S02.E07: Inflatable

[RCharter]

^^I think this is why Umbelina wisely used the word "mostly" and not the word "all."

 

And even then most of the feedback seems to be of the variety...."yes she is manipulative and yes, she is probably using him, but because of the PTSD she doesn't know what she is doing"

 

I don't necessarily think that makes much sense, but I think its a way for people to reconcile both points of view, one of which makes sense based on Stacey's behavior/actions and the other of which is given weight because it was presented in a podcast by the shows writers/creators.

Edited April 4, 2016 by RCharter

[scenario]

I think she knows exactly what she's doing. She thinks he has a lot more money then he really has and she is entitled to some of it. In her mind she's not stealing it. He's a rich old scrooge who is just sitting on a pile of money he got from being a crooked cop. Why shouldn't he share some of it with the only family he's got?

 

Go to a store and listen to parents talking to a teenager trying to talk their parent into buying them something that's wildly overpriced. They just have to have it and its not right that their parent won't give it too them. People thinking they are entitled to their parents money is very very common. 

[ByTor]

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."

I have only ever listened to one podcast (happened to be a Breaking Bad one), and I am right there with you on your assessment of Stacey. Maybe I missed something in the dialogue, but I don't recall Mike offering to buy the house, or that the house was out of Stacey's budget. I was under the impression that Stacey's concern was about being able to scrape together enough cash for the down payment/closing costs/etc, not that she wouldn't be able to afford the mortgage. Do I think she showed "Pop" the house hoping he'd offer to help, after admitting she sounded like a broken record regarding her finances? Yes, I do. But no, I do not think she was being shady.

Speaking of that one BB podcast, I was quite impressed with Vince Gilligan. He was talking about some scenes and what was intended by the writing/direction, but he never said it was how we were "supposed" to think; quite the contrary, he said there are so many viewers who offered completely different opinions/views, and he said that he absolutely loves that people will take away what they want from a scene.

Edited April 4, 2016 by ByTor

[Clanstarling]

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."

I remember that post. I had an opposite opinion, which didn't change so much as soften a little. Not because of the podcast, but because of the discourse on the forum. I still think she's manipulating Mike, but perhaps she is not as coldly calculating as I once thought. Edited April 4, 2016 by clanstarling

[shapeshifter]

I still think she's manipulating Mike, but perhaps she is not as coldly calculating as I once thought.

My sister is very manipulative, but fortunately she has plenty of money, so it's more just trying to get people do things--but she believes she is making people do the "right" thing for their own good--and sometimes she is. There are all sorts of reasons people become manipulative. All we know about Stacey is her husband got killed trying to be a good cop in a group of dirty cops, right? Or is that not even revealed in this show, but only in Breaking Bad (I can't recall)?

[ShadowFacts]

My sister is very manipulative, but fortunately she has plenty of money, so it's more just trying to get people do things--but she believes she is making people do the "right" thing for their own good--and sometimes she is. There are all sorts of reasons people become manipulative. All we know about Stacey is her husband got killed trying to be a good cop in a group of dirty cops, right? Or is that not even revealed in this show, but only in Breaking Bad (I can't recall)?

 

It was revealed in this show last season that his son was a pretty new cop, straight arrow, who was approached by his partner and other cops to join in their protection racket or whatever it was.  He didn't want to, but Mike convinced him he should, to keep himself  'safe'.  But he was killed anyway, I think because he hesitated enough that the bad cops couldn't trust him.  So it's doubly tragic, and Mike feels that immense guilt that Stacey now knows about. 

[Irlandesa]

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."

I agree. I think the podcast may have sparked the debate but not the opinions about Stacey.

 

^^I think this is why Umbelina wisely used the word "mostly" and not the word "all."

But there's no evidence that "most" or even any people's opinions changed or were largely influenced by the podcast.  In fact, it's the opposite based on what people have said.  People who don't think Stacey is intentionally conning Mike are basing this on the show just as much as people who think she's conning him are.

[RCharter]

I agree. I think the podcast may have sparked the debate but not the opinions about Stacey.

 

But there's no evidence that "most" or even any people's opinions changed or were largely influenced by the podcast.  In fact, it's the opposite based on what people have said.  People who don't think Stacey is intentionally conning Mike are basing this on the show just as much as people who think she's conning him are.

I think sometimes people don't want to admit that they may have been influenced by a podcast.  But before the podcast the opinions were one way, and after the podcast came up, the opinions expressed were different.  Which is what Umbelina was saying, and I agree with him/her on that.

 

Intentional con....versus the unintentional con doesn't make much sense to me at all.  It seems like a compromise between two points of view.  But YMMV.

Edited April 5, 2016 by RCharter

[Umbelina]

I'm moving this to MIke's thread.  It started out as a conversation about the writing and Stacey and the house in this episode, but it seems more about Mike now.

