S03.E06: Off Brand

[PeterPirate]

2 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Keeping them in a house, per se, is not a problem. Keeping them in that house is most certainly a serious ethical violation, and if there are not some consequences, that's a lapse in plot detail. Perhaps not huge, based upon where i think things are heading pretty shortly, but Howard really should be more concerned about HHM's exposure.  

Sadly, that is a 100% accurate representation of Albuquerque's political and law enforcement culture.

Yes, I was thinking about the picture of the lamp on top of papers. I've edited my last post to add clarity.

[smorbie]

27 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Keeping them in a house, per se, is not a problem. Keeping them in that house is most certainly a serious ethical violation, and if there are not some consequences, that's a lapse in plot detail. Perhaps not huge, based upon where i think things are heading pretty shortly, but Howard really should be more concerned about HHM's exposure.  

We can't really say that's a lapse in detail.  The season isn't over yet and this show does a great job with details.  It will probably show back up.

[Jextella]

Memory fog going on but at some point, Howard reminds Chuck of a no-no having to do with exposed papers.  Unfortunately, I can't recall if they were Jimmy's wills he needed to file that he left at Chuck's house - or some other document.  Maybe Sandpiper docs before Chuck jumped ship and brought them to Howard (will definately rewatch to figure out which)...

Regardless, Chuck did a no-no and Howard very gently called him out.

[Clanstarling]

On 5/16/2017 at 5:02 AM, JFParnell said:

Was that church Mike and his DIL attended the same as where Jesse and Skinny Pete and Badger attended rehab?

I thought so too. Seemed like the shot was even framed the same as in BB.

On 5/16/2017 at 8:47 AM, smorbie said:

We do know she pretended that her house was being shot up at night so Mike would buy her a grand new one.

I was always uncertain that she was pretending. I leaned toward it, but on second viewing, I wasn't as convinced it was anything other than her finding a hole in the stucco and having it support her paranoia.

On 5/16/2017 at 9:23 AM, axlmadonna said:

I can see why Chuck and Rebecca got together in the first place. She may look sweeter, but that doesn't mean she isn't just as supercilious as he is

Yep, they didn't jump over the broomstick to get married, they jumped ON it, backsides first.

On 5/16/2017 at 11:21 AM, Soobs said:

Me too! I cannot take more of Chuck. Enough! Let's move on (brisk clap)!

I really liked the final scene where he plays the tape of the first Saul Goodman ad.

Kim: He has a lot energy

Jimmy: It's just a name

Kim: Hmmm

The look on her face said it all.

But apparently says something different to each of us. I wasn't particularly clear about her reaction, though I was leaning toward her reluctantly liking it. Bad boys, what'cha gonna do?

On 5/16/2017 at 0:25 PM, Eulipian 5k said:

Rebecca was only thinking of getting into see Chuck, rather than putting herself in Jimmy's shoes. She is a lot like Chuck, (driven, successful, self absorbed) and I think their split was more a case of Irreconcilable Similarities.

Good one. :)

16 hours ago, scenario said:

Jimmy was very cold about how he said it. He could have said something like, I'm not going anywhere near the man. He hates me. He said it loud and clear under oath. I was his caretaker for years and all I get for it is him making up lies and trying to get me disbarred. If I go within a mile of his house he'll just make up a bunch of new lies, and he'll believe them. I'm through with him for my own self protection. 

Instead, he basically said that he has no brother in a very cold tone of voice. He was scary in that scene. I was shocked when I saw his obvious contempt for his brother.  He wasn't Jimmy or slippin Jimmy in that scene. He was Saul. 

Well, call me Saul. Jimmy was just done. I don't think he hates Chuck. He's just over it, through with it. Hatred is a strong emotion, being finished is not, so it appears (and maybe is) cold. Having been in a similar position (and having distant relatives judge with far less information than Rebecca had), I must admit I'm on Jimmy's side here.

I don't hate Rebecca for asking, then judging. That's human. I am kind of shocked that after sitting through the hearing it never occurred to that very intelligent woman that not only shouldn't Jimmy go over to Chuck's, but on a more pragmatic level, that Jimmy was even less likely to gain entry than she was. She would have known Hamlin, it would have made more sense to go to him.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Clanstarling

[Bryce Lynch]

The question of whether Stacey is conning Mike or really imagined she heard gun shots seems to be the BCS equivalent of the question of whether Ted Beneke was trying to blackmail Skyler for even more cash when he refused to pay his IRS bill with "great Aunt Birgit's" $600,000.   I go back and forth.  Sometimes I watch and and think, he isn't blackmailing her and other times I am sure he is.  

