S06.E12: Waterworks

[Starchild]

1 minute ago, Eulipian 5k said:

That's the nature of the medium. Can you imagine getting screener DVD's for a whole season of each show to review? They'll end up being unseen and pirated. These awards were never considered the same. TV gained stature, and big stars slumming, once miniseries became a thing.

Exactly. Inherently unfair.

3 minutes ago, Joimiaroxeu said:

Victor St. Clair. Sounds like a character from a soap opera or a romance novel. At what point had Jimmy and Kim agreed to use that as his codename? (Because she seemed to know it was going to be him on the phone.)

That's Viktor. With a 'k.' ;)

Those are the names they used in their early scams together. Brother and sister, Viktor and Gisele St. Clair.

[Eulipian 5k]

18 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

F#ck all of them!

Yes! One of their staff left their "stuff" in Howard's locker! Cheryl should sue.

[sistermagpie]

9 hours ago, Ottis said:

Agree, and what I noted was they can show the process of the con with a single scene with the security guard and Jimmy timing how long it took before he checked the monitors, and not 5 scenes plus Jimmy learning about college football, etc. 

Sure, that would have given us the practical information of what the scam was. But the point actually was Jimmy learning about college football and meeting with the guys again. That's the process and it interests both Gene and the writers. Just coming up with timing something is a very different scam when played out than Saul going every day and studying for everything. More importantly, it's showing us a very different character. 

Edited August 11, 2022 by sistermagpie

[ShadowFacts]

36 minutes ago, Chaos Theory said:

I agree completely.  In all honesty I didnt even really notice except the occasional “how old are Kim and Jimmy supposed to be again” when the discussion turned on Twitter and the like to them having kids and people commented that they were too old but in truth timeline wise they are in their 30s which is when the majority of middle class whites start having kids.     Honestly the first time I REALLY noticed was ironically when Jesse Pinkman showed up because he is supposed to be in his early 20s and probably is the one thing that took me out of the show for a split second.  But only a second

Are they really supposed to be in their 30s? I would have thought mid 40s, if Jimmy was supposed to be 10 years younger (am I making that up?) than Chuck. Why have them be that young when they don't look it, and it would not have been necessary to make them that young. Was Kim's birthdate visible on the divorce papers?

[scenario]

1 hour ago, Chaos Theory said:

I agree completely.  In all honesty I didnt even really notice except the occasional “how old are Kim and Jimmy supposed to be again” when the discussion turned on Twitter and the like to them having kids and people commented that they were too old but in truth timeline wise they are in their 30s which is when the majority of middle class whites start having kids.     Honestly the first time I REALLY noticed was ironically when Jesse Pinkman showed up because he is supposed to be in his early 20s and probably is the one thing that took me out of the show for a split second.  But only a second

This sort of stuff doesn't bother me. 

When I was a kid (3 tv channels, no internet) I used to watch the soaps with my mom and grandma. A 25 year old actress on the show would get married and have a baby. They'd show the 8 month old playing a newborn for a couple of episodes. Then for the next month or two, the baby was in the other room. Then a 5 year old would come on for a few episodes. Then a few months later, a 12 year old. Then the 12 year old goes off to summer camp and comes back 3 or 4 months later from medical school. 

So now you've got a 26 year old actress with a 24 year old doctor son. Son gets married. Situation repeats.

Now you've got a 28 year old actress with a 26 year old son and a 24 year old granddaughter. 10 year later and there are about 10 characters on the show are grandchildren, great grandchildren... of the original actress but somehow the relationships are all forgotten about. 

[conquistador]

I think I will not read this whole thread for fear of speculation, but I am surprised if it took the crying scene in this episode for people to realize Rhea Seehorn’s acting skills. She has been consistently great and her chemistry with Odenkirk has been key for the overall plot of the whole show…

[gallimaufry]

He was using the Saul name already as of the 104 flashback. Not quite sure when it began - could have been an interesting young Jimmy flashback but I think they've got bigger fish now.