Edited April 5, 2016 by Umbelina

[Irlandesa]

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.

I think people hear PTSD and think it only applies to abuse victims or soldiers or cops.  Anyone can get PTSD.  And yes, the sudden death of a loved one can bring it on. I don't know if that's what your mom has or even if it's what Stacey has but having one's husband murdered can definitely cause it.

 

I think sometimes people don't want to admit that they may have been influenced by a podcast.  But before the podcast the opinions were one way, and after the podcast came up, the opinions expressed were different.  Which is what Umbelina was saying, and I agree with him/her on that.

But both opinions were shared before the podcast aired. And this debate has been held before this episode as well. 

 

Intentional con....versus the unintentional con doesn't make much sense to me at all.  It seems like a compromise between two points of view.  But YMMV.

I think there's a difference between something planned and meant to hurt and letting someone know what would make you happy knowing that they'd like to make you happy.  I think Stacey falls into the latter category.  He knows Mike wants to help and she's getting into the habit more and more that she'd like that too.

[Umbelina]

Damn, from the very second Jimmy started watching the inflatable man, this was like a freight train full of AWESOME, I'm so glad the recap has part of it up as a clip, because I could watch it over and over and over again.

 

This may be my favorite BCS episode ever, certainly my favorite this season. 

 

Finally, we may actually be dropping the dull drudgery and moving into Jimmy territory, where It's All Good Man!

[Milburn Stone]

I think sometimes people don't want to admit that they may have been influenced by a podcast.  But before the podcast the opinions were one way, and after the podcast came up, the opinions expressed were different.  Which is what Umbelina was saying, and I agree with him/her on that.

 

As a data point, my opinion was expressed before learning about the podcast, and I continued to express the identical opinion after learning about the podcast.

[shapeshifter]

As a data point, my opinion was expressed before learning about the podcast, and I continued to express the identical opinion after learning about the podcast.

Me too, but the podcast knowledge cemented my take on Stacey more firmly. Anyway, some were influenced by it to the point of changing opinions about the character. To me, the podcast opens the box that contains the Schroedinger's Cat that is Stacey's motivation. It probably says something (I'm not sure exactly what) about the show that we are so immersed in the motivation of a character since motivation is very key in acting.

[RCharter]

I think people hear PTSD and think it only applies to abuse victims or soldiers or cops.  Anyone can get PTSD.  And yes, the sudden death of a loved one can bring it on. I don't know if that's what your mom has or even if it's what Stacey has but having one's husband murdered can definitely cause it.

 

But both opinions were shared before the podcast aired. And this debate has been held before this episode as well. 

 

I think there's a difference between something planned and meant to hurt and letting someone know what would make you happy knowing that they'd like to make you happy.  I think Stacey falls into the latter category.  He knows Mike wants to help and she's getting into the habit more and more that she'd like that too.

Yes, both opinions were shared before the podcast, but there were far fewer people sharing the opinion before the broadcast....which is why the term "mostly" was used and not "all."

 

Well, Stacey's was very clearly planned.  She invited Mike to the house and had the agent there and everything for a house that was "way out of her budget."  So, it sounds more intentional even by your own definition.  I don't think a "con" is necessarily meant to hurt someone, I just think its mostly to get money.  I consider what Bernie Madoff did a con, but I don't think he cared one fig if he hurt or didn't hurt people.  He just wanted money.  I think he intentionally took money from people because he wanted money, not because he wanted to hurt them.  So I don't see what a desire to hurt people has to do with the "intentional con."

As a data point, my opinion was expressed before learning about the podcast, and I continued to express the identical opinion after learning about the podcast.

And for the third time now....this is why the word mostly was used and not all.  

 

We are all on notice that you had the same opinion before and after.  

[Milburn Stone]

And for the third time now....this is why the word mostly was used and not all.  

 

We are all on notice that you had the same opinion before and after.  

 

RCharter, I need to correct you. If you look at your post from 7:34 PM (Central) yesterday--the one I clearly was responding to, since that's the one I quoted, complete with timestamp--you didn't use the word "mostly."

[RCharter]

RCharter, I need to correct you. If you look at your post from 7:34 PM (Central) yesterday--the one I clearly was responding to, since that's the one I quoted, complete with timestamp--you didn't use the word "mostly."

You really don't, as I have been clear, from the very first post in response to Umbelina's that the word mostly and not the word all was used.  

 

And what I said in the post that you responded to was that overall there was a shift of opinion after the podcast was mentioned.  Again, no mention of all the opinions....and certainly no mention of you in particular, as you have kindly pointed out...multiple times that your opinion had not changed.  And it has been noted.....multiple times.  