[smorbie]

48 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

She would have known Hamlin, it would have made more sense to go to him.

Except, let's be honest. I don't think Howard could break into a box of cereal.

1 hour ago, Jextella said:

Memory fog going on

I promise it's nothing next to chemo brain.  For a few months there I really thought I'd developed Alzheimer's.  It's better, but I still can't spell.  I'm going to have to go back to third grade, if not second.

52 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

hey didn't jump over the broomstick to get married, they jumped ON it, backsides firs

hehehe.  Bravo!

[smorbie]

23 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

The question of whether Stacey is conning Mike or really imagined she heard gun shots seems to be the BCS equivalent of the question of whether Ted Beneke was trying to blackmail Skyler for even more cash when he refused to pay his IRS bill with "great Aunt Birgit's" $600,000.   I go back and forth.  Sometimes I watch and and think, he isn't blackmailing her and other times I am sure he is.  

How many times have you watched?  I watched a couple and then on the third go round I realized the only people in the show I didn't hate were Holly and Hank.  I'm pretty sure I won't be revisiting it, again.

But to your point about Ted.  The only thing I can say for certainty is that he really looked much better with hair.  His head is shaped funny,

Edited May 17, 2017 by smorbie

[Clanstarling]

4 minutes ago, smorbie said:

Except, let's be honest. I don't think Howard could break into a box of cereal.

I promise it's nothing next to chemo brain.  For a few months there I really thought I'd developed Alzheimer's.  It's better, but I still can't spell.  I'm going to have to go back to third grade, if not second.

hehehe.  Bravo!

Well, Howard is the one Chuck eventually let in. Chuck probably thinks of him as an underling who does his bidding. Albeit a high level underling.

Thanks for the bravo. :)

Just now, smorbie said:

How many times have you watched?  I watched a couple and then on the third go round I realized the only people in the show I didn't hate were Holly and Hank.  I'm pretty sure I won't be revisiting it, again.

I hated Hank until I realized he was actually the good guy. I was neutral on Holly.

[axlmadonna]

2 hours ago, Bannon said:

That house is illegal for people to occupy, in it's current condition.

Are you referring to the exposed wires and whatnot? Why would Chuck's house be illegal for people to occupy, other than that? It's not ramshackle, it doesn't have termite or bedbug infestations, the roof isn't falling down. As far as we know, (... other than the exposed wires that the police saw), Chuck takes perfectly good care of his house, in fact, better than a lot of other people who live with modern electric conveniences.

1 hour ago, nodorothyparker said:

In the first season when the cops break down the door over the neighbor's complaint about Chuck running around the neighborhood like a mylar bat stealing newspapers and he ends up hospitalized, the attending doctor does say that it's dangerous and illegal for Chuck to be living there with no phone or electricity, that she considers it a clear safety issue. 

Why on earth would it be illegal for someone to choose to live without electricity or phone? Those are luxuries, not mandated aspects of our existence. The Amish live perfectly well without them, and I've never heard of any epidemic of Amish people being hurt or killed in their electricity-less homes. Chuck should probably encase those wires that I mentioned above, but I can't think of anything else that would even be a code violation in his house. His home is unusual, not unsafe or illegal. And as for his leaving a lamp on top of a few papers... that's no more dangerous than things people do in their electricity-enabled homes every single day. It's not a good idea, but it's not illegal either.

"Mylar bat". Lol!

[Gobi]

6 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I loved the commercial.  

 

Jimmy really should have pursued a career in advertising.  But, I guess you can't make a show about an advertising guy.  

Only mad men would do that. Sorry, Auntie Entity, I didn't see that you beat me to it.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Gobi

[Irlandesa]

5 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

It is amazing the standards we hold Chuck, Howard, Rebecca and anyone else who stands in Jimmy's way, to, while excusing Jimmy's far, far worse behavior all the time.  This is probably what Jimmy and Chuck's parents were like, and it is making me begin to understand what drove Chuck nuts. :)

I feel it wouldn't be related to Breaking Bad without this dynamic.