[PeterPirate]

42 minutes ago, gallimaufry said:

He was using the Saul name already as of the 104 flashback. Not quite sure when it began 

Awesome.  Thanks for that.  So "Saul Goodman" came from "S'all good, man", not from its ethnic connotations. 

I think this is the only instance where the events in BCS change the canon in BB.  In all other matters--three wives, Kevin Costner, Lalo, Nacho--they wove the elements together perfectly.  Not that it really matters.  The entirety of BCS has been a massive retcon of the Saul Goodman character.  

Edited August 11, 2022 by PeterPirate

[Ottis]

23 hours ago, Bannon said:

t's rich detail that illuminates chatacter, and yes, even after àll these years, the complex character of Jimmy/Saul/Gene can still benefit from illumination, in this case, how morally depraved is he willing to be? Will he personally, deliberately, murder completely innocent civilians?

Keep in mind my point was about both detail and episode placement. Like I said, this level of repetitive detail might have worked last season. WIth a few eps to go? Too much. That ep could have been 15 minutes or so and gotten across the same key points, IMO.

3 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

But the point actually was Jimmy learning about college football and meeting with the guys again.

The very first time they had Gene drop off the dessert, the guard talked about sports, Jimmy couldn't engage because he didn't know about sports. My immediate thought was, after we saw Jimmy click his watch at 3:12, "Jimmy will have to learn about sports to engage better." I didn't have to see it happen. YMMV.

[sistermagpie]

3 minutes ago, Ottis said:

The very first time they had Gene drop off the dessert, the guard talked about sports, Jimmy couldn't engage because he didn't know about sports. My immediate thought was, after we saw Jimmy click his watch at 3:12, "Jimmy will have to learn about sports to engage better." I didn't have to see it happen. YMMV.

Just to be clear, I'm not saying we couldn't have gotten all this stuff without seeing it. Just that it's very different to watch, for instance, the first time and the last time that demonstrates that Gene has done his homework, vs. seeing an actual false friendship tended and growing. Especially (but not only) given that final distraction move of Gene's.

[Starchild]

Invariably, someone somewhere would have said that Jimmy suddenly knows about sports, and I wish they'd have shown us some of that lol

59 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Awesome.  Thanks for that.  So "Saul Goodman" came from "S'all good, man", not from its ethnic connotations. 

I think this is the only instance where the events in BCS change the canon in BB.  In all other matters--three wives, Kevin Costner, Lalo, Nacho--they wove the elements together perfectly.  Not that it really matters.  The entirety of BCS has been a massive retcon of the Saul Goodman character.  

I don't think it has to be a retcon. Saul may have chosen the name from his slippin' past, but considered it a bonus that it sounded jewish, thereby enhancing his "appeal"

[peeayebee]

So, I bought Duke's and Hellman's today and did a taste test. They tasted the same. Yes, that surprised me, too. I'll test again tomorrow to see if I have a different reaction.

[Colorado David]

1 minute ago, peeayebee said:

So, I bought Duke's and Hellman's today and did a taste test. They tasted the same. Yes, that surprised me, too. I'll test again tomorrow to see if I have a different reaction.

shares if you're making sammiches, k

[Penman61]

Just now, Colorado David said:

shares if you're making sammiches, k

I'm still waiting for my Cinnabons from two eps ago...

[PeterPirate]

49 minutes ago, Starchild said:

Saul may have chosen the name from his slippin' past, but considered it a bonus that it sounded jewish, thereby enhancing his "appeal"

Anything is possible.  But that is not what is shown in BB when Walt meets Saul for the first time.  As far as I'm concerned it's going to be one of those unexplained details in the show(s).  

I'm afraid I'm just an irritating stickler when it comes to such matters.

Edited August 11, 2022 by PeterPirate
Walt not Wlat

[Cinnabon]

1 minute ago, PeterPirate said:

Anything is possible.  But that is not what is shown in BB when Wlat meets Saul for the first time.  As far as I'm concerned it's going to be one of those unexplained details in the show(s).  

I'm afraid I'm just an irritating stickler when it comes to such matters.

I’m going to bet that most of the BB viewers don’t remember many of the details because BB ended so long ago. 