 

Let me be clear, for what is now the fifth time, so there is no more confusion  whenever I reference the shift of opinion....I am most certainly not referencing you.   This is why the term "mostly" has been used and not "all."  

[Milburn Stone]

Fantastic.

[wendyg]

I've never seen a tube man before except the one in THE LAST MAN ON EARTH. How common are they? Is this a US southwest thing?

[MaryPatShelby]

Speaking of that one BB podcast, I was quite impressed with Vince Gilligan. He was talking about some scenes and what was intended by the writing/direction, but he never said it was how we were "supposed" to think; quite the contrary, he said there are so many viewers who offered completely different opinions/views, and he said that he absolutely loves that people will take away what they want from a scene.

If we can stand one more comment about the podcast: In the thread for the first episode in which Stacey and the gunshots came up, someone posted that according to the podcast Stacey positively has PTSD.  Full stop.  So... Gilligan likes it when viewers have differing takeaways but would still like us to listen to his podcast to find out what's really going on?

[CarpeDiem54]

I've never seen a tube man before except the one in THE LAST MAN ON EARTH. How common are they? Is this a US southwest thing?

I've seen a couple here in the Denver Metro area. I can't remember where I've seen them, but IIRC they were used by low rent kind of businesses - like those used car lots that also do their own financing at 1000% interest.

I used to travel a lot for business and I remember seeing them mainly in the South.

[LoneHaranguer]

 

I've never seen a tube man before except the one in THE LAST MAN ON EARTH. How common are they? Is this a US southwest thing?

Here in Massachusetts, they tend to be used for special events like grand openings, and in tax-filing season by Liberty Tax when they don't have somebody dressed in a Statue of Liberty costume waving at the traffic instead. They seem to have fallen out of favor at car dealerships, but were still being used by them when this show is set.

[ByTor]

If we can stand one more comment about the podcast: In the thread for the first episode in which Stacey and the gunshots came up, someone posted that according to the podcast Stacey positively has PTSD.  Full stop.  So... Gilligan likes it when viewers have differing takeaways but would still like us to listen to his podcast to find out what's really going on?

As I said, from the podcast I listened to, he does say how the scene was intended. In this case, if he says Stacey definitely has PTSD, then yes, that was his intention. However, it doesn't negate the fact that he likes when viewers have different takeaways, and he never once said "listen to my podcast to hear how things really are." It's more like "listen to my podcast to hear how things were written, and take from that what you will." Edited April 6, 2016 by ByTor

[peeayebee]

I'm in the LA area, and right now I can recall two blowy tube men around here. One is at a Jiffy Lube, and the other is at a strip mall with discount stores. They're not uncommon around here.

[Umbelina]

I've seen them too, West Coast.  The editing was fantastic though, speeding it up at the right time, the montage, just all of it made the inflatable man much more interesting than they are in real life.

[Macnyc]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is moving Kaylee and her mom into a "good neighborhood" in Albuquerque going to solve anything? Can't the Salamancas get there pretty easily? I agree with a previous poster that a bunker is what's needed.

[RCharter]

16 hours ago, Macnyc said:

Maybe I'm missing something, but how is moving Kaylee and her mom into a "good neighborhood" in Albuquerque going to solve anything? Can't the Salamancas get there pretty easily? I agree with a previous poster that a bunker is what's needed.

Well, I think Mike feels like he took steps to protect Kaylee and Stacy from the Salamancas.  I'm not sure how far you've gotten, so I'm gonna put the rest in spoilers.

Spoiler

But in a later episode, Nacho confirms that Mike was pretty much off of their radar.

And so, if its only that Mike thinks the threat is only in Stacy's mind(or its just a shakedown), he may think that moving her into a "better neighborhood" will eliminate the threat that she only has in her mind.

[Christina]

4 hours ago, RCharter said:

And so, if its only that Mike thinks the threat is only in Stacy's mind(or its just a shakedown), he may think that moving her into a "better neighborhood" will eliminate the threat that she only has in her mind.

That is what I thought was going on in that situation. He was trying to make her feel better because of her anxiety in the neighborhood she was living in.

[peggy06]

I know Hector has a fan following from BrBa for some reason, but I hate him with the fiery passion of a thousand burning suns. He sits there are calm and cocky threatening a little girl's life just to keep his crazy drug dealing nephew out of jail? I was in a rage after that scene.

[ghoulina]

I mean, Hector is obviously a terrible guy. He held once held a child's head under water, almost drowning him, to prove a point to another child. But SO many of the characters in the BB/BCS universe are pretty bad people. Saul, himself, has done some not so great things. He WAS involved with the Brock thing, even if he didn't know just how it would go down. So, for me personally, I can enjoy a character without actually liking them; if that makes any sense. Hector/Tio was fun with his "ding, ding, ding" and the way he'd fuck with the DEA.