S02.E07: Inflatable

[Clanstarling]

 

Speaking of grifters, Stacey is really upping the ante with the too-big house that Mike will be helping to pay for.  I can tell by the look on his face that he knows he's being conned, but he's doing it for Kaylee.  He also knows it won't stop.  He can't even confront Stacey because all she'll do is threaten to keep Kaylee away from him.

What I wondered is how they'll qualify for the house. As far as I know, Mike just has wads of cash. Literally. Real estate "cash" transactions are usually checks, aren't they? I don't know that he could put the cash in a bank - it was post 9/11 and transactions over, what, 9K or something, were flagged, IIRC. Maybe someone with more knowledge in this area could chime in.

 

 

At first I thought Jimmy's dad was being played by Bob Odenkirk before he was shown. The voice was really close.

The actor was Raphael Sbarge, late of Murder in the First, where he played a cop who was an easy mark. His credits seem endless. I was happy to see him - I think it was great casting as I think he not only looks like Jimmy, but also has some features that resemble Chuck.

[tiredofwork]

So from what I can see in the previews looks as if Mike is drilling holes into a garden hose.  My guess is he introduces some chemical into Hectors place of business through that hose and impairs Hector or causes what we know to be his stroke.

 

Does anyone know from the outside of the nail salon strip mall if that is same strip mall Saul offices out of in BB?

Edited March 30, 2016 by tiredofwork

[Ohwell]

What I wondered is how they'll qualify for the house. As far as I know, Mike just has wads of cash. Literally. Real estate "cash" transactions are usually checks, aren't they? I don't know that he could put the cash in a bank - it was post 9/11 and transactions over, what, 9K or something, were flagged, IIRC. Maybe someone with more knowledge in this area could chime in.

 

Yeah, I wondered about that too.  I thought  $10k was some kind of flagging threshold.  

 

I also wondered if she got some kind of police widow's pension.

[Milburn Stone]

 I don't know that he could put the cash in a bank - it was post 9/11 and transactions over, what, 9K or something, were flagged 

 

On this point--is it post 9/11? What is the "present" of this episode? This is something I've been wondering about for a while, with other episodes. Sometimes I think we're in 1998 or something. If we do know the year--whatever it is--what is the evidence that tells us?

Edited March 31, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[Conan Troutman]

You seem to have experience with criminal charges and defenses, so I defer to you since I don't.  What was the gun charge supposed to be?  Illegal possession, or firearm used in the commission of a crime, or something else?  Mike has no exposure for making a false statement, obstruction, nada?  I don't care too much in this scenario where we actually have two criminals, one being a corrupt retired cop, but I don't like the implications for victims being used this way to get violent people off the hook.  Also not crazy about cops looking stupid for actually doing their job. 

 

I guess I should've clarified, but I'm a total layman, just interested in that kind of stuff. That said, he didn't really use it to commit a crime (that would be robbing a bank for instance). Maybe they could charge him with "carry in plain sight", which means that he let Mike know he had a gun to prevent him from properly defending himself, but those are really technicalities and I have no idea how exactly that's handled in New Mexico and how much that would add to his sentence (probably not much I would guess, maybe a couple months or a year or so). What's important is that he didn't have a license and I assume that the serial number was also removed, so he'd face quite a lengthy sentence since he probably already has quite the record. 

 

As far as Mike goes, they could charge him with a lot of things, but they'd need some kind of proof and I don't see any. There were no other eye witnesses (Tuco and Nacho sure won't tell), if Mike's smart (and he is) they won't be able to track the money (if they find it in the first place) back to Tuco. They know he's lying, but they can't do anything about it until they can prove the gun belonged to Tuco through other means and prove Mike has lied in front of a jury. But as far as the cops know, he isn't really worth their effort and if they could link the gun to Tuco, they wouldn't need Mike in the first place.

[Umbelina]

It's 2002.

[Clanstarling]

On this point--is it post 9/11? What is the "present" of this episode? This is something I've been wondering about for a while, with other episodes. Sometimes I think we're in 1998 or something. If we do know the year--whatever it is--what is the evidence that tell us?

In the first season, his daughter-in-law had a parking sticker on her car that said '02. There are other indicators, but that's the only one that doesn't require adding, subtracting, or remembering what the years were in Breaking Bad.

[shapeshifter]

At first I thought Jimmy's dad was being played by Bob Odenkirk before he was shown. The voice was really close.

The actor was Raphael Sbarge, late of Murder in the First, where he played a cop who was an easy mark. His credits seem endless. I was happy to see him - I think it was great casting as I think he not only looks like Jimmy, but also has some features that resemble Chuck.

It was Raphael Sbarge, but the first line that sounded so much like Odenkirk was spoken with RS's back to us. I wonder if this will be brought up on a podcast. I'm still wondering if that first line was spoken by Odenkirk.

