S02.E07: Inflatable

[Tatum]

 

 

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.

I've never listened to a podcast before- they actually say what is going to happen?

 

As far as whether or not Stacey's true character (as intended by the writers) is a spoiler, I am not sure about that. I think there is a difference between "we never intended Stacey to be a con or grifter" vs. "Stacey will never be a con or grifter". But I do think her character was written pretty ambiguously on purpose. The writers can keep her character more fluid that way.

 

The podcasts though and their discussions of their intentions with the characters, bring up a question for me, and if this is a very redundant question here or not appropriate for this thread, I'll move it (I never read the BB forums when I watched the show). But- I never understood the Skylar White hate. I mean, some of these fan boards were insanely invested in hating her character. Did the BB writers ever address that? Did they mean for her to be so unpopular or were they taken aback by this?

[RCharter]

I've never listened to a podcast before- they actually say what is going to happen?

 

As far as whether or not Stacey's true character (as intended by the writers) is a spoiler, I am not sure about that. I think there is a difference between "we never intended Stacey to be a con or grifter" vs. "Stacey will never be a con or grifter". But I do think her character was written pretty ambiguously on purpose. The writers can keep her character more fluid that way.

 

The podcasts though and their discussions of their intentions with the characters, bring up a question for me, and if this is a very redundant question here or not appropriate for this thread, I'll move it (I never read the BB forums when I watched the show). But- I never understood the Skylar White hate. I mean, some of these fan boards were insanely invested in hating her character. Did the BB writers ever address that? Did they mean for her to be so unpopular or were they taken aback by this?

The strange thing is that it doesn't seem very ambiguous to me, the way she is written, to me makes her clearly come off as a manipulator.

 

I can't remember her ever hugging Mike or calling him "Pop," but suddenly once he agrees to buy her a house she wants to show him affection?  Taking him to a house she can't afford and is wayyy beyond her budget?  These all seem like the moves of someone who is manipulating someone else, they don't seem like someone whose PTSD is their main motivation.  

 

If she was just keeping it real and was just scared she would find a smaller place in a safe area, not a house completely out of her price range.  If for no other reason than she doesn't know what Mike's price range is, even if he offered to help, it would be logical to take a cheaper place to ensure that his "help" would be enough.  I mean, if you're scared and you want to get a new place ASAP, you're not going to want to risk having to take the time to search for a less expensive place when you find out the person who offered to help you doesn't have that much money.  Instead she takes him to the expensive house?  Her mentioning how it was just "so far" out of her price range and then pretending like she didn't really want the money seems like its right out of some playbook for manipulators.  

 

Perhaps, it is as someone else mentioned.....her initial insistence about the bullets was caused by the PTSD, but now she has a juicy mark and she is going to get as much as she can outta him.

Edited April 1, 2016 by RCharter

[Tatum]

The strange thing is that it doesn't seem very ambiguous to me, the way she is written, to me makes her clearly come off as a manipulator.

 

I can't remember her ever hugging Mike or calling him "Pop," but suddenly once he agrees to buy her a house she wants to show him affection?  Taking him to a house she can't afford and is wayyy beyond her budget?  These all seem like the moves of someone who is manipulating someone else, they don't seem like someone whose PTSD is their main motivation.  

 

If she was just keeping it real and was just scared she would find a smaller place in a safe area, not a house completely out of her price range.  If for no other reason than she doesn't know what Mike's price range is, even if he offered to help, it would be logical to take a cheaper place to ensure that his "help" would be enough.  I mean, if you're scared and you want to get a new place ASAP, you're not going to want to risk having to take the time to search for a less expensive place when you find out the person who offered to help you doesn't have that much money.  Instead she takes him to the expensive house?  Her mentioning how it was just "so far" out of her price range and then pretending like she didn't really want the money seems like its right out of some playbook for manipulators.  

 

Perhaps, it is as someone else mentioned.....her initial insistence about the bullets was caused by the PTSD, but now she has a juicy mark and she is going to get as much as she can outta him.

I agree with everything you wrote, for the record, but I say she's written ambiguously because people are defending her, so clearly how I see it and how you see it is not universal. I mean, no one is going to write a post defending Todd's character from BB.

[Clanstarling]

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?

I wondered about that too. I hope she isn't expecting Jimmy to pay for them, as he offered. That doesn't really seem like her character, but who knows? 

 

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.

I agree. I want to experience and judge based on what I see, and how I react to what I see. From my perspective, I think that a person who creates (author, scriptwriter, showrunner) needs to let their baby go and allow their audience to experience it on their own. If you feel the need to explain "no, this is what the character is" - in my opinion - you are now annoying. (I'm looking at you, JK Rowling and George Lucas)

I don't think it's as much ambiguity as it is that we react to what we see based on our own perceptions and experiences. Someone who's experienced a manipulator may be more likely to see Stacey that way, than one who hasn't. I personally see Stacey as a manipulator, though not necessarily a conscious manipulator. And podcasts telling us how she should be percieved, in my opinion, detract from the experience of the show.

However, once the show is done (not the episode), then I do like to hear what the creators have to say. Mileage varies.

 

 

I agree with everything you wrote, for the record, but I say she's written ambiguously because people are defending her, so clearly how I see it and how you see it is not universal. I mean, no one is going to write a post defending Todd's character from BB.

God, I hope not. But these days, I'm not so sure there aren't Todd lovers out there. Edited April 1, 2016 by clanstarling

[Milburn Stone]

I don't think it's as much ambiguity as it is that we react to what we see based on our own perceptions and experiences. Someone who's experienced a manipulator may be more likely to see Stacey that way, than one who hasn't.

