S06.E03: Rock and Hard Place

[Penman61]

5 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I feel like it's hard to put too much weight on it since the characters basically exist completely because of that one line.

...and the lines are spoken by the new show's titular character...about two other main characters.

So: are the lines important? Yes.

Is the Internet over-scrutinizing them? Also yes, probably. That's the Internet.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Penman61

[scenario]

2 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Saul may never have been told that Nacho was dead. I think people are putting too much weight on what Saul said in BB. 🤷‍♀️

I'm certain he didn't know for certain that Nacho was dead. 

The line did bring up two points. At some point between now and when that line is spoken, people in the cartel learn that Lalo is alive or Saul wouldn't have said it. 

And it can't be too far in the future when Saul says these lines. If no one had seen Nacho or Lalo for two or three years why bring them up?

[Cinnabon]

5 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I feel like it's hard to put too much weight on it since the characters basically exist completely because of that one line.

I don’t think that’s why they were created, but YMMV.

[Penman61]

1 minute ago, Cinnabon said:

I don’t think that’s why they were created, but YMMV.

I'm sure you're right, that they were more-or-less filler lines when they were written, just to show Saul had generic, sleazy Mexican cartel connections, and how he will always try to wiggle out of a tough situation.

But for BCS they matter because its story has to be consistent with these lines about its three major characters. I mean, these lines aren't just like passing info--like, say, "Lalo likes to cook!"--they suggest a relevant backstory and connection for three major characters in the current show. 

Anyway, straying off-topic here. Sorry.

[Cinnabon]

Interesting article that hits on some of the issues we’ve been discussing. 
 

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-recaps/better-call-saul-recap-season-6-episode-3-1338542/amp/

 

[Cinnabon]

Michael Mando’s take on Mike’s “Do it.”

When Mike is watching Nacho hold the gun to Bolsa's head, he mutters, "Do it." Is he hoping that Nacho would kill Bolsa, or is he saying, "Do your job," which is, "Die and ensure your father's safety." And with the gun, Nacho can now end things on his terms.

I think Mike is a conflicted character morally at this point. For most of the show, Nacho's been looking at Mike for guidance. In this point, Nacho transcends that relationship. I'm not really sure what Mike is really thinking anymore; you have to ask Jonathan Banks that, because the characters — even though there's still a deep love and respect for each other — have sworn allegiances to different sides. Nacho is breaking good and Mike is breaking bad, and they kind of leave each other at that point.

https://ew.com/tv/better-call-saul-michael-mando-on-nacho-fate-rock-hard-place/

Edited April 30, 2022 by Cinnabon

[peeayebee]

2 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

Interesting article that hits on some of the issues we’ve been discussing. 
 

https://www.rollingstone.com/tv/tv-recaps/better-call-saul-recap-season-6-episode-3-1338542/amp/

Thanks for that. I used to read Sepinwall's reviews all the time, and then Rolling Stone became subscription-only, so I'm wondering why I was able to read this article. Maybe they changed their access requirements.

Interesting hypothesis that Saul/Jimmy invokes Nacho's name (in BB) because he knows he's dead and therefore is a good scapegoat. 

I may be having a brain fart -- Does Jimmy know that Lalo is supposedly dead?

Edited April 30, 2022 by peeayebee

[scenario]

2 minutes ago, peeayebee said:

Thanks for that. I used to read Sepinwall's reviews all the time, and then Rolling Stone became subscription-only, so I'm wondering why I was able to read this article. Maybe they changed their access requirements.

I'm not sure I agree with his hypothesis that Saul/Jimmy invokes Nacho's name (in BB) because he knows he's dead and therefore is a good scapegoat. We'll just have to see.

I may be having a brain fart -- Does Jimmy know that Lalo is supposedly dead?

I'm pretty sure the DA told Kim. 

[sistermagpie]

3 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

I don’t think that’s why they were created, but YMMV.

The characters exist for many reasons on BCS, but the reason they're named Lalo and Ignacio has from the beginning meant to refer to that line of Saul's. I mean, presumably they've always obviously been meant to be the people he's referring to long before they knew exactly what was going to happen with either of them. So whatever happens, Saul's line in BB will make sense coming from him.

[peeayebee]

On 4/26/2022 at 10:41 PM, 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?

I was watching the opening again, this time with CC on. I noticed that from time to time it said "Hissing." So maybe you're right. Maybe this was the POV of a snake. I don't think that has any significance, just the idea that a snake is slithering across the desert floor and comes across the glass shard and broken wrist ties.