[Irlandesa]

There was a pretty heated internet debate on reddit on whether Stacey was mentally ill or just manipulating Mike. I was really hoping against the latter. But yeah, asking Mike to check out a house while reminding him she can't afford it on her own is a definite ploy for money. I wish she'd just come right out and ask him for help rather than being like, oh, this house is so perfect...if only I could afford it.

I've seen Stacey called a con and a grifter but I don't think that's true.  She's honest with Mike.  She's coy and not direct but she is honest in that coyness.  I guess she could be called somewhat manipulative but it's not much different than giving people in your life heavy hints about what they can get you for Christmas.  She was asking for money without asking directly.  He knew it and he offered to get the money for her.

 

That is what I think he was doing when he took the money from the till...his dad truly believes that he is helping people that are in need.  So by taking the money out, Jimmy is protecting his dad and allowing him to continue believing that he is helping people instead of being a gullible sheep that was ripped off by a guy that could afford 2 cartons of cigarettes.

That's a nice interpretation but I guess I'm falling on the "occam's razor" side of things here.  He spent most of the opening trying to warn his father that the guy was a con artist.  Then he gets the  "sheep and wolves" argument and makes the decision to be a wolf.  But then, I was one who believed that what Chuck was telling Kim was true or largely true. He may not be responsible for all of the 14K disappearing but I think this episode hinted that he was responsible from at least some of it.

 

 The actor was Raphael Sbarge, late of Murder in the First, where he played a cop who was an easy mark. His credits seem endless. I was happy to see him - I think it was great casting as I think he not only looks like Jimmy, but also has some features that resemble Chuck.

Thank you!  I recognized the guy and recognized his name but I could not place him and hadn't taken the time to IMDb him yet.

[shapeshifter]

That's a nice interpretation but I guess I'm falling on the "occam's razor" side of things here.  He spent most of the opening trying to warn his father that the guy was a con artist.  Then he gets the  "sheep and wolves" argument and makes the decision to be a wolf.  But then, I was one who believed that what Chuck was telling Kim was true or largely true. He may not be responsible for all of the 14K disappearing but I think this episode hinted that he was responsible from at least some of it.

I wonder if on some level young Jimmy felt he was really stealing from the grifters--taking the money before they could--being the wolve's wolf, so to speak.

[Tatum]

I've seen Stacey called a con and a grifter but I don't think that's true.  She's honest with Mike.  She's coy and not direct but she is honest in that coyness.  I guess she could be called somewhat manipulative but it's not much different than giving people in your life heavy hints about what they can get you for Christmas.  She was asking for money without asking directly.  He knew it and he offered to get the money for her.

 

Well, I think the ones who are calling Stacey a con are the ones who think Stacey completely made up the story about hearing shots fired by her house (vs being honestly mistaken). It's one thing to indirectly ask for money. It's another to lie about your situation as a way to get someone to help you.

 

I don't think we can conclude yet whether Stacey lied about the gunshots or honestly believes she's in danger. What I think though kind of tips the scales for me is, she picked a pretty nice house. Now it seems less about moving for necessity, out of concern for safety, and more about just wanting an upgrade. If she's not exactly conning him, she is taking advantage of him. Plus, for all she knows, he gets social security and his earnings from the tollbooth, and possibly a pension. That might add up to a comfortable monthly sum, but as Mike gets older, he's going to need that money. It just seems selfish to me to leverage your father in law's guilt and desire to provide for your child into financing more house than what you really need. Mike's reaction to her hug was ambiguous to me- I couldn't tell if he was just uncomfortable with displays of affection from other adults, or if he felt taken in by Stacey but doesn't want to rock the boat.

[Boilergal]

That's a nice interpretation but I guess I'm falling on the "occam's razor" side of things here.  He spent most of the opening trying to warn his father that the guy was a con artist.  Then he gets the  "sheep and wolves" argument and makes the decision to be a wolf.  But then, I was one who believed that what Chuck was telling Kim was true or largely true. He may not be responsible for all of the 14K disappearing but I think this episode hinted that he was responsible from at least some of it.

 

I can see what your saying.   While Jimmy's character is morally gray(dark gray) in a lot of areas, I don't believe he would ever intentionally hurt someone he loves.  They have set Jimmy up to be fiercely loyal and protective of his loved ones.  Jimmy doesn't have a lot of respect for people outside of his "family" but the people in his family are everything to him.   When Jimmy unintentionally screws things up for Kim, he tries like hell to find a way to fix things for her.  Wearing friggin Todd's ring is another indication of his feelings for his inner circle.  

 

 As much of a turd as Chuck has been to Jimmy, he would do anything to make Chuck comfortable and cater to his illness.  Even when Jimmy found out how badly Chuck stabbed him in the back, he made sure that Howard knew everything that had to be done to make Chuck comfortable - he still wanted Chuck cared for.  