 

I agree with you. She's clearly a Rorschach Test.

 

I've experienced manipulators, who pissed me off no end. But I've also experienced people whom I wanted to help, and did. These people may have been "taking advantage of me" (if you want to look at it in the worst possible light), but no one was kidding anyone about it, and no one thought they were putting anything over on anyone. There was mutual understanding that I was in a position to help, and that it would bring me great gratification to be able to help because I loved them, and they lovingly accepted the help. That's what I see with Stacey and Mike.

[ShadowFacts]

I think it's good that Stacy isn't too one-dimensional.  It would be a little less interesting if viewers were presented with some dialogue or something where we knew she was either just scared to death and somewhat irrational, or totally taking a ride on the Mike gravy train.  She can actually have mixed motives, too.  But my reactions to whatever her interior life may be are a little bit blunted by the fact that I know Mike continues to be in her and Kaylee's life and that Kaylee seems to be a huge factor in the actions he takes in the future.  The only way I can see her becoming very important is if Mike has misgivings about what he's doing and wants to take a step back from crime, and she comes up with another financial need.  Like private school for Kaylee.  But I think that would be too repetitive, we already get the set-up here. 

[RCharter]

I think it's good that Stacy isn't too one-dimensional.  It would be a little less interesting if viewers were presented with some dialogue or something where we knew she was either just scared to death and somewhat irrational, or totally taking a ride on the Mike gravy train.  She can actually have mixed motives, too.  But my reactions to whatever her interior life may be are a little bit blunted by the fact that I know Mike continues to be in her and Kaylee's life and that Kaylee seems to be a huge factor in the actions he takes in the future.  The only way I can see her becoming very important is if Mike has misgivings about what he's doing and wants to take a step back from crime, and she comes up with another financial need.  Like private school for Kaylee.  But I think that would be too repetitive, we already get the set-up here. 

I also think that if Mike was working to put money in a trust for Kaylee when it was taken, its likely that he did that because he had an idea that Stacey would mismanage it, or use it for herself instead of using it for Kaylee.  

[ShadowFacts]

In this episode we see him in a little hot water with having to recant his story at the prosecutor's office, and then after seeing the new house Stacy wants, going to do surveillance on the Salamancas.  It makes me wonder how much thought Mike ever gives to what happens if he is caught and it becomes known that he is getting his money the way he is.  How much does Kaylee's opinion of him weigh on him? Is he putting too much importance on the financial support aspect?  Would she end up feeling about him the way Walt Jr. felt about Walt? 

[shapeshifter]

I seem to to recall that in the end of BB there was some money available to Kaylee. Anyone else?

[AuntiePam]

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?

 

 

Jimmy said he'd pay -- which makes me wonder -- how big was his bonus?  He was probably able to sock it away, since his car and apartment were part of the deal.  He spent a wad on that snazzy new wardrobe, but that's about it.  So he's got enough for the start-up.

 

A nitpicky detail -- maybe you guys know -- if HHM paid for Kim's school loan, is that considered taxable income? 

[Captanne]

Thanks!  I must have missed that point.

[ShadowFacts]

As to HHM's loan to Kim for law school, that would not be taxable income.  If for some reason they should forgive the loan, like as an inducement for her to stay when she's about to leave and join with Jimmy, then it is considered income, and taxable.

 

Kaylee getting money at the end of BB:  Jesse, when he was all angsty about everything he'd done, wanted to give his $5 million to Drew Sharpe's parents and Kaylee before disappearing and starting over, but didn't (maybe because Saul told him not to? not sure about that) and threw it around a poor neighborhood, to homeless people, etc.  So I don't think Kaylee got any of that, nor Mike's money that the DEA got to. 

[Stratego]

The scene of Stacy, Mike and the new house could have occurred in any number of episodes--but it appeared in this one.  The same episode where there is the scene with a young Jimmy, the grifter and Jimmy's father.  The same episode where we see Kim turn on HHM, Schrader, and Jimmy.  The same episode where Mike and Jimmy skewer the police.  The episode where it is explained that there are wolves and sheep.  Stacy sees Mike as her "sheep" and she turns "wolf" on him by selecting a house way out of her price range.  Stacy is manipulating Mike!

[shapeshifter]

The scene of Stacy, Mike and the new house could have occurred in any number of episodes--but it appeared in this one. The same episode where there is the scene with a young Jimmy, the grifter and Jimmy's father. The same episode where we see Kim turn on HHM, Schrader, and Jimmy. The same episode where Mike and Jimmy skewer the police. The episode where it is explained that there are wolves and sheep. Stacy sees Mike as her "sheep" and she turns "wolf" on him by selecting a house way out of her price range. Stacy is manipulating Mike!

Okay. Maybe y'all are right about her.

Having PTSD (as per the podcast) and being a manipulative wolf in sheep's clothing are not mutually exclusive.

Edited April 1, 2016 by shapeshifter

[CarpeDiem54]

I'm from a small town in Nebraska near the Kansas border and squealed with delight over the mention of Hinky Dinky, which was our neighborhood grocery store.

Stacey comes off as totally manipulating Mike, to me. When she told him about the gunshots, he spent the entire night in front of her house in his car. Nothing happened. Later in the day, she told Mike that there had been gunshots again, which was a total lie.

[Clanstarling]

I'm from a small town in Nebraska near the Kansas border and squealed with delight over the mention of Hinky Dinky, which was our neighborhood grocery store.