[Dev F]

6 hours ago, scenario said:

I'm certain he didn't know for certain that Nacho was dead.

My guess is that Mike tells Saul that Nacho fled to Belize but Saul suspects that means "he's dead"—which is why Saul thought of "a trip to Belize" as a euphemism for murdering an associate in Breaking Bad.

Quote

The line did bring up two points. At some point between now and when that line is spoken, people in the cartel learn that Lalo is alive or Saul wouldn't have said it. 

Yeah, it seems likely that at around the time of that scene, everyone realizes that Lalo is still alive and Saul starts freaking out that he'll come after him.

Quote

And it can't be too far in the future when Saul says these lines. If no one had seen Nacho or Lalo for two or three years why bring them up?

It is pretty far in the future, though. Better Call Saul has only gotten us up to June 2004, and the first few seasons of Breaking Bad take place around 2008.

Edited April 30, 2022 by Dev F

[Joimiaroxeu]

Nacho went out like a m.f.-ing boss. Kudos to Michael Mando and his outstanding performance.

Right now I'd almost put this episode up there with BB's Ozymandias. However, I wouldn't be surprised if before BCS' current season is over another episode tops it.

Quote

After TWoP went down and was resurrected as PreviouslyTV, the "no boards on boards" policy was rescinded, and things are much better these days.  

Although some of the same people running PTV were also involved in TWoP,  PTV did not arise from TWoP's ashes. At the time of its demise TWoP was owned by the Bravo network (which was owned by NBC). That's where a lot of the problems with TWoP came from, i.e., Bravo and NBC wanting to enable objective discussion about their competitors and their competitors' products while staying out of legal trouble. Meanwhile, PTV was already running months before TWoP was shut down, and it benefited vastly from the movement of former TWoP users to PTV. It also had the advantage of being independent of any corporate entertainment media entities. The people running PTV were well aware of the draconian moderation rules TWoP had and seem to have made an effort to avoid most of them.

Quote

Here is a story about how this website's predecessor got a boost when another show creator was not as humble.  

   The long back story of Aaron Sorkin, West Wing, Televisionwithoutpity and the "U.S. Poet Laureate" episode

That Aaron Sorkin b.s. was just one of the reasons I stopped watching West Wing years before it ended. Yeesh, and I thought the Scandal forum was bad. But again, I would not necessarily characterize TWoP as PTV's predecessor. It just happens that the some of the same people were involved in the development and operation of PTV after they sold TWoP to Bravo/NBC, and a lot of users migrated over to PTV once it was announced that TWoP was shutting down. (There has also been an influx of posters from reddit, probably due to some of its moderation issues too.)

Edited May 1, 2022 by Joimiaroxeu

[PeterPirate]

16 hours ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Although some of the same people running PTV were also involved in TWoP,  PTV did not arise from TWoP's ashes. At the time of its demise TWoP was owned by the Bravo network (which was owned by NBC). That's where a lot of the problems with TWoP came from, i.e., Bravo and NBC wanting to enable objective discussion about their competitors and their competitors' products while staying out of legal trouble. Meanwhile, PTV was already running months before TWoP was shut down, and it benefited vastly from the movement of former TWoP users to PTV. It also had the advantage of being independent of any corporate entertainment media entities. The people running PTV were well aware of the draconian moderation rules TWoP had and seem to have made an effort to avoid most of them.

That Aaron Sorkin b.s. was just one of the reasons I stopped watching West Wing years before it ended. Yeesh, and I thought the Scandal forum was bad. But again, I would not necessarily characterize TWoP as PTV's predecessor. It just happens that the some of the same people were involved in the development and operation of PTV after they sold TWoP to Bravo/NBC, and a lot of users migrated over to PTV once it was announced that TWoP was shutting down. (There has also been an influx of posters from reddit, probably due to some of its moderation issues too.)

There's still about a dozen of us immigrants left at the West Wing thread.  As I remember it, as TWoP was ending they recommended that we move to PreviouslyTV, which was a decent thing to do. 

I've gone back and forth about whether TWoP was this site's "predecessor", or whether "forerunner" is a more accurate term.  I have finally settled on "precursor"--if for no other reason than it brings things back to this show. 

Edited May 1, 2022 by PeterPirate

[carrps]

I wish the TwoP archives were still around. I used to sometimes read old fora for entertainment. The Aunt Sandy folder was always good for a laugh.