 

  I just don't see that Jimmy would have intentionally hurt his father by stealing from him - there had to be some feeling of protecting his dad.  If it was just a job with Mr Jones down the street I could see him skim the till, but not from his dad - just doesn't fit with the character and his behavior toward people he loves.

Edited March 31, 2016 by Boilergal

[Clanstarling]

It was Raphael Sbarge, but the first line that sounded so much like Odenkirk was spoken with RS's back to us. I wonder if this will be brought up on a podcast. I'm still wondering if that first line was spoken by Odenkirk.

It did sound like him, and at first I thought it was Odenkirk, but then recognized him in the close-up. I like the actor, so I was pleased to see him again.

[Milburn Stone]

Well, I think the ones who are calling Stacey a con are the ones who think Stacey completely made up the story about hearing shots fired by her house (vs being honestly mistaken)...I don't think we can conclude yet whether Stacey lied about the gunshots or honestly believes she's in danger. What I think though kind of tips the scales for me is, she picked a pretty nice house. Now it seems less about moving for necessity, out of concern for safety, and more about just wanting an upgrade.

 

Call me naive, but my honest gut reaction to Stacey is that she's a nice person who feels helpless and threatened, who neither wants to con Mike nor take advantage of him in any way. When she says things like, "I don't want that money," "Are you sure you can afford this?," "No really, we'll be OK," and the like, I take her completely at face value with no hidden agenda. Obviously she is deeply appreciative of Mike's help, and in the end will no more refuse his help than a drowning man would when thrown a life preserver, but I believe her feelings for Mike are loving and uncomplicated. Events could prove me wrong, of course, but that's what I see.

[axlmadonna]

If Kim goes into practice for herself how does she plan on getting out from under her school debt to HHM?

Jimmy offered to pay it off with his bonus money from David & Main.

[Tatum]

Call me naive, but my honest gut reaction to Stacey is that she's a nice person who feels helpless and threatened, who neither wants to con Mike nor take advantage of him in any way. When she says things like, "I don't want that money," "Are you sure you can afford this?," "No really, we'll be OK," and the like, I take her completely at face value with no hidden agenda. Obviously she is deeply appreciative of Mike's help, and in the end will no more refuse his help than a drowning man would when thrown a life preserver, but I believe her feelings for Mike are loving and uncomplicated. Events could prove me wrong, of course, but that's what I see.

 

But at this point, she's not saying "I don't want that money". She's gone from accepting it under protest, to accepting it without protest, to actively soliciting it. Mike offered to help her buy a new house, so I won't fault her for taking his offer, but it seems to me she's going for a house that's not only out of her price range, but possibly out of Mike's (legit) price range.

[Milburn Stone]

...it seems to me she's going for a house that's not only out of her price range, but possibly out of Mike's (legit) price range.

 

What I get is that she doesn't know what Mike's legit price range is, and maybe doesn't want to know, but is in denial about that rather than consciously taking advantage of it. If Mike tells her "I've got it covered," Stacey's need for safety makes her want to take him at face value.

[ShadowFacts]

 

I don't think we can conclude yet whether Stacey lied about the gunshots or honestly believes she's in danger. What I think though kind of tips the scales for me is, she picked a pretty nice house. Now it seems less about moving for necessity, out of concern for safety, and more about just wanting an upgrade. If she's not exactly conning him, she is taking advantage of him. Plus, for all she knows, he gets social security and his earnings from the tollbooth, and possibly a pension. That might add up to a comfortable monthly sum, but as Mike gets older, he's going to need that money. It just seems selfish to me to leverage your father in law's guilt and desire to provide for your child into financing more house than what you really need. Mike's reaction to her hug was ambiguous to me- I couldn't tell if he was just uncomfortable with displays of affection from other adults, or if he felt taken in by Stacey but doesn't want to rock the boat.

 

I agree, and it's good writing and acting that we can't be sure of her complete set of motivations, nor Mike's judgments about her.  But I think I can fault her for taking money like this from her elder, retired father-in-law.  I have sympathy for her status as a single parent who has just suffered a traumatic loss of her husband by murder, but she is young and able-bodied.  She shouldn't go above her means and her current house is plenty big and nice for two people.  If she legitimately needs a safer neighborhood, fine, but make it a sound financial move. 

 

 

I just don't see that Jimmy would have intentionally hurt his father by stealing from him - there had to be some feeling of protecting his dad.  If it was just a job with Mr Jones down the street I could see him skim the till, but not from his dad - just doesn't fit with the character and his behavior toward people he loves.

 

I think it is not inconsistent with who he becomes.  He is only around 12 years old here, his character is not fully formed.  The frontal lobe of the brain isn't fully formed until something like the early 20s.  He was definitely protective of his dad, but he could be simultaneously pushing limits of what he can get away with, angry that his dad keeps getting fleeced, any number of other impulses.  I remember Chuck telling Kim that no one cried harder than Jimmy at their father's funeral.  I think he was trying to imply that he was guilt-ridden, and this may be at least partly true, because who doesn't have at least a few regrets at their treatment of a loved one.