5 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Did Jimmy and Howard actually realize Chuck's symptoms were psychological?  Early in the series, Jimmy in particular, really seemed to believe electricity physically harmed Chuck.  I think Jimmy (and perhaps Howard) may have been so awed by Chuck's intellect that they couldn't comprehend him having such an irrational belief. 

Since Chuck clearly believes in his illness, Chuck and Howard would have two choices.  The first is to try to convince him he's mentally ill but Chuck is so stubborn that likely would only serve to distance him from them.  That's probably all Howard could do.  Jimmy, as brother and likely next-of-kin, could have tried to get him committed but I don't know that there would have been enough evidence to get that to happen and it would have created a rift.  There is and probably always was a rift but Jimmy only recently became aware of how bad it is.

5 hours ago, Bannon said:

I've already stated that I thought Rebecca was out of line in reaming Jimmy out, but it was understandable. As for the other matter, if you think it makes no difference whether a new lawyer thinks his preferred career path is blocked because A) his partner brother is supportive, but the other partner opposes the path, instead of the truth, which is B)his partner brother is adamantly opposed, and is prompting the other partner to pretend to be opposed, I'm sorry, but I disagree hugely. If you think your partner brother is in your corner, you can reasonably have hope that your supportive older brother may be able  to eventually sway the other partner, which may influence what career choices you make in the meantime. In contrast, if you know you don't have an influential close family member trying to support your career ambitions, and instead know your influential close family member will expend energy to thwart your ambitions, then you may very well make different decisions. It is far, far, far, from ridiculous to state that dishonesty on this level is inconsequential to careers,

I find this funny because people accuse Howard of being entitled...if that's the belief under which Jimmy operated, it would be a very entitled belief. 

Jimmy's choices hampered his career.  Whether it was being obsessed with poking Howard (even if he did have hope Chuck could change Howard's mind, he would have had to know that stunts like this would have made that less likely) or tanking his opportunity with Davis & Main, Jimmy actively stood in his own way of proving Chuck wrong. He did this both before and after he knew the truth.

3 hours ago, qtpye said:

Oh, I agree.  Jimmy was just being Jimmy in order to pay his share of the rent and not let Kim down.  However, there is a little bit of a wince in Kim, when she saw that commercial and thought "that's my man".  I am not saying she was justified feeling this way or that I am even correct in my assessment of her emotions.  It is just my take on her expression.

Oh I would agree that she did not seem comfortable with it.  And I think she was absolutely justified in feeling that way because it's still just a feeling.  She's probably wondering why the disguise?  Why the new name? And because she has those questions, she's a bit unsettled. Just not enough to make a major change in her life. It's the little things that just add up.

[scenario]

Just now, axlmadonna said:

Are you referring to the exposed wires and whatnot? Why would Chuck's house be illegal for people to occupy, other than that? It's not ramshackle, it doesn't have termite or bedbug infestations, the roof isn't falling down. As far as we know, (... other than the exposed wires that the police saw), Chuck takes perfectly good care of his house, in fact, better than a lot of other people who live with modern electric conveniences.

Why on earth would it be illegal for someone to choose to live without electricity or phone? Those are luxuries, not mandated aspects of our existence. The Amish live perfectly well without them, and I've never heard of any epidemic of Amish people being hurt or killed in their electricity-less homes. Chuck should probably encase those wires that I mentioned above, but I can't think of anything else that would even be a code violation in his house. His home is unusual, not unsafe or illegal. And as for his leaving a lamp on top of a few papers... that's no more dangerous than things people do in their electricity-enabled homes every single day. It's not a good idea, but it's not illegal either.

"Mylar bat". Lol!

It depends on the city you live in. Many cities require that all homes have electricity, water and sewerage. Most Amish live on farms which have a different set of rules. Also, many Amish have electricity in their barns but not in their homes. 

[ShadowFacts]

6 minutes ago, axlmadonna said:

Are you referring to the exposed wires and whatnot? Why would Chuck's house be illegal for people to occupy, other than that? It's not ramshackle, it doesn't have termite or bedbug infestations, the roof isn't falling down. As far as we know, (... other than the exposed wires that the police saw), Chuck takes perfectly good care of his house, in fact, better than a lot of other people who live with modern electric conveniences.