Stacey comes off as totally manipulating Mike, to me. When she told him about the gunshots, he spent the entire night in front of her house in his car. Nothing happened. Later in the day, she told Mike that there had been gunshots again, which was a total lie.

Or, playing Devil's Advocate (as I think she's manipulative as well), a PTSD victim woken from a nightmare. Sometimes those are as vivid as life.

 

The scene of Stacy, Mike and the new house could have occurred in any number of episodes--but it appeared in this one.  The same episode where there is the scene with a young Jimmy, the grifter and Jimmy's father.  The same episode where we see Kim turn on HHM, Schrader, and Jimmy.  The same episode where Mike and Jimmy skewer the police.  The episode where it is explained that there are wolves and sheep.  Stacy sees Mike as her "sheep" and she turns "wolf" on him by selecting a house way out of her price range.  Stacy is manipulating Mike!

I like your reasoning.

Okay. Maybe y'all are right about her.

Having PTSD (as per the podcast) and being a manipulative wolf in sheep's clothing are not mutually exclusive.

And to wrap it up - I think you tied it all together in a bow. Edited April 1, 2016 by clanstarling

[wrlord]

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. 

Of course he knows he's being conned -- he's known it since she claimed to have heard gunshots at night, not knowing that Mike had been sitting on her doorstep the whole night.

I passed the New York bar in 1994. When I had my character screening, I disclosed my arrest record from 1986 (anti-apartheid protest). I did it because it is one of the few places one must disclose arrest records, not just convictions like in a normal job. The Internet was just getting up a head of steam at that point. Even though I wasn't fingerprinted, and the charges were dropped there were other ways, aside from a PI, that the record could have been discovered. For example, the protest and arrests were on the cover of the Poughkeepsie Journal. Many small towns also publish a "police blotter" column that names names.

umm.... I was admitted in NY the same year... I should think you would have disclosed it because they asked, and you have an ethical obligation to answer truthfully.

[AuntiePam]

Mike heard what might have sounded to Stacey like gunshots -- the newspapers hitting the street.  The timing was different from what Stacey described, but it was enough to make Mike think that Stacey was truly frightened.

 

I think the newspaper scene was there so that we wouldn't be sure about Stacey's state of mind.  Otherwise, why that scene?

[riverheightsnancy]

A nitpicky detail -- maybe you guys know -- if HHM paid for Kim's school loan, is that considered taxable income? 

I would say yes. Most companies structure it as income and include it on your W2. I got a little tuition reimbursement for my PhD program from my prior job and it was included as income and there were stipulations, that if you quit before a year, you had to pay it back. If they LOANED it to her, then it may be structured differently. As a person who owes hundreds of thousands of dollars for MS/PhD and is still trying to land a FT job in my field, I would take $15,000 owe any day of the week and twice on Sunday. That really is not that much. 

[Irlandesa]

Of course he knows he's being conned -- he's known it since she claimed to have heard gunshots at night, not knowing that Mike had been sitting on her doorstep the whole night.

I did think those newspapers sounded like gunshots.  I do think she's afraid.  But if she's being manipulative, I don't think she's inherently a manipulative person but rather this is a specific dynamic between a woman with with PTSD and a man full of guilt.

 

I agree. I want to experience and judge based on what I see, and how I react to what I see. From my perspective, I think that a person who creates (author, scriptwriter, showrunner) needs to let their baby go and allow their audience to experience it on their own. If you feel the need to explain "no, this is what the character is" - in my opinion - you are now annoying. (I'm looking at you, JK Rowling and George Lucas)

For what it's worth, Gilligan & Co. do release their work.  Any time I  see "the podcast said X" I tend to bristle a little bit because I listen to every podcast and the producers/creatives are usually very careful to say that their thoughts are their opinions and that there is no right or wrong way to interpret a scene.  A writer might share what they were thinking when they wrote the scene. An actor will share what they were thinking when they acted the scene.  A producer (like Gilligan who doesn't write the eps) will share what they think they saw in the scene.  But they always emphasize that it's a collaborative process.  The writer doesn't tell the actor what to make of what they wrote. They let the actor bring their interpretation.  So if a writer writes Stacey as honest but Kerry Condon reads the script and thinks she's being manipulative and acts that, it helps shape what that scene is.  And the final part of the process is audience interpretation.  I think the closest I've ever heard them say "this is the way things are" was a few days ago when they released the "Here's what happened at Grey Matter" answer.

 

So no, the podcasts aren't spoilers because the show is an evolving process.  If the writers write Stacey as innocent and Kerry acts her as manipulative, then that may be where the character ends up going even if that wasn't the original intent. 

Edited April 2, 2016 by Irlandesa

[Stratego]

I would say yes. Most companies structure it as income and include it on your W2. I got a little tuition reimbursement for my PhD program from my prior job and it was included as income and there were stipulations, that if you quit before a year, you had to pay it back. If they LOANED it to her, then it may be structured differently. As a person who owes hundreds of thousands of dollars for MS/PhD and is still trying to land a FT job in my field, I would take $15,000 owe any day of the week and twice on Sunday. That really is not that much. 

Maybe the law has been changed.  I worked for two different employers (74-87) where tuition was paid for night school as a company benefit--thus available to all.  I took advantage of it with the first employer (I think it helped me become employed with the second one).  The second company changed its policy because two people went to law school (we were engineers) and shortly after graduating found employment as patent attorneys (the second one learned of the first one and duplicated his effort).  The second company changed the policy (allowing the second to graduate so they weren't sued!) to require that reimbursement would only be paid if the company approved said course of study!  No one (including me) had any income tax liability because the tuition reimbursement was a company benefit (and those aren't taxable).