[Captanne]

I think Stacey is delusional if she seriously imagines Mike can afford that house working solely as a ticket taker in a kiosk at the district court.  That she hasn't once asked him where the money is coming from makes me think she has a screw loose.

[Tatum]

I think Stacey is delusional if she seriously imagines Mike can afford that house working solely as a ticket taker in a kiosk at the district court.  That she hasn't once asked him where the money is coming from makes me think she has a screw loose.

I think she has a pretty good idea of where the money is coming from. At any rate, I'm not sure what's worse- accepting money from someone elderly knowing he's on a fixed income and likely ravaging his retirement savings to afford your dream home, or accepting money from someone you're pretty sure is obtaining it illegally (and perhaps not a victimless crime). Either way, I don't think Stacey is that sweet. She's an opportunist for sure.

[Milburn Stone]

I think Stacey is delusional if she seriously imagines Mike can afford that house working solely as a ticket taker in a kiosk at the district court.  That she hasn't once asked him where the money is coming from makes me think she has a screw loose.

 

OK, I'm Stacey, and here are some things I might be thinking now: "Mike put away a lot of savings from when he was a cop"; "Maybe Mike was a little bit 'dirty' like my husband was, and has money stashed away which he wants to use to take care of his family"; "Mike is moonlighting any number of ways, that aren't necessarily dangerous or illicit, and wants to use this money to help us." Human denial might cause her not to want to think too much beyond this.

[margol29]

As to Jimmy and Kim starting up a law practice. Using either Wexler-MaGill or even Wexler and McGill I think that there was an episode last season where Chuck was talking to Jimmy about using the name McGill in his practice and he did not want Hamlin and McGill to be associated with Jimmy McGill. I other words he wanted Jimmy to use a different name for his practice. Just speculating here but maybe Chuck sues Jimmy about the name of the practice and that is the start of Saul Goodman.

 

Another distant memory from BB. If I remember correctly it was mentioned that Hector Salamanca spent some time in prison before he had his stroke. Maybe Mike's stake out of the Salamancas will lead to that imprisonment.

[SignGuy77]

If Mike tells her "I've got it covered," Stacey's need for safety makes her want to take him at face value.

Skyler tells Marie "I've got it covered," and Marie's need for better physio-therapy for Hank makes her take Skyler at face value. Especially since there's that whole gambling story.

Point being, Stacey knows/suspects Mike's money is not exactly clean. But it's paying for her family's peace of mind, so she doesn't ask.

[Tatum]

Skyler tells Marie "I've got it covered," and Marie's need for better physio-therapy for Hank makes her take Skyler at face value. Especially since there's that whole gambling story.

Point being, Stacey knows/suspects Mike's money is not exactly clean. But it's paying for her family's peace of mind, so she doesn't ask.

 

But Hank needed physio therapy. I would take dirty money too in her case. In Stacey's case, I am betting she could have found a more affordable house in a safe neighborhood if she were so inclined- she may have still needed help from time to time but at least it might have been in line with what Mike could legit afford to contribute.

[Captanne]

Maybe it's the actress, then?  Because, for me, Stacy hasn't given one hesitation or second glance when Mike does things for her.  That house is wildly beyond anyone's paycheque in her life (retirement savings only go so far, sadly.)

 

So, yes, it stands to reason she has to know that the money is dirty -- but I haven't seen any single indication that she knows or suspects or cares.  So, perhaps it's the actress simply not getting that across to this one viewer.  It's either that or she's delusional.

[Tatum]

Maybe it's the actress, then?  Because, for me, Stacy hasn't given one hesitation or second glance when Mike does things for her.  That house is wildly beyond anyone's paycheque in her life (retirement savings only go so far, sadly.)

 

So, yes, it stands to reason she has to know that the money is dirty -- but I haven't seen any single indication that she knows or suspects or cares.  So, perhaps it's the actress simply not getting that across to this one viewer.  It's either that or she's delusional.

 

If this were any other show, I'd say it was irrelevant- Stacey's sole existence on the show would be merely a vehicle to explain Mike's principled, law abiding character slowly becoming more and more amoral. Whether she's just incredibly needy and naive or is more calculating is not the concern. The concern is an upstanding guy gets in bed with criminals to provide for her and her daughter.

 

However, on a show that really thrives on character development, I do think it's noteworthy that the house is well beyond her and Mike's legal means. I think they are slowly setting up groundwork that Stacey gets more and more comfortable asking her father in law for material things, with the unspoken threat that Stacey both controls his access to Kaylie, and also could tell the police a thing or two about him, and that's how Mike gets more and more enmeshed in the drug world. That may be wrong, but I'm just speculating because I'm bored at work.