Why on earth would it be illegal for someone to choose to live without electricity or phone? Those are luxuries, not mandated aspects of our existence. The Amish live perfectly well without them, and I've never heard of any epidemic of Amish people being hurt or killed in their electricity-less homes. Chuck should probably encase those wires that I mentioned above, but I can't think of anything else that would even be a code violation in his house. His home is unusual, not unsafe or illegal. And as for his leaving a lamp on top of a few papers... that's no more dangerous than things people do in their electricity-enabled homes every single day. It's not a good idea, but it's not illegal either.

"Mylar bat". Lol!

I think in most places it isn't legal to not have electricity, you can't get an occupancy permit.  Especially big cities where people using open flames could endanger not only themselves but close neighbors as well.  It is certainly a requirement in my semi-rural municipality.  As well as proper plumbing and septic tanks.  Smoke detectors are often a requirement.  Fire prevention is pretty important.

Edited May 17, 2017 by ShadowFacts
forgot smoke detectors

[wendyg]

5 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Then again, neither Vito Corleone nor Michael Corleone started off as criminals. They were honest people who made choices in early adulthood to commit crimes in order to help their families, much like Mike Erhmentraut. Jimmy isn't that. He's been a detriment since childhood, much like Henry Hill (from Goodfellas). 

One of the things I like best about BB and BCS is that there are no "average" criminals - every criminal we see has their own story and their own reasons for their criminal behavior, and each one has a distinctive criminal personality. Mike's desire to support his daughter-in-law and granddaughter is not the same as Walt's desire to support his family and not driven by the same personality characteristics or circumstances.

[nodorothyparker]

My parents who live deep in the country not all that differently from the Amish can do pretty much whatever the hell they want on their own property.  My city requires us to have sewage and utilities to avoid a visit from code enforcement.  It also won't let us burn leaves in the driveway or keep livestock in the back yard.  (Yes, this did actually come up with a previous neighbor.)  Cities typically have more stringent occupancy laws because our close proximity to our neighbors puts us at greater fire and sanitation risks.

[TVFan17]

1 hour ago, smorbie said:

I watched a couple and then on the third go round I realized the only people in the show I didn't hate were Holly and Hank.  

 

 

1 hour ago, Clanstarling said:

I hated Hank until I realized he was actually the good guy. I was neutral on Holly.

I didn't even trust Holly.  She was up to no good in that crib.  Probably a secret cartel informant.   She seemed shady from the minute she was born.  ;) ;)

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, axlmadonna said:

Are you referring to the exposed wires and whatnot? Why would Chuck's house be illegal for people to occupy, other than that? It's not ramshackle, it doesn't have termite or bedbug infestations, the roof isn't falling down. As far as we know, (... other than the exposed wires that the police saw), Chuck takes perfectly good care of his house, in fact, better than a lot of other people who live with modern electric conveniences.

Why on earth would it be illegal for someone to choose to live without electricity or phone? Those are luxuries, not mandated aspects of our existence. The Amish live perfectly well without them, and I've never heard of any epidemic of Amish people being hurt or killed in their electricity-less homes. Chuck should probably encase those wires that I mentioned above, but I can't think of anything else that would even be a code violation in his house. His home is unusual, not unsafe or illegal. And as for his leaving a lamp on top of a few papers... that's no more dangerous than things people do in their electricity-enabled homes every single day. It's not a good idea, but it's not illegal either.

"Mylar bat". Lol!

Whatever your views of the matter, any city of size in the United States has laws which require that structures for human habitation have functioning electricity.

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

I feel it wouldn't be related to Breaking Bad without this dynamic.

Since Chuck clearly believes in his illness, Chuck and Howard would have two choices.  The first is to try to convince him he's mentally ill but Chuck is so stubborn that likely would only serve to distance him from them.  That's probably all Howard could do.  Jimmy, as brother and likely next-of-kin, could have tried to get him committed but I don't know that there would have been enough evidence to get that to happen and it would have created a rift.  There is and probably always was a rift but Jimmy only recently became aware of how bad it is.

I find this funny because people accuse Howard of being entitled...if that's the belief under which Jimmy operated, it would be a very entitled belief. 

Jimmy's choices hampered his career.  Whether it was being obsessed with poking Howard (even if he did have hope Chuck could change Howard's mind, he would have had to know that stunts like this would have made that less likely) or tanking his opportunity with Davis & Main, Jimmy actively stood in his own way of proving Chuck wrong. He did this both before and after he knew the truth.