[riverheightsnancy]

Maybe the law has been changed.  I worked for two different employers (74-87) where tuition was paid for night school as a company benefit--thus available to all.  I took advantage of it with the first employer (I think it helped me become employed with the second one).  The second company changed its policy because two people went to law school (we were engineers) and shortly after graduating found employment as patent attorneys (the second one learned of the first one and duplicated his effort).  The second company changed the policy (allowing the second to graduate so they weren't sued!) to require that reimbursement would only be paid if the company approved said course of study!  No one (including me) had any income tax liability because the tuition reimbursement was a company benefit (and those aren't taxable).

Yes, I think that your post and mine both accurately reflect what could occur. I think it all depends on how a specific company or organization has it structured and what the policy is for your job or your specific contract.  I worked for a really cheap hospital, so not only did they have to approve the course, but you had to pass it and pay for it and THEN they would reimburse you after you proved that you paid and provided a transcript, AND then they would include it as income on your W2! Cheap bastards! They would ONLY pay for 1 course a semester too! Your post illustrates that many people get the tuition paid for at one job and then use that to get a better job! 

[LoneHaranguer]

 

A nitpicky detail -- maybe you guys know -- if HHM paid for Kim's school loan, is that considered taxable income?

Not if the company's educational assistance plan was set up properly, and I expect a law firm like HHM would get it right.

[NYCFree]

Of course he knows he's being conned -- he's known it since she claimed to have heard gunshots at night, not knowing that Mike had been sitting on her doorstep the whole night.

umm.... I was admitted in NY the same year... I should think you would have disclosed it because they asked, and you have an ethical obligation to answer truthfully.

Um.......my post literally states "I did it [disclosed arrest] because it is one of the few places one must disclose arrest records, not just convictions like in a normal job." I guess you missed how I began the explanation and focused on the latter sentences.

I was merely pointing out that even if I hadn't, there were several ways I could have been caught. The subject of the comment was referring to Kim's possible earlier transgressions and whether a law firm would have been able to find them in the late 90s.

[Milburn Stone]

I've never listened to a podcast before- they actually say what is going to happen?

 

The case we're talking about is a perfect example.

 

In telling us that Stacey is not cynically manipulating Mike, the writers are not only telling us about the present episode. They are telling us that in no future episode will it be revealed that Stacey has been cynically manipulating Mike. (How could such a thing be revealed, when they've told us that's not what's happening?)

 

Now, as I've said, in telling us this, the writers are only telling me what I already concluded from watching the episode. But just in case I wanted to be in a little bit of suspense, owing to the possibility that some future episode would contain a surprise about this, the writers have foreclosed that possibility. And so has the forum member who shared the contents of that podcast with us.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Milburn Stone

[Umbelina]

I don't think "is not" translates to "WILL not" but your point is taken.  I didn't consider that a spoiler though, if it was me who posted it first (*I don't think I was first, and I was glad to read it because I found the newspaper episode very confusing.) 

[Tatum]

I agree Umbelina. "It wasn't our intention to make Stacey a grifter" is not at all the same thing as "Stacey will never take advantage of Mike or have anything but honorable intentions". As was pointed out a few posts ago, these characters are created then take on a life of their own, influenced by the storylines, the actors playing them, and the audience interpreting them. I see the podcast- in relation to Stacey- to mean more, we didn't create her character with the intention of making her a villain. Unlike say, Gus. That doesn't mean she won't ever do any ethically questionable things. Nor does it mean that the writers won't decide to take the character in a direction different from how they originally saw her.

[Milburn Stone]

I understand (while not fully embracing) your points, Umbelina and Tatum. I'm satisfied if one forum contributor asks him/herself the question, "Does this podcast contain information that potentially indicates how the series is going to play out? And if so, should I really be posting it?"

[riverheightsnancy]

As many others have said, just because Stacey has PTSD over what happened, doesn't mean that her way of interacting in the world, isn't from a manipulative stance when not exhibiting PTSD type symptoms. She may not even really know that she is doing it, per se. We would generally look at people who are highly manipulative as having some aspect of a personality disorder and because of the trauma of losing her husband, she may be resorting to behaviors or aspects of her innate personality that have served her in the past (i.e., manipulative). Generally speaking, most people develop strategies that work (whether they are positive or negative) and resort to them because they help us achieve our goals. It is a means-ends strategy. What Stacey is doing could be construed as manipulative or guilting others into doing what she wants. As a lapsed Catholic, this is standard fare and an effective technique many of us grew up knowing how to use. ;) 

[Captanne]

I think Stacy is crazy as a bedbug.  There are various forms of "crazy" and in her case it manifests as PTSD-ridden pathetic manipulator.  I don't think her manipulation is intentional (necessarily) or badly motivated, I just think she deludes herself into thinking her expectations are normal.

 

And Mike, for all his baggage, enables her.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Captanne

[Umbelina]

I understand (while not fully embracing) your points, Umbelina and Tatum. I'm satisfied if one forum contributor asks him/herself the question, "Does this podcast contain information that potentially indicates how the series is going to play out? And if so, should I really be posting it?"

I think most do, and as I said, although I know I didn't post it first, because I distinctly remember being relieved when someone did as I hadn't listened to it, it was more a question of the intent of the writers.  I don't think the writers are doing a great job on this show, as I've said.  I KNOW they are capable of it, but on BCS that is not a consistent thing.  Yet.  I have hopes that they clean it up, and am rooting for them, but so far?  We get those "A" moments, but we IMO have also had far too many lazy, repetitive, and ridiculously obvious plot driven scenes as well.