[Dev F]

2 hours ago, gallimaufry said:

He was using the Saul name already as of the 104 flashback. Not quite sure when it began - could have been an interesting young Jimmy flashback but I think they've got bigger fish now.

In that flashback, he just gives his first name as Saul, then makes a joke that it's short for "Saul good, man." That's obviously where he got the idea, but I don't think he starts to actually use Saul Goodman as an alias until he's selling his unusable commercial time in season 3.

[sistermagpie]

33 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Anything is possible.  But that is not what is shown in BB when Walt meets Saul for the first time.  As far as I'm concerned it's going to be one of those unexplained details in the show(s).  

I'm afraid I'm just an irritating stickler when it comes to such matters.

But since it's just something Saul's saying to Walt in the moment, and Saul is a character he created who usually says whatever is most useful or fun in the moment, a character who's taken over the real person over time, would we really need an explanation for why he might have said something to Walt that turned out to not be true? He's a known liar who uses scumminess for self-protection.

[scenario]

6 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

But since it's just something Saul's saying to Walt in the moment, and Saul is a character he created who usually says whatever is most useful or fun in the moment, a character who's taken over the real person over time, would we really need an explanation for why he might have said something to Walt that turned out to not be true? He's a known liar who uses scumminess for self-protection.

People's memories are in general pretty bad. In the real world people's memories of events change over time. In the real world, Saul might not even remember how he originally chose the name. 

[PeterPirate]

21 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

But since it's just something Saul's saying to Walt in the moment, and Saul is a character he created who usually says whatever is most useful or fun in the moment, a character who's taken over the real person over time, would we really need an explanation for why he might have said something to Walt that turned out to not be true? He's a known liar who uses scumminess for self-protection.

Well, let me put it this way.  Before BCS, did you believe Saul when he said he adopted his moniker to please his legal clients?  Or did you say to yourself, "You know, I think that part isn't true"?  I'd be willing to bet that very, very few people would say the latter.  

I'm not against retcons.  I just acknowledge them when they happen.  My hard-wired brain won't let me ignore contradictions.  

In fact, I can postulate that Saul made up the "My homeboy clients like the Jewish name" so he wouldn't have to deal with the reality that he filed the DBA paperwork when he was with Kim.  

Edited August 12, 2022 by PeterPirate

[sistermagpie]

7 minutes ago, scenario said:

People's memories are in general pretty bad. In the real world people's memories of events change over time. In the real world, Saul might not even remember how he originally chose the name. 

Yes, I think that could definitely be in play too.

6 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Well, let me put it this way.  Before BCS, did you doubt Saul when he said he adopted his moniker to please his legal clients?  Or did you say to yourself, "You know, I think that part isn't true"?  I'd be willing to bet that very, very few people would say the latter.  

I'm not against retcons.  I just acknowledge them when they happen.  My hard-wired brain won't let me ignore contradictions.  

In fact, I can postulate that Saul made up the "My homeboy clients like the Jewish name" so he wouldn't have to deal with the reality that he filed the DBA paperwork when he was with Kim.  

I didn't say to myself that it wasn't true, but that doesn't make it a retcon, since we didn't see Saul come up with the name for that reason and the character's so associated with spinning tales. I didn't consciously think he was lying about having a stepdad when he mentioned him screwing his second wife. Now I think he was lying about that and didn't even have a stepdad. Doesn't seem like a retcon, just another way that Saul Goodman the character in 2008 only sometimes overlaps with the life of Jimmy McGill and probably contradicts himself several times a week. He's a conman. 

[Milburn Stone]

Kudos to Marian for "Jeeves-ing" Saul, but I don't think Gene's remark to her made it a lead-pipe cinch that he'd ever been in Albuquerque. Even someone who'd never been in Albuquerque--upon hearing about the bail-bonding procedures there, and familiar with the ones in Omaha--might say, "This ain't Albuquerque."