Oh I would agree that she did not seem comfortable with it.  And I think she was absolutely justified in feeling that way because it's still just a feeling.  She's probably wondering why the disguise?  Why the new name? And because she has those questions, she's a bit unsettled. Just not enough to make a major change in her life. It's the little things that just add up.

Believing your brother won't lie to you about whether he supports your effort to get a job as a lawyer, at the firm he is partner at, is an entitled belief? How so?

[Broderbits]

2 hours ago, Clanstarling said:

I don't hate Rebecca for asking, then judging. That's human. I am kind of shocked that after sitting through the hearing it never occurred to that very intelligent woman that not only shouldn't Jimmy go over to Chuck's, but on a more pragmatic level, that Jimmy was even less likely to gain entry than she was.

I think she was angry at Jimmy's refusal mostly because it would cause her to feel guilty about leaving Chuck and going off on her concert tour. Chuck needs help, but she's certainly not giving up her career to take care of him: that's Jimmy's job.

Howard's relationship with Chuck was very touching in this episode; maybe he very gently encouraged him to seek help and that led to the journey downtown.

[Macbeth]

8 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Jimmy really should have pursued a career in advertising.  But, I guess you can't make a show about an advertising guy.  

I respectfully disagree.

      

[PeterPirate]

2 hours ago, smorbie said:

How many times have you watched?  I watched a couple and then on the third go round I realized the only people in the show I didn't hate were Holly and Hank.  I'm pretty sure I won't be revisiting it, again.

But to your point about Ted.  The only thing I can say for certainty is that he really looked much better with hair.  His head is shaped funny,

I really liked Marie at the end. After Hank was shot she really stepped up. She's the one BB character that I don't want to see in BCS because it would be the original, selfish version. 

[shapeshifter]

4 hours ago, TVFan17 said:

. . . As for Walter White -- I liked Walter.  I loved his relationship with Jesse.  The dynamic between them was so entertaining to me.   Their personalities and lifestyles were so fundamentally different, but I always believed that, underneath everything, despite how awful things got, Walter cared for Jesse and wanted him to do well.   It pained me when their relationship went awry in the last season of the series.   I hated that Walter wanted to hurt him (and then ultimately saved him), but he didn't start out that way.   Walter got sidetracked by the power and money, panicked and then had to try to salvage what was left of his life before it ended, but I think he started out as a good, decent man.

Not only that, but I like people who are smart and funny.  I always thought that Walt was funny in a natural, stuffy, nerdy sort of way.  He had some charm.   I could see why Skyler fell for him.

@TVFan17, we may be the only ones who liked Walter White, so, now I'm wondering, did you sympathize with Nacho at the end of this episode? I did. But I also see him as the kind of person who blames others for his own bad choices. Walter did that too, and it did infuriate me when he blamed Gretchen and What's His Name.

 

3 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Yes, I was thinking about the picture of the lamp on top of papers. I've edited my last post to add clarity.

It now occurs to me that the lamp on the papers seems a bridge too far for Chuck. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Jimmy had staged it. Regardless, could it be Chekhov's lamp?

 

2 hours ago, smorbie said:

Except, let's be honest. I don't think Howard could break into a box of cereal.

I promise it's nothing next to chemo brain.  For a few months there I really thought I'd developed Alzheimer's.  It's better, but I still can't spell.  I'm going to have to go back to third grade, if not second.

@smorbie, if we can ever find our way to the Small Talk thread, we could compare efffects.

[PeterPirate]

9 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Jimmy really should have pursued a career in advertising.  But, I guess you can't make a show about an advertising guy.  

 

What can I say, Mad Men was taken.

[smorbie]

20 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

@TVFan17, we may be the only ones who liked Walter White, so, now I'm wondering, did you sympathize with Nacho at the end of this episode? I did. But I also see him as the kind of person who blames others for his own bad choices. Walter did that too, and it did infuriate me when he blamed Gretchen and What's His Name.

 

It now occurs to me that the lamp on the papers seems a bridge too far for Chuck. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Jimmy had staged it. Regardless, could it be Chekhov's lamp?

 

@smorbie, if we can ever find our way to the Small Talk thread, we could compare efffects.

as, a fellow balder.  Hail and well met, and may all your tests be great ones.

1 hour ago, TVFan17 said:

 

I didn't even trust Holly.  She was up to no good in that crib.  Probably a secret cartel informant.   She seemed shady from the minute she was born.  ;) ;)

She wasn't a snitch, though.  You've got to give her that.