[Cinnabon]

3 hours ago, carrps said:

I wish the TwoP archives were still around. I used to sometimes read old fora for entertainment. The Aunt Sandy folder was always good for a laugh.

Same. I didn’t watch BB until about a year after the series ended, and while it was great to be able to binge the entire series at once, I missed the discussion and read in the archives while watching.

[Constantinople]

You can go to https://archive.org and search on forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/forum/1172-breaking-bad for archived copies of the TWoP Breaking Bad forum. But it can be frustrating. Even if an episode thread is available, it may not have the page you want when you click on First, Previous, Next or Last.

Also, Breaking Bad didn't have its own forum until Season 3, so the episode threads for Seasons 1 and 2 were created much later than when those episodes aired.

If you want the original Breaking Bad thread for Seasons 1 & 2 search on forums.televisionwithoutpity.com/index.php?showtopic=3162453 at the archive.

[SunnyBeBe]

I realize it’s complicated, but why couldn’t Mike have taken out EVERYONE, including Gus, when he had them in his scope?  Burn the bodies and Nacho disappears.  

[Cinnabon]

2 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I realize it’s complicated, but why couldn’t Mike have taken out EVERYONE, including Gus, when he had them in his scope?  Burn the bodies and Nacho disappears.  

For sure! But that couldn’t happen because we know they all show up in BB. But that would’ve been the best outcome.

[SunnyBeBe]

5 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

For sure! But that couldn’t happen because we know they all show up in BB. But that would’ve been the best outcome.

I guess I’m more devious than Mike. Lol

[Cinnabon]

Just now, SunnyBeBe said:

I guess I’m more devious than Mike. Lol

Same, lol. That’s how I imagined the scene playing out in my ideal world. But Nacho may well have gotten caught in the crossfire.

[SunnyBeBe]

My favorite line so far this season: We’re doing the Lord’s work.  🤣

[scenario]

On 4/30/2022 at 7:37 PM, Dev F said:

My guess is that Mike tells Saul that Nacho fled to Belize but Saul suspects that means "he's dead"—which is why Saul thought of "a trip to Belize" as a euphemism for murdering an associate in Breaking Bad.

Yeah, it seems likely that at around the time of that scene, everyone realizes that Lalo is still alive and Saul starts freaking out that he'll come after him.

It is pretty far in the future, though. Better Call Saul has only gotten us up to June 2004, and the first few seasons of Breaking Bad take place around 2008.

If this episode happens in 2004 and the first season of BB were in 2008, that meant that Saul's line was about two people who haven't been heard from in 4 years, especially Nacho who we know is dead. Why bring up the name of two people who haven't been around in that long? 

[PeterPirate]

Several things have to happen for this show to fit perfectly into the BB canon:  

1.  Saul does something to betray Lalo.
2.  Saul learns Lalo is alive. 
3.  Saul learns Ignacio is the one who betrayed Lalo.
4.  Lalo dies.  
5.  Gus knows Lalo is dead.
6.  Saul believes Lalo is alive.  

Item 1 can be Saul cooperating with the DA.  Items 4, 5, and 6 can be accomplished by Mike without Saul's knowledge.   

[Constantinople]

1 hour ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I realize it’s complicated, but why couldn’t Mike have taken out EVERYONE, including Gus, when he had them in his scope?  Burn the bodies and Nacho disappears.  

1. I don't think Mike is like that.

2. No more money for his granddaughter

3. The cartel will ask questions. To be safe, not only would Mike have to disappear, but so would his daughter-in-law and his granddaughter.

4. Gus told Mike that Gus thinks Lalo is alive, and Mike knows that Lalo knows that Mike works for Gus.

[SunnyBeBe]

3 minutes ago, Constantinople said:

1. I don't think Mike is like that.

2. No more money for his granddaughter

3. The cartel will ask questions. To be safe, not only would Mike have to disappear, but so would his daughter-in-law and his granddaughter.

4. Gus told Mike that Gus thinks Lalo is alive, and Mike knows that Lalo knows that Mike works for Gus.

Good points, but with Hector and Gus out of the way,  there’d be more room for others to move in without resistance….so, a golden opportunity or free for all.  Maybe too much confusion for those moving in to focus on who was responsible for the take down.  And, if Mike takes no money and lays low, there’s nothing for them to avenge.  And, even if Mike has to look over his shoulder for Lalo, as least he won’t have Hector’s support. 