[PeterPirate]

16 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

I didn't say to myself that it wasn't true, but that doesn't make it a retcon, since we didn't see Saul come up with the name for that reason and the character's so associated with spinning tales. I didn't consciously think he was lying about having a stepdad when he mentioned him screwing his second wife. Now I think he was lying about that and didn't even have a stepdad. Doesn't seem like a retcon, just another way that Saul Goodman the character in 2008 only sometimes overlaps with the life of Jimmy McGill and probably contradicts himself several times a week. He's a conman. 

Well, I guess it depends one's definition of "retcon".  I think the word fits, since before BCS we took Saul's statements at face value--or at least had no reason not to--and now we have to separate the wheat from the chaff when he tells his stories.  

Edited August 12, 2022 by PeterPirate

[Starchild]

That's what happens when you get more information about someone. That's all that's happened here. When we didn't know Jimmy, we took the line about his wife screwing his stepdad as true. Now that we do know the guy's damage, we can reframe that as a lie, one among many he uses to protect himself from people knowing him too well and therefore having the opportunity to wound him.

[sistermagpie]

1 minute ago, PeterPirate said:

Well, I guess it depends one's definition of "retcon".  I think the word fits, since before BCS we took Saul's statements at face value--or at least had no reason not to--and now we have to separate the wheat from the chaff when he tells his stories.  

Sure, that's true. You're right, it does depend on the definition of it--there's plenty of situations where I absolutely would consider it a retcon if someone told a story and then it changed. For instance, iirc, in The X-files Dana Scully tells one story about how she got her cross necklace, then later there's a flashback that contradicts it. That I considered a retcon, since a reliable narrator told a story about a specific incident and then it was blatantly contradicted.

But in this case it just seems like an unreliable narrator giving a reason for something that's not really the reason but by then might not be a lie either. Same as I don't think Jimmy and Chuck somehow just never talked about their sleazy stepfather who slept with Saul's wife even though Saul claims that moment was an important turning point in his life. 

For me it's more like how I originally thought there was a guy named Lalo who was indisputably alive in BB.

[ahmerali]

There is still something that bothers me about the whole dynamic here. Kim's words to Chuck ring in my ears:

"I know he's not perfect. *pause* And I know he cuts corners. But you're the one who made him this way. He Idolizes you. He accepts you he takes care of you. And all he ever wanted was your love and support. But all you've ever done is judge him. You never believed in him. You never wanted him to succeed. *pause* And you know what? *pause* I feel sorry for him. *pause* And I feel sorry for you."

Possible that maybe, just maybe, Kim turns those words inward...and realizes that they apply to her, just as much as they did to Chuck? She didn't judge him, but she enabled him. She knew what he would become without her. She could have stopped their shenanigans, but she egged him on. She knew what he was, just as Chuck did, but they both made it worse by feeding the worst part of him.

I am not sure what that could mean in the end...but I sure hope it means something.

[jww]

If I remember at first  Saul Goodman was only a DBA, did Jimmy actually go through with a formal name change.?

[ahmerali]

3 minutes ago, ahmerali said:

There is still something that bothers me about the whole dynamic here. Kim's words to Chuck ring in my ears:

"I know he's not perfect. *pause* And I know he cuts corners. But you're the one who made him this way. He Idolizes you. He accepts you he takes care of you. And all he ever wanted was your love and support. But all you've ever done is judge him. You never believed in him. You never wanted him to succeed. *pause* And you know what? *pause* I feel sorry for him. *pause* And I feel sorry for you."

Possible that maybe, just maybe, Kim turns those words inward...and realizes that they apply to her, just as much as they did to Chuck? She didn't judge him, but she enabled him. She knew what he would become without her. She could have stopped their shenanigans, but she egged him on. While Chuck never wanted him to succeed, she didn't really want him to change, and no longer have 'fun'. She knew what he was, just as Chuck did, but they both made it worse by feeding the worst part of him.

I am not sure what that could mean in the end...but I sure hope it means something.