[Macbeth]

1 hour ago, TVFan17 said:

 

I didn't even trust Holly.  She was up to no good in that crib.  Probably a secret cartel informant.   She seemed shady from the minute she was born.  ;) ;)

I agree.  She was probably smuggling drugs in those hats of hers.

[Bryce Lynch]

1 hour ago, Macbeth said:

I respectfully disagree.

      

I meant to say you can't make a show about an ad guy who goes under an assumed name. :)

And compared to Jimmy,  Dick Whitman is Lou Avery. 

Edited May 18, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[scenario]

1 hour ago, TVFan17 said:

 

I didn't even trust Holly.  She was up to no good in that crib.  Probably a secret cartel informant.   She seemed shady from the minute she was born.  ;) ;)

New spinoff, the Holly Chronicles.

[Bryce Lynch]

17 minutes ago, Macbeth said:

I agree.  She was probably smuggling drugs in those hats of hers.

Holly was a disloyal little b word, taking Skyler's side saying "Mama" when Walt tried to take her to a better home. :)

Edited May 18, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[PeterPirate]

6 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I meant to so you can't make a show about an ad guy who goes under an assumed name. :)

 

 

Just saying, that guy was not Darren Stevens. 

[Bryce Lynch]

Just now, PeterPirate said:

 

 

Just saying, that guy was not Darren Stevens. 

York!

[Irlandesa]

1 hour ago, Bannon said:

Believing your brother won't lie to you about whether he supports your effort to get a job as a lawyer, at the firm he is partner at, is an entitled belief? How so?

You argued that believing Chuck's lie harmed Jimmy's career.  I don't think believing that lie made Jimmy entitled.  But I do think if he at any point thought that having the support of his brother meant he could act differently than if didn't have it and still achieve the same success, then that would be entitled. 

I don't know that Jimmy thought that but saying the lie harmed his career implies, IMO, that Jimmy's decisions, ethics (or lack thereof) would have been better had he thought Chuck didn't support him. But since he thought Chuck did--well what's a little mocking of his brother's partner?

[ItCouldBeWorse]

1 hour ago, Macbeth said:

10 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Jimmy really should have pursued a career in advertising.  But, I guess you can't make a show about an advertising guy.  

I respectfully disagree.

      

I really think that Bryce Lynch was kidding.  I guess he needed a winking emoji.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

10 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Jimmy really should have pursued a career in advertising.  But, I guess you can't make a show about an advertising guy.  

 

What can I say, Mad Men was taken.

 

30 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

37 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I meant to so you can't make a show about an ad guy who goes under an assumed name. :)

 

 

Just saying, that guy was not Darren Stevens. 

Does 30 Something count?

[Jextella]

I need help with something that just popped into my mind tonight.  It seems Jimmy never relinquishes his office at the nail salon - even when he offices with Kim.  Is that correct? 

[ViewerPDX]

1 hour ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

 

Does 30 Something count?

The Crazy Ones

Edited May 18, 2017 by ViewerPDX

[ItCouldBeWorse]

28 minutes ago, Jextella said:

I need help with something that just popped into my mind tonight.  It seems Jimmy never relinquishes his office at the nail salon - even when he offices with Kim.  Is that correct?

I believe so.  Even though he seems to be staying over in Kim's apartment, that's technically his "home".

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, Irlandesa said:

You argued that believing Chuck's lie harmed Jimmy's career.  I don't think believing that lie made Jimmy entitled.  But I do think if he at any point thought that having the support of his brother meant he could act differently than if didn't have it and still achieve the same success, then that would be entitled. 

I don't know that Jimmy thought that but saying the lie harmed his career implies, IMO, that Jimmy's decisions, ethics (or lack thereof) would have been better had he thought Chuck didn't support him. But since he thought Chuck did--well what's a little mocking of his brother's partner?

Well, you read things into what I wrote which are not there. It isn't any more complicated than this. Imagine lawyer A and lawyer B, both with siblings as partners in law firms. A knows for a fact, up front, that his brother opposes his being a lawyer, and will never support his joining the firm in that position. B is lied to, and is led to believe that the partner brother is supportive of his practice of law, even within the firm, but it is the other partner who is opposed. B has been harmed, relative to A, because B thinks he has his brothers support, and makes decisions based on that. This is the case, far prior to the sign stunt. If Chuck had told Jimmy, the moment Jimmy had announced he had passed the bar,"Jimmy, I oppose your practice of law, and will do everything within my power to inhibit your ability to do so", Jimmy's entire approach to his career changes. He may not have behaved any more ethically, but the point is his rationale for his decisions changes significantly, due to his being told the truth.