 

The vast difference of opinion isn't about Stacy, IMO, isn't something the writers "intended" or to "let the characters take on lives of their own" it's more, "yeah, we are sloppy there, so let's SAY the character took on a life of her own."  Ditto the whole, and I will spoiler tag this, but really wonder if it's needed since the writers have said it in interviews and on podcasts

"Chuck is a good guy, you are going to really be on his side, we were shocked people dislike him, etc."

things they've said.  Is that really a spoiler?  Their failure to project what they expect us to see?  Because to me, it's pretty bizarre,

not to say that he doesn't have reasons, but don't tell me who I'm going to like, especially if he's an asshole and boring as fuck.

 

See, I don't think any of that is a spoiler.

 

Recently I heard on another show's podcast something that I did consider a spoiler, about casting and a location shoot.  I WOULD tag that, or post it in the spoiler thread.  What a character's motivation is though, or what intentions the writers expect you to see, but fail to convey?  That's a trickier area for me.  It's especially tricky if you are not bowing down to worship Vince & company because of past stellar achievements.  I mean, taking Stacey for example, if the writers intent is so completely different than what the majority of people are seeing on the screen?  That's an issue.  If the writers decide to go a different direction because their writing conveyed something COMPLETELY other than what they intended?  That's fine, but it just shows they can think on their feet, not that they conveyed in an interesting or entertaining way what they intended to convey.  I'd love to worship Vince & company again, but at best, this effort is spotty.

 

Oh, and directors and writers and actors work together here to make character and scripts turn into stories, so no, I don't buy "The actress ignored them and did it her way and everyone was cool with that, and we are all SHOCKED the public thinks she's grifting, but whatever..."

Edited April 2, 2016 by Umbelina

[Irlandesa]

The vast difference of opinion isn't about Stacy, IMO, isn't something the writers "intended" or to "let the characters take on lives of their own" it's more, "yeah, we are sloppy there, so let's SAY the character took on a life of her own."  Ditto the whole, and I will spoiler tag this, but really wonder if it's needed since the writers have said it in interviews and on podcasts

"Chuck is a good guy, you are going to really be on his side, we were shocked people dislike him, etc."

things they've said.  Is that really a spoiler?  Their failure to project what they expect us to see?  Because to me, it's pretty bizarre,

not to say that he doesn't have reasons, but don't tell me who I'm going to like, especially if he's an asshole and boring as fuck.

This is something that happened all the time on Breaking Bad too, though, so I don't agree that it's evidence the writing is poorer or sloppier.  Characters developed differently than their original concepts (Hank, Mike, Saul).  Audiences had diverging opinions on the characters (Walt, Skylar). Even when BCS is clearer than they usually are to solidify a point they made, as they did in this episode when they showed Jimmy lifting money from the till which at least gives some more credence to Chuck's POV. 

BTW, what podcast did they say Chuck was a good guy?  Because I've heard them say that maybe he is...and that maybe he has a POV we haven't seen yet but I don't think they expect everyone to just embrace Chuck even if they do show that POV.

  And people will still debate  how much Chuck was telling the truth. 

 

The characters these creators create inspire debate.  There were absolutely heated debates about character motivations in the BB forums just as there are on the BCS forums. It's actually a feature to their shows, not a negative, IMO.

Edited April 2, 2016 by Irlandesa

[Umbelina]

Debate about characters is fine and wonderful really.  We all naturally relate to or understand different things about different characters and/or their actions.  For example, Walt, being told he has incurable cancer and will die, or even just facing chemo, and worries about his cancer leaving his family deeply in debt.  Some of us have personally faced that, some have not, some have been very close to someone who faced that, which might give them a similar, but not the SAME reactions, and others who haven't might be empathetic or might simply not really GET that on a soul level, but certainly understand that intellectually and emotionally.

 

That's completely different than the whole Stacey example being used though.  When the majority of posters (and not just here) are convinced she's basically a bitter con woman who is using Mike, and forcing Mike into this life because of her greed and hatred or indifference to what Mike might go through?  We are watching two different shows. 

 

What I'm trying to say is there is a "let the character bloom and grow in ways we may not have expected" which is a WONDERFUL trait in many writers, and then there are simply poorly written "plot point" characters that the writers are shocked people dislike, because they THINK their writing/directing/acting has said something totally different.  One is a very good thing, but pretending that "good thing" when it's simply crappy writing/directing/acting is something entirely different.

 

"We put them out into the universe and they become whatever you want" is not a get out of jail free card.  In Stacey's case, and I think in a few other character's cases, that is what's happening on this show, and it's why people are becoming frustrated because we know what these writers are capable of.  An example that actually shows the good side of this is a character like Jesse, destined to die in the first season, but the actor brought so much more depth and pathos to his character than was written, and could do so much more, that they then changed the story to embrace that gift. 

 

Anyway, I think they will tighten up this show now, I expect to see some character development from Howard, for example, and probably in some kind of big way.  Did they intend that from the beginning?  I doubt it, but since they kept "Jimmy" they had to keep Howard, a poorly drawn enigma who was on screen in nearly every episode.  Howard will probably have something to do with more Chuck drudgery, because he can't keep twisting his mustache (I HOPE!) with Kim. 

 

As far as what they do with Stacey, I wouldn't be at all surprised, and this is not spoiled, it's just common sense and supposition, since the vast majority of viewers think she's awful, they could very well start writing that side of her more, or alternately, write more to make her sympathetic.  It could go either way really.  What they do know is that whatever they think she is?  It's not coming through to the people who watch, so if they have a story to tell, they need to put it on the screen.