Just now, ahmerali said:

4 minutes ago, ahmerali said:

There is still something that bothers me about the whole dynamic here. Kim's words to Chuck ring in my ears:

"I know he's not perfect. *pause* And I know he cuts corners. But you're the one who made him this way. He Idolizes you. He accepts you he takes care of you. And all he ever wanted was your love and support. But all you've ever done is judge him. You never believed in him. You never wanted him to succeed. *pause* And you know what? *pause* I feel sorry for him. *pause* And I feel sorry for you."

Possible that maybe, just maybe, Kim turns those words inward...and realizes that they apply to her, just as much as they did to Chuck? She didn't judge him, but she enabled him. She knew what he would become without her. She could have stopped their shenanigans, but she egged him on. While Chuck never wanted him to succeed, she didn't really want him to change, and no longer have 'fun'. She knew what he was, just as Chuck did, but they both made it worse by feeding the worst part of him.

I am not sure what that could mean in the end...but I sure hope it means something. I think Saul getting a chance, as Jimmy, to give Kim a "Reason You Suck" speech would be very cathartic and good for the overall series. I would accept the idea that seems to be floating around, that Kim's affidavit sends Saul/Jimmy to jail, if Saul/Jimmy were at least to get a chance to do this. Kim may feel she has 'atoned' for Howard, but there is no way she should get away with trying to 'atone' for Jimmy, because that ship has sailed.

[MBayGal]

2 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

I’m going to bet that most of the BB viewers don’t remember many of the details because BB ended so long ago. 

And then there are those of us who have seen every episode, well.... more than a couple of times

[peeayebee]

2 hours ago, Penman61 said:

I'm still waiting for my Cinnabons from two eps ago...

I wouldn't say no to an anonymous delivery.

[Cinnabon]

59 minutes ago, jww said:

If I remember at first  Saul Goodman was only a DBA, did Jimmy actually go through with a formal name change.?

I thought about that when I noticed his law diploma on the wall with the Saul name. Did he make a new one?

24 minutes ago, MBayGal said:

And then there are those of us who have seen every episode, well.... more than a couple of times

I mean, I have, but I don’t think most have. I also didn’t watch it during its original run, so I didn’t have to wait a year or more between seasons. It’s fresher in my mind than it is for people who watched the first season way back in 2009 (?).

Edited August 12, 2022 by Cinnabon

[ShadowFacts]

38 minutes ago, ahmerali said:

There is still something that bothers me about the whole dynamic here. Kim's words to Chuck ring in my ears:

"I know he's not perfect. *pause* And I know he cuts corners. But you're the one who made him this way. He Idolizes you. He accepts you he takes care of you. And all he ever wanted was your love and support. But all you've ever done is judge him. You never believed in him. You never wanted him to succeed. *pause* And you know what? *pause* I feel sorry for him. *pause* And I feel sorry for you."

Possible that maybe, just maybe, Kim turns those words inward...and realizes that they apply to her, just as much as they did to Chuck? She didn't judge him, but she enabled him. She knew what he would become without her. She could have stopped their shenanigans, but she egged him on. She knew what he was, just as Chuck did, but they both made it worse by feeding the worst part of him.

I am not sure what that could mean in the end...but I sure hope it means something.

I think Kim did turn those words inward to some degree when she split from him, telling him they were harmful together. She probably doesn't put herself on par with Chuck, though. At one point weren't they going to use their powers for good?  She is responsible for straying far from that, and she had the time of her life as she said to Jimmy before leaving. Both she and Chuck fed the worst part of him, but he has always had free will and his choices are his, she is not the one who made him the way he is, nor was Chuck. He started young, he had numerous chances to go straight. 

I'm also reminded that Chuck was not uniformly awful to him, he seemed to care about him as a young kid, reading to him, he took him in to his prestigious law firm knowing he could end up embarrassing him, he saw that he got to bed after celebrating his passing the bar at the karaoke place, encouraged his elder law practice, wrote that he was proud of him in the letter that went along with his will.  Jimmy got the last word with Chuck by humiliating him professionally and causing his departure from HHM via the malpractice insurance. He's become Saul and Gene on his own and maybe in the end we get to see him get back to the best of Jimmy in some way.