[RCharter]

Call me naive, but my honest gut reaction to Stacey is that she's a nice person who feels helpless and threatened, who neither wants to con Mike nor take advantage of him in any way. When she says things like, "I don't want that money," "Are you sure you can afford this?," "No really, we'll be OK," and the like, I take her completely at face value with no hidden agenda. Obviously she is deeply appreciative of Mike's help, and in the end will no more refuse his help than a drowning man would when thrown a life preserver, but I believe her feelings for Mike are loving and uncomplicated. Events could prove me wrong, of course, but that's what I see.

I don't.  Because she specifically picked a house she couldn't afford and made sure to take Mike to check out the house she couldn't afford.  If she sincerely didn't want the help and wasn't counting on the help, why take Mike to a house she couldn't afford?  Why even view a house she couldn't afford?  But even more importantly, why invite Mike along, to view a house (with real estate agent in tow) that you can't afford.  It wasn't like Stacey just went to a random open house to look at a beautiful home....she got the agent to open the house, and wait around outside while discussing a house she already knew she couldn't afford.

 

To me, that reeks of manipulation to get the money for the house from Mike.  And the "well, its way too much for me....."  And then calling him "Pop" when he finally agreed to give her the money.  Has she ever called him Dad or Pop before?  Has she ever hugged him before?  I truly can't remember, but in either event she did seem to be fairly gushing over him to seal the deal and get her money.

[Milburn Stone]

I don't.  Because she specifically picked a house she couldn't afford and made sure to take Mike to check out the house she couldn't afford.  If she sincerely didn't want the help and wasn't counting on the help, why take Mike to a house she couldn't afford?  Why even view a house she couldn't afford?  But even more importantly, why invite Mike along, to view a house (with real estate agent in tow) that you can't afford.

 

Because of a thing called hope?

[RCharter]

Because of a thing called hope?

You can't hope yourself to have more money than you have.  If a house is out of your range, its out of your range.

 

That means her hope, in spite of her protests,was to manipulate that money out of Mike.  

Edited March 31, 2016 by RCharter

[Tatum]

You can't hope yourself to have more money than you have.  If a house is out of your range, its out of your range.

 

That means her hope, in spite of her protests,was to manipulate that money out of Mike.  

 

I don't necessarily think it's damning that she wants money from Mike. If she can't even pay her expenses each week without help from Mike, then she probably can't scrape together 20% down for a house purchase, or even pay closing costs if she could find a lender in 2002 to finance the whole thing. So, her agreeing to his offer of money (which he did imply he would help a few episodes ago when he said, okay, we are getting you a new house) is okay by me.

 

However, if Stacey were an upstanding character (which in my opinion, she's not), she'd be scouring the Albuquerque real estate ads for like, condominiums in safe neighborhoods, or older houses. Or smaller houses. She wants to (in my opinion) live high on the hog on someone else's dime, and this is not just about a mother desperate to keep her child safe, but someone who wants material things and found a mark to pay for it.

[RCharter]

....

Edited March 31, 2016 by RCharter

[ShadowFacts]

If this were any other show, I'd say it was irrelevant- Stacey's sole existence on the show would be merely a vehicle to explain Mike's principled, law abiding character slowly becoming more and more amoral. Whether she's just incredibly needy and naive or is more calculating is not the concern. The concern is an upstanding guy gets in bed with criminals to provide for her and her daughter.

 

However, on a show that really thrives on character development, I do think it's noteworthy that the house is well beyond her and Mike's legal means. I think they are slowly setting up groundwork that Stacey gets more and more comfortable asking her father in law for material things, with the unspoken threat that Stacey both controls his access to Kaylie, and also could tell the police a thing or two about him, and that's how Mike gets more and more enmeshed in the drug world. That may be wrong, but I'm just speculating because I'm bored at work.

 

I mostly agree, except that I don't think Mike was principled and law abiding to begin with.  We know he killed the two killer cops, and he admitted to Stacy that he was a dirty cop himself.  I think when she asked him what happened to the cops, he said something like "you know what happened, the question is, can you live with it?"  And I think this is the way she is living with it.  By making him pay.  And pay.  Little does she know it will only last a few years and then totally dry up. 

 

The interesting thing is that he seems to not care about anything else but Kaylee, and came to Albuquerque when he could have gone anywhere, suggesting that he intended to spend whatever money he had on her, to atone for his part in the events that led her to be fatherless.  So therefore if he knows Stacy is shaking him down in a way, he really doesn't care, he is going to do whatever it takes to try and make amends and be close to his granddaughter.  He's seen it all, human nature doesn't surprise him.  That's my head canon right now.  Subject to change of course.

[Captanne]

The image of "delusional" and "OMG, this is unaffordable" hit me like a ton of bricks when Mike and Stacey were standing in the living room at the gigundanormous picture windows that look out over a patio and a "playhouse" that could serve as affordable housing by itself.

