before the BB timeline.  It feels abrupt, though it's been 6 seasons or 5 seasons and part of season 6 for the character.

It did feel abrupt and too soon to happen so early in this season, which caught so many of us off-guard. I think his death is not simply the end of Nacho, plot-wise. There will be consequences, like Hector seeking revenge for Nacho's having put him in a wheelchair. I think his going after Nacho's father and Mike having to protect Manuel will be a big storyline.

3 hours ago, Melonie77 said:

I wondered about this too - it sort of didn't make sense that he would NOT try to do so. But then I remembered that all the other characters in the scene end up in Breaking Bad (if I'm remembering correctly).

Michael Mando has said his was the only character in BCS to break good. I think after symbolically washing away his sins (after being submerged in oil and then washing himself off), he would not kill anyone again. Only himself, to save his father.

[Adiba]

Count me in as not fully understanding Kim’s motivation to risk everything to get back at Howard.

Jimmy was perfectly fine with letting Howard feel the guilt over Chuck’s death, even though he knew the truth. Then Jimmy went on to feign fake sorrow at Chuck’s memorial and in court—so I don’t have a big problem with Howard saying that Chuck committed suicide. He did. Howard was at least going to therapy and work through Chuck’s death.

Was Howard a sanctimonious douche sometimes? Yes. I get that Kim does not like Howard, that she holds a grudge. However, to plan to ruin his career, while risking her own? After all Kim went through to become a successful lawyer, to become one of them, to risk throwing it all away? I don’t know. I agree that grief and love can make people do crazy things, but I’m going to need a whole lot more insight/backstory about Kim for it to be satisfying for me as a viewer.

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by Adiba
Clarity

[Bannon]

14 minutes ago, Adiba said:

Count me in as not fully understanding Kim’s motivation to risk everything to get back at Howard.

Jimmy was perfectly fine with letting Howard feel the guilt over Chuck’s death, even though he knew the truth. Then Jimmy went on to feign fake sorrow at Chuck’s memorial and in court—so I don’t have a big problem with Howard saying that Chuck committed suicide. He did. Howard was at least going to therapy and work through Chuck’s death.

Was Howard a sanctimonious douche sometimes? Yes. I get that Kim does not like Howard, that she holds a grudge. However, to plan to ruin his career, while risking her own? After all Kim went through to become a successful lawyer, to become one of them, to risk throwing it all away? I don’t know. I agree that grief and love can make people do crazy things, but I’m going to need a whole lot more insight/backstory about Kim for it to be satisfying for me as a viewer.

 

That's completely reasonable. My bet is that the conversation between Huell and Saul in this episode is a bit of foreshadowing; Saul isn't so much lying to Huell and himself when he spews the nonsense about it all being for the greater good. He's just as puzzled as we are, as to why Kim has become the driver of this ridiculous risk, about which Saul has regularly expressed reservations, and doesn't want to say to Huell, "Hell if I know!", when Huell asks what the point is. I think that's now the central question in the story, and what the last 10 episodes will explore.

[qtpye]

7 hours ago, Bannon said:

Kim's contempt for Howard is very, very, rational, even if Howard has become a better human being than he was before, particularly before Chuck's death. If you dumped a mountain of money into the lap of your boss, and his response was to continue to punish you, would you not think your boss is garbage, especially when the punishment started in good measure because your boss was a lazy, entitled, incompetent, coward, who continually looked everywhere but the mirror, when looking to assign responsibility? Would you not think your boss is garbage if he went out of his way to inform someone you love that their brother died in agony, instead of his sleep, simply because the boss wanted to assauge his own feelings of guilt? Would you not hold that now former boss in contempt if he continually showered you with contempt, by acting as if you had no agency? 

This sounds like a good many managers I worked under. Actually, Howard is a lot nicer than many bosses who were born with silver spoons in their mouths. When push comes to shove, Howard does the right thing most of the time.

It is actually very true in describing how corporate middle managers do very little and treat their employees like garbage and that is one of the many reasons why we are witnessing The Great Resignation.

However, very few employees are planning weird personal vendettas against their bosses with their con artist husbands. If Kim feels like she is wrong then she should sue the firm. She has nothing to lose because she never plans to return to Big Law.

She could probably get a decent settlement that could help fund her Pro Bono practice.

 

Edited April 28, 2022 by qtpye

[Bannon]

36 minutes ago, qtpye said:

This sounds like a good many managers I worked under. Actually, Howard is a lot nicer than many bosses who were born with silver spoons in their mouths. When push comes to shove, Howard does the right thing most of the time.

It is actually very true in describing how corporate middle managers do very little and treat their employees like garbage and that is one of the many reasons why we are witnessing The Great Resignation.

However, very few employees are planning weird personal vendettas against their bosses with their con artist husbands. If Kim feels like she is wrong then she should sue the firm. She has nothing to lose because she never plans to return to Big Law.

She could probably get a decent settlement that could help fund her Pro Bone 

It's not a matter of being nice to subordinates. Prior to getting reamed out by Jimmy, and then resolving to get off his ass and start earning the renumeration he receives (again, this change in him makes the character much more interesting), not as a middle manager, but as a major owner of a law firm with many employees, Howard was an utter joke in fulfilling his professional responsibilities. When he stupidly alienates a subordinate who just delivered a few million in billings to the firm, he is failing in his responsibility to his partners and the other employees of the firm. When he allows Chuck to function as a semi involved senior partner, despite being in the depths of obviously severe mental illness, to the point of allowing clients records to be kept in an obviously unsecured fire hazard, he not only is failing the other partners and employees, but utterly failing his responsibilities to the clients themselves. 

None of that makes Kim's misdeeds any less awful, of course, and what she is planning now may be the worst unjustified misdeed of all, although taking Mesa Verde's money, while covertly working against its interests, is really, really, really scummy. The fact that Howard has made a good faith, and what may be successful, effort at being a better human being, just emphasizes the moral depths that Kim is choosing to descend to. It's really cover your eyes ugly and sad. Yet I can't stop watching.