[MBayGal]

Talking about Kim's confession and whether it helps Cheryl or redeems Kim got me thinking about Jesse challenging his NA group in "Problem Dog." Jesse is trying to deal within himself with having killed Gale, the chemist, point blank. Not wanting to confess to murder, he tells them he killed a dog. Eventually one member criticizes him but is shut down by the NA facilitator.

Jesse says (I'm paraphrasing): Why not judge? If I just keep doing stuff and nothing happens, what does it mean? I should just stop judging [myself] and accept? It doesn't matter what I do because I'm a great guy? No matter how many dogs I kill, I just do an inventory and accept?

To me, this was one of the most interesting scenes in BrBa.  If you feel really sorry for what you've done, can you just accept that was the old you and move on with a clear conscience, no matter who you hurt and how badly?

Kim apparently can not do an inventory, accept, and move on.  Whether that helps Cheryl or redeems Kim, I don't know.  But it was a great development storywise. 

[Cinnabon]

It’s incredibly sad that there is such a stigma still surrounding addiction. It’s a disease like any other, and being sick shouldn’t negate any of Howard’s (yes, I know he wasn’t actually sick) or anyone else’s accomplishments. What if he had had cancer? Would that ruin his legacy? I think Cheryl is partly concerned about her own reputation, but she shouldn’t be, because if Howard had been ill, it wouldn’t have been her fault in any way.

[sistermagpie]

40 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

It’s incredibly sad that there is such a stigma still surrounding addiction. It’s a disease like any other, and being sick shouldn’t negate any of Howard’s (yes, I know he wasn’t actually sick) or anyone else’s accomplishments. What if he had had cancer? Would that ruin his legacy? I think Cheryl is partly concerned about her own reputation, but she shouldn’t be, because if Howard had been ill, it wouldn’t have been her fault in any way.

To be fair, there's also a couple of other things going on there. Like first, it's not true and Cheryl instinctively knows it, so she's living with the feeling of being gaslighted when the guy was actually tormented and murdered. 

And also, it's not just that it turned out he had a drug problem after he died, but that he'd behaved erratically and was crazy paranoid and humiliated. People remember him now as someone whose judgment was impaired when it wasn't. In fact, the very thing that people thought was delusional was absolutely true but nobody believed him.

[Cinnabon]

15 minutes ago, sistermagpie said:

To be fair, there's also a couple of other things going on there. Like first, it's not true and Cheryl instinctively knows it, so she's living with the feeling of being gaslighted when the guy was actually tormented and murdered. 

And also, it's not just that it turned out he had a drug problem after he died, but that he'd behaved erratically and was crazy paranoid and humiliated. People remember him now as someone whose judgment was impaired when it wasn't. In fact, the very thing that people thought was delusional was absolutely true but nobody believed him.

Addicts often have impaired judgment. So to those who believed he was an addict, that should explain his behavior. It still doesn’t negate all that he accomplished.

[sistermagpie]

18 minutes ago, Cinnabon said:

Addicts often have impaired judgment. So to those who believed he was an addict, that should explain his behavior. It still doesn’t negate all that he accomplished.

No, it doesn't, but I don't think people in his world believe it negates his former accomplishments, they're just putting those in the context of him ultimately losing his former abilities. The whole attack against him was about making him look like he was irrational when he was rational, paranoid when he was insightful and spiteful when he was compassionate. Seeing that as the result of a sickness rather than a character flaw is maybe a little better, but not as good as seeing the truth.

[Dev F]

2 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

But in this case it just seems like an unreliable narrator giving a reason for something that's not really the reason but by then might not be a lie either. Same as I don't think Jimmy and Chuck somehow just never talked about their sleazy stepfather who slept with Saul's wife even though Saul claims that moment was an important turning point in his life.

I'd say that my tendency is to presume that a reference is meaningful as long as there's a coherent way to do so. If something is just a casual lie on the one hand, or just a retcon on the other, then it may as well not have been mentioned at all.