 

Then, when they were standing on the three car driveway with the manicured lawn, I was done with Stacey.  Dunzo.

[Hanahope]

2002 is about when the real estate market began to heat up and offering easy loans for not much money down or income support.

 

I don't think Chuck can sue Jimmy over using his own name in the practice.

[RCharter]

 

The interesting thing is that he seems to not care about anything else but Kaylee, and came to Albuquerque when he could have gone anywhere, suggesting that he intended to spend whatever money he had on her, to atone for his part in the events that led her to be fatherless.  So therefore if he knows Stacy is shaking him down in a way, he really doesn't care, he is going to do whatever it takes to try and make amends and be close to his granddaughter.  He's seen it all, human nature doesn't surprise him.  That's my head canon right now.  Subject to change of course.

I do, and I think its shameful that Stacey would know how important Kaylee is to him and the love he has for that little girl and proceed to bleed him dry.  

 

I vaguely remember at the end of BB that Mike somehow ensured the money would go to Kaylee and not Stacey....but I can't remember how.  Did that actually happen or did he just give the money to Stacey?

I don't think Chuck can sue Jimmy over using his own name in the practice.

I don't think so, even the suit that Howard was going to bring against Jimmy seemed to mostly focus on the color, the pose, the font type and everything else that made the logo on the billboard look like the one that HHM had.

Edited March 31, 2016 by RCharter

[Captanne]

RCharter, I'm currently rewatching BB and am up to the point where Gus Fring makes his appearance (Jessica Jones has just oopsied.)  When I get to the point where Mike is estate planning, I'll let you know.

[RCharter]

RCharter, I'm currently rewatching BB and am up to the point where Gus Fring makes his appearance (Jessica Jones has just oopsied.)  When I get to the point where Mike is estate planning, I'll let you know.

thank you.  :)

[ShadowFacts]

I do, and I think its shameful that Stacey would know how important Kaylee is to him and the love he has for that little girl and proceed to bleed him dry.  

 

I vaguely remember at the end of BB that Mike somehow ensured the money would go to Kaylee and not Stacey....but I can't remember how.  Did that actually happen or did he just give the money to Stacey?

 

 

I'm not saying it's fine and dandy how Stacy is maneuvering.  My observation was that Mike is possibly accepting it as part of his penance for advising his son to go on the take and he got killed anyway.

 

I don't think Kaylee ever got any of Mike's ill-gotten millions though it was never directly answered.  We do know that the DEA busted his lawyer while he was putting cash in his safe deposit boxes.  It is unlikely that the government would not have uncovered the trust he set up for when she was 18, if he had funded it.  It would all be forfeit.  I think Jesse wanted to give his money to Kaylee and to Drew Sharpe's parents, but don't think that ever happened, either.   That's Mike's tragedy, that all that he did for Kaylee's sake was probably for nothing, and one day her grandfather just disappeared from the park. 

[Ohwell]

Yeah, the government busted the lawyer and took the money that Mike had been saving for Kaylee.  I was glad that happened because 1) Kaylee never knew about the money anyway, and 2) her mom wouldn't get her paws on it.

[RCharter]

I'm not saying it's fine and dandy how Stacy is maneuvering.  My observation was that Mike is possibly accepting it as part of his penance for advising his son to go on the take and he got killed anyway.

 

I don't think Kaylee ever got any of Mike's ill-gotten millions though it was never directly answered.  We do know that the DEA busted his lawyer while he was putting cash in his safe deposit boxes.  It is unlikely that the government would not have uncovered the trust he set up for when she was 18, if he had funded it.  It would all be forfeit.  I think Jesse wanted to give his money to Kaylee and to Drew Sharpe's parents, but don't think that ever happened, either.   That's Mike's tragedy, that all that he did for Kaylee's sake was probably for nothing, and one day her grandfather just disappeared from the park. 

 

 

Yeah, the government busted the lawyer and took the money that Mike had been saving for Kaylee.  I was glad that happened because 1) Kaylee never knew about the money anyway, and 2) her mom wouldn't get her paws on it.

Okay, so it sounds like Mike's intention was to put the money into trust for Kaylee....which means at some point he may figure out that Stacey is just out for his money and uses Kaylee as a means to get it. Interesting!

 

I agree that Mike, in part, is motivated by doing penance for his part in his son's death.  I also think, as someone else said (maybe you?) that it is also motivated by the fact that Kaylee is all he has left of his son and so she is the most important thing in his world.  And he will pay any price to anyone to keep her in his life.  He may know he is getting played, but not care because this is what will ensure he continues to have a place in Kaylee's life.

[maplebrew]

I just bet that Kim is glad her past occurred before Facebook and Instagram.