[Dev F]

2 hours ago, scenario said:

If this episode happens in 2004 and the first season of BB were in 2008, that meant that Saul's line was about two people who haven't been heard from in 4 years, especially Nacho who we know is dead. Why bring up the name of two people who haven't been around in that long? 

We don't know that Lalo won't still be around in 2008. In fact, it's possible that Saul won't realize Lalo is still alive until around that time—making it a recent worry for him, not an old one.

As for Nacho, if Saul thinks that Lalo is coming after him for supposedly being involved in the assassination attempt in Mexico, it makes sense for him to insist that he wasn't involved in that (which he wasn't), that it was all Nacho's doing (which it was). The fact that it was years ago and Nacho is long dead doesn't change the facts of the setup.

40 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Good points, but with Hector and Gus out of the way,  there’d be more room for others to move in without resistance….so, a golden opportunity or free for all.

A golden opportunity for what? Mike is a security expert and a fixer, not a drug lord. He wouldn't be the one moving into the vacuum; he'd just be killing the kingpin who pays him so he can be replaced by someone who doesn't.

Also, Mike would not be able to take out six people with a bolt action sniper rifle before they were able to recognize what was happening and take cover. Look at what happens when he misses his first shot at the mercenary's car in "Bagman"—it takes more than five seconds for him to reload and resight.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Dev F

[anoninrva]

3 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I realize it’s complicated, but why couldn’t Mike have taken out EVERYONE, including Gus, when he had them in his scope?  Burn the bodies and Nacho disappears.  

Because they would have gotten out of the way.  Also, Gus could have been shot.  I thought he was just intending on killing Nacho to deliver his promise of a "clean death".

[gallimaufry]

 

5 hours ago, Constantinople said:

1. I don't think Mike is like that.

2. No more money for his granddaughter

3. The cartel will ask questions. To be safe, not only would Mike have to disappear, but so would his daughter-in-law and his granddaughter.

4. Gus told Mike that Gus thinks Lalo is alive, and Mike knows that Lalo knows that Mike works for Gus.

5. Killing seven people at that distance would actually be really difficult.  The first one you'd have the element of surprise but after that they'd be running back to their vehicles or for cover.  

6. Almost certainly Bolsa has people in the area just like Gus has so after one gunshot, he'd need to evacuate quickly.

I do kind of wish there was a way for Nacho to fake his own death convincingly.  BB and BCS have had a facility in the past with these audacious scams which seem believable but are super ambitious.  But I think the real issue with that is that Nacho could never then redeem himself in his father's eyes as the only redemption he would accept is going to the police.  Nacho could walk into the sunset having lost everything and everyone and even though he was alive, it would oddly feel like a more downbeat ending -- unless he returned to put himself back into the fray later working with the DEA.  But since we know he wasn't around in BB, that's not really an avenue.

[Gobi]

10 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

I realize it’s complicated, but why couldn’t Mike have taken out EVERYONE, including Gus, when he had them in his scope?  Burn the bodies and Nacho disappears.  

Mike is a planner, who weighs all the contingencies before acting. While he's certainly capable of improvising when needed, he wouldn't make a major move like that on the spur of the moment.

[Milburn Stone]

On 4/30/2022 at 6:37 PM, Dev F said:

Better Call Saul has only gotten us up to June 2004, and the first few seasons of Breaking Bad take place around 2008.

Not disputing this, but (as someone who hasn't seen BB in a long time) I wonder: Do the first seasons of BB take place around 2008? The show began airing then, but could the events first depicted in it actually have taken place in, say, 2005? 

[Eulipian 5k]

On 4/28/2022 at 2:45 PM, Cinnabon said:

So Gus’s people are the ones who caught Nacho and brought him in (according to their story.) I wasn’t aware Gus had people in Mexico. Where is this road that leads to and from Mexico without any oversight from border patrol? 

Haven't seen an explanation for how Gus got to Nacho before Lalo's people, but the border patrol is no issue. We saw earlier that Gus ships his "produce" under the removable floor of his trucks. A lot better than a"hayride" to smuggle people.

[Eulipian 5k]

On 4/28/2022 at 3:19 PM, scenario said:

Putting things off until the roof is about to fall in is a common trait in the business world.

Doesn't this describe the entire BB/BCS universe of businessmen, lol?. There's no reason to invent reasons for Kim to hate Howard; she's the same type. She would drive across three lanes of traffic while asleep to make Kevin a few extra bucks. The show has yet to show Howard acting out of personal vendetta personal profit or malice. ALL of these describe Kim's motivations. She's especially not even doing it because of the way they treated Jimmy! (Paying the law school tuition of a promising young employee is not an ego/power play; it's good management - you ungrateful wretch!)