With the story about Saul's ex-wife going behind his back with his stepfather, for instance, it's obviously not literally true, since Jimmy did not become a cynical asshole because of something that happened before the series even started. But I'd hate to completely discount Saul's explanation about why he became a cynical asshole, since that's something pretty important to the character. So my current read, as I've mentioned in earlier episode threads, is that it's a veiled reference to what happened between him and Kim, when he went behind his back talking to Mike about Lalo and it sent him into a nihilistic tailspin. But because that's too painful to even contemplate, he has to couch it in terms of this event with his previous wife that may or may not have happened.

It's the same with the "Saul Goodman" thing. Until there's no coherent way to make sense of his "pipe-hitting member of the tribe" explanation, I'm going to assume that it was part of his internal reasoning for changing his name, even if he didn't share it with Kim.

[Simon Boccanegra]

12 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

Are they really supposed to be in their 30s? I would have thought mid 40s, if Jimmy was supposed to be 10 years younger (am I making that up?) than Chuck. Why have them be that young when they don't look it, and it would not have been necessary to make them that young. Was Kim's birthdate visible on the divorce papers?

Both of their DOBs are visible in the episode "JMM," when they are presenting their information to get married. Jimmy was born November 12, 1960. Kim was born February 13, 1968.

In the main part of BCS in 2002-04, he's in his early forties; she's in her mid thirties. In the black-and-white world of fall 2010, he's soon to be 50 and she's 42. 

The Kim DOB syncs well with the two teen-Kim flashbacks we saw from 1983 and 1984. 

Jimmy got a later start than Kim in their profession, of course.

Rhea Seehorn landed the role of Kim at 41, so (like Aaron Paul in Breaking Bad) she was always playing somewhat younger, and as the seasons went by and in-show time moved more slowly than real-world time, the gap widened. But she's always been convincing, in my opinion. Interestingly, her character in the final season of Veep (which ran concurrently with BCS) also seemed to be younger than Rhea herself.

Chuck's gravestone had him born in 1944. We were told (in Howard's dictated obituary) Chuck was his high school's youngest-ever graduate in 1959. That was a year before his brother was born in 1960.

Chuck's timeline was always a bit glitchy. At times, the description of the McGill brothers' relationship in Jimmy's early life didn't seem to go with a 16-year age difference, and at other times it did. The kids playing them in the tent in "Lantern" don't look that far apart.

And I have no idea what Chuck was doing for the entirety of the '60s. He graduated high school in 1959, but he said he was in "college" when Jimmy was working at and stealing from the family store, and we saw the start of the theft in a flashback dated 1973. Then Chuck was doing a clerkship when he came home and tried to get the books in order. Then he started his own law firm in 1980. 

Even in the most meticulous series, sometimes it's best not to dwell too much! Or maybe Chuck's wild times in his lost decade of the '60s will be the next spinoff. 

I hope that isn't boring for anyone. I love this stuff. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by Simon Boccanegra

[PeterPirate]

Courtney's review of the episode.  It's got some really good stuff, especially religious references.

And her prediction for the ending is, ahem, particularly insightful. 

Edited August 12, 2022 by PeterPirate

[ShadowFacts]

6 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

In the main part of BCS in 2002-04, he's in his early forties; she's in her mid thirties. In the black-and-white world of fall 2010, he's soon to be 50 and she's 42. 

I can buy that, even though to me they both look older (maybe they should with all they've done).  The previous mention of them being in their thirties didn't make sense to me.  And thanks for the timeline research. 

[SimplexFish]

Thanks Peter...I was just wondering when her Waterworks video was gonna come out. But over 47 mins long?! 

Edited August 12, 2022 by SimplexFish

[peeayebee]

10 hours ago, Cinnabon said:

I think Cheryl is partly concerned about her own reputation

I don't see any indication for this unless it's that she feels guilty for not seeing the signs of Howard's addiction. It's possible that after Kim dumped that load of guilt onto her causing her to flee in tears to the restroom, that she thought again and said to herself, "No, I would have seen it. Howard was not using drugs. Something fishy is going on." But if she still, until Kim's confession, felt some guilt, I don't equate that with being worried about her reputation. 