 

One thing I've noticed is that the characters that are only there to move characters ahead (Stacey and Howard) for example, are the most poorly written.  They are basically only around to make Mike a serious criminal (but in my opinion, he already is the worst kind, the kind that wears a badge, and that happened before he ever met Stacey) and Howard, to deny Jimmy and Kim the whole legitimate firm lawyers thing, pushing Jimmy into becoming Saul, and Kim into who knows what, leaving, certainly.

 

ETA

An example of what these writers can do is the character of Rebecca.  I know more about her, care more about her, am interested in what will happen with her from a few scenes in one episode, than I do about Howard who is on all the time.  They have the ability, we all know it, and frankly, it's why I'm sticking with it.  Well, that, and the gifts we get of the BB characters, like Saul, Mike, and the criminals...so well drawn and complex!

Edited April 2, 2016 by Umbelina

[Stratego]

 

 

"We put them [characters] out into the universe and they become whatever you want" is not a get out of jail free card.  In Stacey's case, and I think in a few other character's cases, that is what's happening on this show, and it's why people are becoming frustrated because we know what these writers are capable of.  

 

 

WHAT?  Are we supposed to believe that the production team (producer, director, writer, editor, etc) just produce a script and hand to the cast and say "this is your cow, 'milk' it"?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  productions have a  "walk-through" for every scene, the director is performing "quality-control" for both the cast and the editor to ensure that what is broadcast conforms to the "vision" of the show.  If a character (especially an important one like Stacy) is misunderstood--that's on the director.  A podcast is to build viewer loyalty by expanding certain show details--not to correct errors.

[Lonesome Rhodes]

I love this conversation!  Smart, insightful, heartfelt.  Thanks again to the Mod(s) for letting it play out.

 

One thing that may not be directly on point in this, but is at least tangential...If you had asked the writers their intention when Jimmy turned around in the parking lot at the end of Season One, they would have honestly told you that Jimmy was going Saul pronto.  He would never have even sniffed Davis & Main.  Now, ultimately, Jimmy was not going to work well there, as we have seen.  However, just think of the rich tableau we have been given with the 180 they did with Jimmy's acceptance!   Look at all the fun we had.  At a bare minimum, we would never have had the brilliant montage in Inflatable.   Would we have had the grifter Kim come out as she did - twice??

 

If any show has ever earned the privilege of reversing and/or twisting course, it is this one, in my opinion.  What may seem to be spoilers, in this one instance of a production, may not be - and not just for the manipulative heck of it, either.  

 

I fully agree with those who say that the writers have missed the mark if their intention was to portray a pure Stacey.  However, I'll give them the benefit of doubt.  If they now decide to make her out to be more of a parasite?  That will have been earned, as well.  Now...how great is it hat we can all have such a conversation.  About ONE, MINOR, character?  What a show this is!

[Irlandesa]

Debate about characters is fine and wonderful really.  We all naturally relate to or understand different things about different characters and/or their actions.  For example, Walt, being told he has incurable cancer and will die, or even just facing chemo, and worries about his cancer leaving his family deeply in debt.  Some of us have personally faced that, some have not, some have been very close to someone who faced that, which might give them a similar, but not the SAME reactions, and others who haven't might be empathetic or might simply not really GET that on a soul level, but certainly understand that intellectually and emotionally.

Except the debate surrounding Walt is the perfect example of an audience having two different points of view regarding what motivates the character.  Whether or not we'd react the same way in the same position was only part of the debate.  The bigger part of the debate surrounding Walt was why he was really cooking meth.  Some argued it was for his family and/or out of fear for his life.  Some quickly realized that he was doing it because he liked it.  He liked the power.  Some had tons of sympathy him for many seasons.  Some thought he was terrible pretty early on. Heck, that debate goes on even today.  In fact, I think we recently had it one of the episode threads.

 

That's completely different than the whole Stacey example being used though.  When the majority of posters (and not just here) are convinced she's basically a bitter con woman who is using Mike, and forcing Mike into this life because of her greed and hatred or indifference to what Mike might go through?  We are watching two different shows.

I just re-read the thread and the split seems to be pretty even between posters who think Stacey is deliberately manipulative and posters who think she's either not or using Mike to cope. But I don't think knowing whether or not she is being deliberate is so important that it must be made absolutely clear.  The point is she is and Mike feels a desire to support his daughter-in-law and granddaughter.  I think we know as much about her as we know about Marie's shoplifting.

 

WHAT?  Are we supposed to believe that the production team (producer, director, writer, editor, etc) just produce a script and hand to the cast and say "this is your cow, 'milk' it"?  That makes no sense whatsoever.  productions have a  "walk-through" for every scene, the director is performing "quality-control" for both the cast and the editor to ensure that what is broadcast conforms to the "vision" of the show.  If a character (especially an important one like Stacy) is misunderstood--that's on the director.  A podcast is to build viewer loyalty by expanding certain show details--not to correct errors.

No, it's not all up to the actors but it does go through many people who put their own spin on things and that's what helps create the scene.  A writer writes it.  A director interprets the script and guides shooting.  Since the writer is on set for shooting, he/she can consult with the writer but at this point it's largely their vision.  They can offer guidance to the actors but I've heard more than one actor say they don't mind giving a director different looks but don't like to be micromanaged. And then there's the editing room where things can be molded again.

[Umbelina]

If there is a split about Stacey, I think it came mostly after the podcasts though. 