 

 

Those of us who sowed our wild oats before social media are fortunate! It's exciting that Kim is thinking about throwing off the golden bonds of big firm legal practice to venture out into sole practice. Being one's own boss does have an appeal, even if one has to grocery shop at the local dollar store to survive. But yes, it is going to end with tears and bitter recriminations. 

[dinkysquid]

Yeah, one of the best parts of tonight's episode was NO CHUCK!

 

 

I despise Chuck! When he's on, I hit the fast forward. I almost bailed on this show because especially in Season One, he was in it too bloody much! 

 

Does there have to be a wacko in every show now?

 

[Umbelina]

I think Stacey is delusional if she seriously imagines Mike can afford that house working solely as a ticket taker in a kiosk at the district court.  That she hasn't once asked him where the money is coming from makes me think she has a screw loose.

He continually tells her it's not an issue, no problem.  She doesn't ask because I'm pretty positive she thinks most of it is money he stole over the years as a dirty cop.

 

OK, I'm Stacey, and here are some things I might be thinking now: "Mike put away a lot of savings from when he was a cop"; "Maybe Mike was a little bit 'dirty' like my husband was, and has money stashed away which he wants to use to take care of his family"; "Mike is moonlighting any number of ways, that aren't necessarily dangerous or illicit, and wants to use this money to help us." Human denial might cause her not to want to think too much beyond this.

She already knows ALL the cops there were filthy dirty, including Mike.  That's why the cops, probably people who she'd had over to her house for a BBQ, probably cops who had wives she knew, murdered her husband, because he was honest.

 

If this were any other show, I'd say it was irrelevant- Stacey's sole existence on the show would be merely a vehicle to explain Mike's principled, law abiding character slowly becoming more and more amoral. Whether she's just incredibly needy and naive or is more calculating is not the concern. The concern is an upstanding guy gets in bed with criminals to provide for her and her daughter.

 

However, on a show that really thrives on character development, I do think it's noteworthy that the house is well beyond her and Mike's legal means. I think they are slowly setting up groundwork that Stacey gets more and more comfortable asking her father in law for material things, with the unspoken threat that Stacey both controls his access to Kaylie, and also could tell the police a thing or two about him, and that's how Mike gets more and more enmeshed in the drug world. That may be wrong, but I'm just speculating because I'm bored at work.

This and a few other posts made me realize that yes, Stacey is another one of those characters that is a little too plot-oriented, she's there to push Mike, the dirty cop, into deeper levels of crime, including murders (oh wait!  He already did that TOO!)  She's also a visible representation of his grief and guilt.  If he'd educated his son, or been honest, or told him to stay away from the force, or any of a thousand things he could have done because he KNEW what his honest son was walking into there?  Stacey would still have a husband, Kaylee would still have a father, and they wouldn't need Mike's help.

 

That said, podcasts told us that the writers never intended Stacey to be conning or grifting Mike, she's got PTSD, and is simply trying to cope as a single mother.  The writing, once again, has failed with that.  They need to tighten up these "plot point" characters and show us what they want us to see, not tell us on podcasts.

 

2002 is about when the real estate market began to heat up and offering easy loans for not much money down or income support.

 

I don't think Chuck can sue Jimmy over using his own name in the practice.

Actually, I think it was just about top of the market, I posted a link earlier about home prices in ABQ at that time.  I still think it was probably Mike's suggestion for her to look for a better house in a very safe neighborhood.  But again, it's a guess, because the writers didn't put it on the page.  It just makes complete sense to me that Mike would want Kaylee out of the swimming pool place ASAP.  Stacey loved it there, but she didn't see the cousins threaten Kaylee.  Mike did.

 

Those of us who sowed our wild oats before social media are fortunate! It's exciting that Kim is thinking about throwing off the golden bonds of big firm legal practice to venture out into sole practice. Being one's own boss does have an appeal, even if one has to grocery shop at the local dollar store to survive. But yes, it is going to end with tears and bitter recriminations. 

God yes!

Edited April 1, 2016 by Umbelina

[Madding crowd]

Stacy comes across as being a user and it also comes across that Mike knows it. Mike knows she doesn't need a house that fancy, Stacy knows Mike gets money illegally, and they both know that they know. Mike was never a favorite character of mine although i love the actor. He is a dirty cop and his love for his granddaughter doesn't excuse anything for me. All of the criminals on these shows love their families. 

 

I'm watching solely for Odenkirk who is amazing. I loved the inflatable man scene. I do find myself a little bored at times though, because I'm not feeling Giligan can show us anything we don't already know. We already know what kind of person Saul is and after hearing Chuck's story, I didn't need to actually hear the Sheep and Wolves speech. I already knew from BB that Saul considers himself a wolf. I also find the endless scenes of Kim deciding what to do annoying. It is not that I dislike Kim, its that her story is really only loosely connected to Jimmy. She doesn't really love Jimmy so I never believe they will end up together or that her story is important.