[Cinnabon]

9 hours ago, sistermagpie said:

No, it doesn't, but I don't think people in his world believe it negates his former accomplishments, they're just putting those in the context of him ultimately losing his former abilities. The whole attack against him was about making him look like he was irrational when he was rational, paranoid when he was insightful and spiteful when he was compassionate. Seeing that as the result of a sickness rather than a character flaw is maybe a little better, but not as good as seeing the truth.

It just occurred to me that Chuck’s lack of judgment and illness was the one Howard really hid from all of their clients for years. No one knew the truth about either of them, in the end. 

[Penman61]

Think of the messiest point in your messiest break-up.

Thinking of it?

Now imagine that your partner dies suddenly, unexpectedly, right at that point.

That’s what Cheryl is feeling.

[Starchild]

9 hours ago, Dev F said:

I'd say that my tendency is to presume that a reference is meaningful as long as there's a coherent way to do so. If something is just a casual lie on the one hand, or just a retcon on the other, then it may as well not have been mentioned at all.

With the story about Saul's ex-wife going behind his back with his stepfather, for instance, it's obviously not literally true, since Jimmy did not become a cynical asshole because of something that happened before the series even started. But I'd hate to completely discount Saul's explanation about why he became a cynical asshole, since that's something pretty important to the character. So my current read, as I've mentioned in earlier episode threads, is that it's a veiled reference to what happened between him and Kim, when he went behind his back talking to Mike about Lalo and it sent him into a nihilistic tailspin. But because that's too painful to even contemplate, he has to couch it in terms of this event with his previous wife that may or may not have happened.

It's the same with the "Saul Goodman" thing. Until there's no coherent way to make sense of his "pipe-hitting member of the tribe" explanation, I'm going to assume that it was part of his internal reasoning for changing his name, even if he didn't share it with Kim.

Additionally, why would anyone tell the intimate truth about themselves to a criminal, especially one they'd just met? Saul is doing the smart thing, what most of us would do, using elements of his life in dealing with others, but shrouding them for self-protection.

I can buy that.

[paigow]

15 hours ago, Penman61 said:

I'm still waiting for my Cinnabons from two eps ago...

Before he got cancelled, Louis C.K. did a great bit about Cinnabons at the Airport...

[MamaBird]

10 hours ago, Simon Boccanegra said:

Even in the most meticulous series, sometimes it's best not to dwell too much! Or maybe Chuck's wild times in his lost decade of the '60s will be the next spinoff. 

He was playing in a band called Spinal Tap, under the stage name David St. Hubbins.  (And before you ask, Saint Hubbins is the patron saint of quality footware.)

Edited August 12, 2022 by MamaBird

[ShadowFacts]

3 minutes ago, Starchild said:

Additionally, why would anyone tell the intimate truth about themselves to a criminal, especially one they'd just met? Saul is doing the smart thing, what most of us would do, using elements of his life in dealing with others, but shrouding them for self-protection.

I can buy that.

Me, too. I never believed that line was the literal truth. He was a bullshit artist from the jump in BB, and that was some bullshit.  He honed his art in BCS with the elders, even if it was tinged with sincerity.

[Simon Boccanegra]

We also have to keep in mind that while the idea of Better Call Saul was discussed between Odenkirk and the producers as early as the production of "Full Measure" (the finale of season 3 of Breaking Bad), the show didn't formally go into development until 2013. 

It's apparent they went through the Saul scenes of Breaking Bad (including many written when Breaking Bad was a presumed standalone series) and determined that some things would be "canon" and were good starting points. The references to Ignacio and Lalo in his first appearance became very important; long-term story was retrofitted to that. But perhaps not every utterance from him was something they wanted to follow through on, and the glib, untrustworthy nature of the character (as he was in Breaking Bad) gave them some cover on continuity. 

Gilligan has (modestly?) admitted in a recent interview that he and Peter Gould tend to plan no more than a few feet in front of them. That isn't everyone's process, but it works for them. I don't think, for example, that when people five or six years ago were asking "Is Kim gonna die?" they had yet decided. They just knew they had to extricate her from Jimmy's life in some way in the final season, and as they mapped out the story, a path became clear.