[Dev F]

11 minutes ago, Milburn Stone said:

Not disputing this, but (as someone who hasn't seen BB in a long time) I wonder: Do the first seasons of BB take place around 2008? The show began airing then, but could the events first depicted in it actually have taken place in, say, 2005? 

As far as I know, the two main anchor points for the Gilliganverse timeline are a) the assumption that it was originally taking place at roughly the time it premiered (January 2008), since there was initially no reason for it to be a period piece, and b) the fact that the Phoenix lander discovering water on Mars was a major plot point in one episode, and in the real world it didn't set down until May 2008.

The writers have never been super scrupulous with the timeline (just try to make sense of the age difference between Jimmy and Chuck, I dare you!), so it's possible they'll decide that the Phoenix reference doesn't matter and scoot back the dates, but it'd be a much larger retcon than any of their previous flubs—and it would be a pretty awkward gotcha for them to be like, "Surprise, Breaking Bad actually took place years earlier than you assumed, because we don't care that this is inconsistent!" So I'm inclined to think that they'll stick with the 2008 anchor point.

[Cinnabon]

43 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Haven't seen an explanation for how Gus got to Nacho before Lalo's people, but the border patrol is no issue. We saw earlier that Gus ships his "produce" under the removable floor of his trucks. A lot better than a"hayride" to smuggle people.

Yes, but how do the twins and others cross the border so easily and often? Where exactly did they all meet during Nacho’s death scene? The show makes it look like there’s a road in the New Mexico desert leading straight into Mexico with no stops or patrols.

Edited May 2, 2022 by Cinnabon

[Cinnabon]

30 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Doesn't this describe the entire BB/BCS universe of businessmen, lol?. There's no reason to invent reasons for Kim to hate Howard; she's the same type. She would drive across three lanes of traffic while asleep to make Kevin a few extra bucks. The show has yet to show Howard acting out of personal vendetta personal profit or malice. ALL of these describe Kim's motivations. She's especially not even doing it because of the way they treated Jimmy! (Paying the law school tuition of a promising young employee is not an ego/power play; it's good management - you ungrateful wretch!)

I think Kim now regrets putting her life and others at risk to make Kevin richer. Howard was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, so he hasn’t had to do anything sketchy for personal profit. He surely didn’t have to take out any loans or pay a dime out of his own pocket to pay for law school, and he didn’t even have to look for a job afterward. Good old nepotism!  Putting Kim in doc review and keeping her there could be seen as punishing her  🤷‍♀️. We’re not talking about a level playing field here. 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Cinnabon

[Eulipian 5k]

11 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Howard was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, so he hasn’t had to do anything sketchy for personal profit.

Being born rich never stopped anyone from wanting more personal profit. Ask Michael Corleone, lol. It's how/why the rich get richer.

[anoninrva]

28 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Yes, but how do the twins and others cross the border so easily and often? Where exactly did they all meet during Nacho’s death scene? The show makes it look like there’s a road in the New Mexico desert leading straight into Mexico with no stops or patrols.

Haven't they established there are parts of the desert you can just walk over?  There's no natural boundary west of the Rio Grande.

[Cinnabon]

13 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Being born rich never stopped anyone from wanting more personal profit. Ask Michael Corleone, lol. It's how/why the rich get richer.

Lol you’re absolutely right. That’s why I added nothing “sketchy” which probably isn’t completely true. But those born into money and power like that aren’t on a level playing field with the rest of us. Howard doesn’t care if the Sandpiper settlement is delayed for years, because he’s already sitting on a comfortable mountain of money. He either doesn’t see or doesn’t care that Jimmy needs the settlement money sooner than later, even though there wouldn’t even be a case or settlement without him. 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Cinnabon

[Eulipian 5k]

On 4/28/2022 at 9:14 PM, Crashcourse said:

I didn't think so.  I wonder if Kim's hatred comes partly from the fact that he never showed any romantic interest in her, so she settled for Jimmy.   I think this shit is personal.

That's what gets me about this. Howard has never been shown to use his leverage over Kim for any harassment or sexual favors. Which is a standard TV trope, (Look at Roger Sterling in Mad Men). Kim was more enamored with Chuck as a mentor than Howard as a possible romantic partner. (We saw that in a mailroom flashback.)