 

Also, to me Mike was always crooked, so blaming it Stacey made no sense to me at all.  I just hope for more episodes like this one, and FAR fewer of Chuck's long boring soliloquies about how Jimmy harmed him, or Howard standing around with a blank look on his face.

[ShadowFacts]

If there is a split about Stacey, I think it came mostly after the podcasts though. 

 

Also, to me Mike was always crooked, so blaming it Stacey made no sense to me at all.  I just hope for more episodes like this one, and FAR fewer of Chuck's long boring soliloquies about how Jimmy harmed him, or Howard standing around with a blank look on his face.

 

As to Mike's crookedness, I wonder if his taking a job at the parking lot of a courthouse was to put him in proximity to criminals and their lawyers.  I know he got his initial side jobs via the veterinarian.  Maybe it's just a writing convenience so he can cross paths with Jimmy from time to time. 

 

I was also thinking about the Mike/Stacey dynamic in terms of how we first saw them last season.  She moved to Albuquerque with no guarantee Mike would follow.  They were wary of each other at first, to the point of Stacey being hostile.  That points away from her being manipulative in the beginning.  Her motives are probably mixed, and she saw Mike's guilt that she wasn't aware of at the beginning, and started taking advantage. 

[shapeshifter]

If there is a split about Stacey, I think it came mostly after the podcasts though..

But we'll never know if the split would've occurred without the podcasts. The podcasts are sort of Schroedinger's Cat of the debate.

As to Mike's crookedness, I wonder if his taking a job at the parking lot of a courthouse was to put him in proximity to criminals and their lawyers.

That might just be a serendipitous perk. My first guess would be he got the job because someone back east vouched for him with someone who had the power to hire him. But if your speculation is the correct one, that wouldn't surprise me.

[Irlandesa]

If there is a split about Stacey, I think it came mostly after the podcasts though.

So people watched, formed an opinion and then switched after listening to the podcasts?  I can't speak for everyone but that isn't what happened with me.  I would be surprised if that happened with others as well since I don't know how many people listen to the podcasts and let it influence their opinions. 

[Lonesome Rhodes]

Because I am sometimes super slow on the uptake...those DAs would have seen Mike and his messed-up face most any day they went to work.  You don't think they would have had a little extra motivation to get the skel who did that to him?  And then...this betrayal by Mike?  He is now, officially, on their list.  Who is the greater enemy to have, Hector and Co., or the DAs annnd the cops who also would have seen Mike and learned of his recantation?

[ShadowFacts]

Because I am sometimes super slow on the uptake...those DAs would have seen Mike and his messed-up face most any day they went to work.  You don't think they would have had a little extra motivation to get the skel who did that to him?  And then...this betrayal by Mike?  He is now, officially, on their list.  Who is the greater enemy to have, Hector and Co., or the DAs annnd the cops who also would have seen Mike and learned of his recantation?

 

And there's at least one detective who sat in on his questioning by the visiting Philadelphia detectives regarding the cop murders.  So yeah, his plan really bit him, plus the Salamancas can use Kaylee to threaten him any time. 

[scenario]

Stacy acts like a classic entitled person. Look at how Mike lives. He lives in a (probably) rented house in a bad neighborhood. Everything in the house looks 2nd hand. He drives an old car. He doesn't wear expensive clothes. He eats out in cheap places. He's clearly not spending a lot of money. He's probably been like that since Stacy's known him.  This year top step Philadelphia cops make $64,000 a year. So he was making $40,000 a year plus for 20 years or more plus he was a dirty cop making illegal money on the side but he was living like he was making $20,000 a year. Last year Stacy found $5,000 (as I recall)  that her husband got illegally the only time he did anything illegal. If her husband got $5,000 for doing something illegal once, how much money could a crooked cop put aside over 20 or 30 years when he spends almost nothing on himself? She's thinking that he probably has 2 or 3 million dollars stashed away. When he dies, his granddaughters going to get it anyway. Why not get some of it now? So she asks him for enough money for an expensive house she can't afford. He says no problem. She takes what he says at face value because she really believes he has tons of money in the bank. 

 

With Kim I think that she has been a con artist in the past. Maybe from a family of con artists. She pulled two cons with Jimmy. The first time she jumped right in and did it like it was natural. The second time she was the one who set up the con. She's just too good not to have done it before. When Jimmy as a child saw another con artist, he knew it instantly. I think he knew that Kim was a con artist and she knew he was right from the start. That's what attracted them to each other. Back in her home town she was never arrested but her family was. The police knew she was involved but could never prove it. Since she was never arrested, it didn't show up on background checks. At some point she decided to go straight. She moved to AZ and got a legit job in the mail room that didn't require much of a background check. She passed the bar and since she was never arrested the background check didn't find anything. Why do a background check on someone whose worked in the firm for 10 years?  Her new firm might check deeper. Plus Jimmy has woken up something in her. She is tired of acting so perfect all the time. She wants to let loose. She didn't prepare for the interview as much as she should because she really wasn't sure she wanted the job. Her mind said go the safe path. He heart said too hell with the safe path. It's time to have fun. 

[shapeshifter]

[stacy]'s thinking that he probably has 2 or 3 million dollars stashed away. When he dies, his granddaughters going to get it anyway. Why not get some of it now? So she asks him for enough money for an expensive house she can't afford. He says no problem. She takes what he says at face value because she really believes he has tons of money in the bank.