 

I did think the guy playing Jimmy's dad sounded exactly like him, but as I said, I thought the scene was not needed after we already heard the story from Chuck. 

[Lonesome Rhodes]

If the prosecutors really wanted Tuco, they would proceed with the gun at the scene of a beat down he just administered, with his fingerprints on it.  That is prima facie evidence that he held it.  Bingo.  Possession.  Not ownership.  Possession.

 

Kim is going to go halfsies with Jimmy on a start-up and she has no cash.  How?  She is quitting a very solid firm with solid earnings for herself, to create a risky practice.  Loan shark?  No banker would loan cash on such a foolish whim.  What?  Jimmy would pay all the start-up costs?  Well, just how is that separate and equal, Kim?  

 

Stacey's accepting dirty money is an easy, if not inevitable, development for me to understand.  "They" killed her husband.  Darn right she'll take "their" money to make a better life for herself and her child.   She is OWED.  Question for y'all:  Did Mike actually buy the house, or was this a rental?  If a rental, the cash aspect is nothing at all to draw suspicion.

 

Anyway...of alllll the mistakes and miscues we have seen this season, is it not FACT that the biggest was Omar's refusing the offer of cucumber water?

[Captanne]

If Kim is going to go in on a startup with Jimmy, who is paying those student loans that have been her primary motivation for staying under the untenable conditions Howard has put her through.  Did I miss that point?

 

Maddingcrowd, up above you very nicely voiced my concerns, too.  The show really isn't giving me anything I didn't already know about Jimmy other than fleshing out the "how it happened" -- the personality traits were already in place by BB.

[RCharter]

 

Anyway...of alllll the mistakes and miscues we have seen this season, is it not FACT that the biggest was Omar's refusing the offer of cucumber water?

Who turns down free cucumber water?  I would have brought in my water bottle, because I'm just that girl.  But then again, I'm not sure how long that cucumber water has just been sitting out.  I had a bad experience with some spa water that had gone very, very bad (this was a honey melon cucumber water).

 

She had a real estate agent there, not a property manager so I'm thinking this is a purchase.  But I can't remember anyone explicitly saying one way or the other.

[Tatum]

The agent did say we can start the pre-approval process, which to me says mortgage/purchase. I guess renters have to go through an approval process as well but they don't usually refer to it that way. Then again, would a real estate agent facilitate the financial side of things?

 

 

If Kim is going to go in on a startup with Jimmy, who is paying those student loans that have been her primary motivation for staying under the untenable conditions Howard has put her through.  Did I miss that poi

Pretty sure that was glossed over. However, I am confused about the loans. How does that work when a company pays for school? I've never done it that way, but my friend had her company pay for her Masters. However, she had to either borrow the money or pay cash, and then was reimbursed. I thought the firm just paid the costs outright and then you were indebted for a certain number of years. Does the $15K actually refer to a student loan balance in Kim's name that HHM has just been paying monthly, and Kim could take over the payments if she quit, or did they already pay it off in full and they figure $15K is what she owes them after working as an associate for 4 years? If so, that seems a little unfair. I get that law school is well over $100K, but they already got 4 years of very committed work out of her. How many years is average commitment for having tuition paid?

[Milburn Stone]

That said, podcasts told us that the writers never intended Stacey to be conning or grifting Mike, she's got PTSD, and is simply trying to cope as a single mother.  The writing, once again, has failed with that.  They need to tighten up these "plot point" characters and show us what they want us to see, not tell us on podcasts.

 

I hate knowing what the podcasts say, because the podcasts are not the show. By the rules of the site, posting about podcasts is not a spoiler. However, as far as I'm concerned (which is different from what the mods think), they are. Why? Because podcasts tend to settle the matter not only of what happened, but of what is going to happen in future episodes that haven't aired. I avoid show podcasts like the plague (and hate when I accidentally read about them, as I did with your post, unfortunately), because I agree with you--shows need to show us what they want us to know, not tell us in podcasts, and the only thing that matters is the show.

 

That said, I disagree with you that the show failed to communicate the writers' intention with regard to Stacey. Because for me, the show got across exactly the message about Stacey that the podcast did, without my ever having to hear a podcast. In this case, for me, the podcast was redundant rather than contradictory. The show succeeded beautifully, all on its own, in telling me that Stacey is not conning or grifting but simply a frightened woman who accepts a sincerely offered lifeline without asking too many questions.

Edited April 1, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[peeayebee]

I agree with you about Stacy. I'm not anti-podcast, but I haven't listened to these. I don't have the same desire to listen as I did with BB.

 

I haven't seen any indication from the actress's performance that she's trying to con Mike or that she's really aware of taking advantage of him. She seems to be a WYSISYG type of person. She always looks sincere to me. One can guess that she's scamming him, but that seems to be wanting there to be nefarious motivations rather than actually seeing them.