Edited May 2, 2022 by Eulipian 5k
wrong Sterling

[Eulipian 5k]

On 4/29/2022 at 7:57 AM, Bannon said:

Gus very much wants Bolsa alive, as an intermediary between the Salamancas and Eladio

Exactly, this is why Gus and Mike wouldn't want Bolsa dead; or we would have seen them make that part of the plan. Mike might have wanted him dead because, as Gus said, Bolsa was the one behind the "Bag Man" robbery attempt; but that was to help Gus. Actually, Mike prolly wants them ALL dead so he can go back to his fulfilling life at the parking lot as Pop-Pop, sigh.

[Eulipian 5k]

On 4/29/2022 at 4:56 PM, Melonie77 said:

Someone who has not watched BB would have no problem believing Do It was meant for Bolas. I believe the scene was written and directed to be interpreted in just that way. But we are having problems with it because we know every single one of the other 8 people in that scene all make it to BB.

Yes! I hardly think Mike is concerned that these guys make it to BB, (he's not in 2008, lol); he knows what his boss wants from this meeting. From all that we've seen from Mike he plans everything before hand, with anticipated results. "Do it" with Mike always means "stick to the plan".

[SailorGirl]

1 hour ago, anoninrva said:

Haven't they established there are parts of the desert you can just walk over?  There's no natural boundary west of the Rio Grande.

Regardless, I would also assume they all have false passports that enable them to go back and forth through official border checkpoints. We already saw that Nacho had fake Canadian driver's licenses for him and his father, so I can't imagine getting fake passports under different names is an issue for those in the cartel who matter. 

Edited May 2, 2022 by SailorGirl

[Colorado David]

9 minutes ago, SailorGirl said:

Regardless, I would also assume they all have false passports that enable them to go back and forth through official border checkpoints. We already saw that Nacho had fake Canadian driver's licenses for him and his father, so I can't imagine getting fake passports under different names is an issue for those in the cartel who matter. 

Not too mention the cartel could easily pay off a prefered border agent (s).

 

[Crashcourse]

2 hours ago, Eulipian 5k said:

That's what gets me about this. Howard has never been shown to use his leverage over Kim for any harassment or sexual favors. Which is a standard TV trope, (Look at John Sterling in Mad Men). Kim was more enamored with Chuck as a mentor than Howard as a possible romantic partner. (We saw that in a mailroom flashback.)

Well, we're all offering opinions for Kim's motivations, so I offered mine.   

 

[Cinnabon]

2 hours ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Mike might have wanted him dead because, as Gus said, Bolsa was the one behind the "Bag Man" robbery attempt; but that was to help Gus. A

I don’t even remember Bolsa being responsible for that Bagman robbery attempt. Clearly I need to go review a few episodes, lol.

[Cinnabon]

31 minutes ago, Crashcourse said:

Well, we're all offering opinions for Kim's motivations, so I offered mine.   

 

When has Kim ever been shown to be concerned with men’s sexual attraction to her? Other than with her own boyfriend, she has seemed completely unaware and uninterested in that. If anything, I think she makes an effort to play down her perceived attractiveness to avoid that in the workplace.  She was probably relieved that neither Chuck nor Howard seemed in the least bit interested in her sexually.  I’m guessing you’re not a woman?

[Crashcourse]

Whether I'm a woman or man has nothing to do with my post.  As I said, we're all offering opinions and I've offered mine.  

 

 

Edited May 2, 2022 by Crashcourse

[nodorothyparker]

MOD NOTE

Remember to debate the opinion and not the poster. Don't make it personal. It's fine to agree to disagree and move on, which is what everyone should be doing here. Kim's possible motivations have been rehashed to death in this thread.

[scenario]

Rehashing to death is half the fun of these type places. But I agree that it shouldn't get personal. 

[MBayGal]

On 4/29/2022 at 1:55 PM, Bannon said:

 

If you rewatch the scene you will see that "Do it" does not mean 'kill yourself'. It is very very clear that it is long-distance encouragement from Mike to take out Bolsa whose skull at that moment has a gun pressed to it. The gun is not aimed at Nacho's head at that point. Mike seems to admire Nacho's last stand in the desert. Is there any way you are able to catch that bit again? 😁

 

I have rewatched it.  What does it matter whether Mike meant "kill yourself" or "kill Bolsa"?  Nacho made the choice he made based on what he thought/felt in that moment.

Also, " long-distance encouragement" is an odd way to phrase it, since there is no way Nacho could hear it.

Edited May 3, 2022 by MBayGal
additional thought on the subject.