Interesting theory that holds water. I doubt they will ever reveal it, but it reminds me of when my ex and his wife wanted to renogiate his $119 per month child support payments after I left town to take a job to support me and my kids; they thought I was making double what I was. If I had gone back to court, I would've likely gotten more money, but they thought I'd be paying them.

With Kim I think that she has been a con artist in the past. Maybe from a family of con artists. She pulled two cons with Jimmy. The first time she jumped right in and did it like it was natural. The second time she was the one who set up the con. She's just too good not to have done it before. When Jimmy as a child saw another con artist, he knew it instantly. I think he knew that Kim was a con artist and she knew he was right from the start. That's what attracted them to each other. Back in her home town she was never arrested but her family was. The police knew she was involved but could never prove it. Since she was never arrested, it didn't show up on background checks. At some point she decided to go straight.

Another legitmate theory, especially the bold part. Maybe she had another partner who got killed, and that motivated her to go straight. Or maybe it's just that she and Jimmy met in the mailroom and they did a lot of cons together. Edited April 4, 2016 by shapeshifter

[RCharter]

If there is a split about Stacey, I think it came mostly after the podcasts though. 

 

Also, to me Mike was always crooked, so blaming it Stacey made no sense to me at all.  I just hope for more episodes like this one, and FAR fewer of Chuck's long boring soliloquies about how Jimmy harmed him, or Howard standing around with a blank look on his face.

I agree on the split about Stacey occurring after the information about the podcast came out.

 

I feel like Mike was always pragmatic and deeply devoted to his family.  I think he was crooked because it was too hard to swim against the tide and he didn't want any trouble.  The one big weakness he has, IMO, is his family.  The big chink in his pragmatic armor.  Mike has always come off that way to me.  Whats fair is fair, if he doesn't earn money, he doesn't take it...he doesn't have any grand illusions about who he is, he doesn't need a ton of power or a ton of money.

 

And, I think that Kaylee is going to be Mike's weakness as well...it is why he will allow himself to be played.  In retrospect, to me, it seems clear that Mike is probably not entirely fooled by Stacey's hugs and calling him "Pop," but knows its the price he will have to pay to have Kaylee in his life.  So, he is going to do what he needs to do to keep her in his life.  I guess I'll just be interested in seeing how far Stacey pushes it......because, again, if Mike was trying to put that money into trust for Kaylee before he died, it may have been to keep it away from Stacey, or to at least put some controls on the money.  And that would make sense if he had a realization that Stacey would spend it on herself or do something dumb with it.

 

Because I am sometimes super slow on the uptake...those DAs would have seen Mike and his messed-up face most any day they went to work.  You don't think they would have had a little extra motivation to get the skel who did that to him?  And then...this betrayal by Mike?  He is now, officially, on their list.  Who is the greater enemy to have, Hector and Co., or the DAs annnd the cops who also would have seen Mike and learned of his recantation?

 

I don't know if he is on their list.  I imagine the DEA/DA have had plenty of witnesses that suddenly "forgot" or were "mistaken" when faced with the fact that they would have to testify against a powerful and deadly drug dealer.  Its hard to imagine that DA's are so upset that they would harass people who were righteously scared.  They are probably super frustrated, but are they really going to get back at a man that they figure was probably just scared by Salamanca and Co?  I don't know.  

[MaryPatShelby]

I probably missed this, but what happened to Stacy that she has PTSD about?  She wasn't a cop, she wasn't involved in violence, and as far as I know she wasn't in the vicinity when her husband was killed.  Where did the PTSD come from, that she is alleged to have?

[shapeshifter]

I probably missed this, but what happened to Stacy that she has PTSD about? She wasn't a cop, she wasn't involved in violence, and as far as I know she wasn't in the vicinity when her husband was killed. Where did the PTSD come from, that she is alleged to have?

Maybe "PTSD" isn't the correct term, but it was voiced in the now-infamous-to-this-thread podcast. My mother has been expressing suicidal idiation since my father--her husband and soulmate of 68 years--died suddenly last October. Again, I don't know if "PTSD" would be a correct diagnosis, but she is definitely suffering stress as a result of a traumatic incident. Similarly, Stacy is not coping well since the loss of her husband, but, yeah, a clinical psychologist might not diagnose her as having as PTSD. She does seem paranoid and maybe even delusional. Edited April 4, 2016 by shapeshifter

[carrps]

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?

 

I don't think so. I haven't watched any SG BB episodes in a while, but my memory is that his office was near the inside corner of an L-shaped mini-mall. The nail salon is the last shop on a straight run.

 

If there is a split about Stacey, I think it came mostly after the podcasts though. 

 

Nope. Not for me. The podcast discussion had no impact on me. I was actually surprised in reading this forum that so many people had such a hate on for Stacey. Reminded me a bit of the Skylar hate TBH.

[Captanne]

I'm rewatching BB and Saul's office is at the inside corner of an L shaped mall, true.  

 

NB:  His original idea for laundering the drug money was a laser tag park.  When Skyler put the kibosh on that, he suggested a nail salon.  (We know it ends up being the car wash.)  So, nail salons are his go-to money laundering businesses.

[Milburn Stone]

The difference of opinion re Stacey predates the podcast. (Or at least the sharing of the podcast content on this thread.) I know this because I was already in a different place than others here re Stacey before the subject of the podcast came up. It's a fairly easy matter to check if anyone wants to take the trouble to go back upthread-- which I wouldn't! :)

 

When the subject of the podcast did come up, some posters were like, "The show totally failed to get across what the writers were going for, " and I was like, "I don't know about anybody else, but I'm not surprised to hear what the writers said they were going for, because that's totally what they did achieve in the show I saw."