[Irlandesa]

22 minutes ago, Bannon said:

 Jimmy's entire approach to his career changes. He may not have behaved any more ethically, but the point is his rationale for his decisions changes significantly, due to his being told the truth.

I guess this is where I admittedly get confused--which decisions? What would Jimmy have done differently had he known who was blocking his hire? What opportunities did we see him reject that he might not have had he known what his brother thought?

[ShellSeeker]

Just a reminder to take the finer points of the legal intricacies to the thread for that topic. Also, I am creating another topic for the discussion of Jimmy vs. Chuck. There's been a lot of discussion about which of them is really the worse person. Someone suggested a thread for this, which is a good idea.

[Bannon]

27 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I guess this is where I admittedly get confused--which decisions? What would Jimmy have done differently had he known who was blocking his hire? What opportunities did we see him reject that he might not have had he known what his brother thought?

The most important is that Jimmy doesn't go to Chuck with the Sandpiper class action, if he knows for a fact that Chuck is dead set on sabotaging his legal career. Jimmy seeks help elsewhere, and who knows what comes from that? 

[Irlandesa]

3 minutes ago, Bannon said:

The most important is that Jimmy doesn't go to Chuck with the Sandpiper class action, if he knows for a fact that Chuck is dead set on sabotaging his legal career. Jimmy seeks help elsewhere, and who knows what comes from that? 

Possibly but didn't Jimmy have the opportunity to make a change once he knew he wasn't going to get what he wanted out of bringing the case to HHM? And he did get an opportunity at Davis & Main who were welcoming and similar to HHM. 

[Bannon]

Just now, Irlandesa said:

Possibly but didn't Jimmy have the opportunity to make a change once he knew he wasn't going to get what he wanted out of bringing the case to HHM? And he did get an opportunity at Davis & Main who were welcoming and similar to HHM. 

"Possibly" is the entire point. When you limit the universe of possibilities people have, by deceiving them, you have harmed them. 

[Irlandesa]

11 minutes ago, Bannon said:

"Possibly" is the entire point. When you limit the universe of possibilities people have, by deceiving them, you have harmed them. 

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.   While negotiating bringing Sandpiper to HHM, he was told a partnership at HHM was off the table.  You see that his not knowing why was harmful to his career.  I see it as he had the basic facts about working at HHM and given the opportunities Jimmy has had and thrown away, I don't think his not knowing how Chuck felt really harmed him career wise.

[Bannon]

11 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree.   While negotiating bringing Sandpiper to HHM, he was told a partnership at HHM was off the table.  You see that his not knowing why was harmful to his career.  I see it as he had the basic facts about working at HHM and given the opportunities Jimmy has had and thrown away, I don't think his not knowing how Chuck felt really harmed him career wise.

Yeah, I really disagree with the notion that Jimmy's behavior with the Sandpiper case is guaranteed to be the same, if he had been told upon passing the  bar that Chuck was dead set on opposing Jimmy's practice of law, thus we can definitively say that Chuck's lying had no harmful impact on Jimmy's career.  

Edited May 18, 2017 by Bannon

[Bryce Lynch]

7 hours ago, Bannon said:

The most important is that Jimmy doesn't go to Chuck with the Sandpiper class action, if he knows for a fact that Chuck is dead set on sabotaging his legal career. Jimmy seeks help elsewhere, and who knows what comes from that? 

Maybe Jimmy tries to handle Sandpiper on his own and blows the case.

At any rate, he landed in a very, sweet situation.  He was eventually going to get 20% of Sandpiper, just for walking to the mailbox to get his check and he had a partner track position, at a great firm, with the world's greatest assistant, a free apartment, a German luxury sedan and a cocobolo desk.  

But, he chose to throw that all away and embarrassed Howard and hurt Kim, who had both put their reputations on the line for him, in the process.

But, I am sure that was Chuck's fault, too.

[Bannon]

55 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Maybe Jimmy tries to handle Sandpiper on his own and blows the case.

At any rate, he landed in a very, sweet situation.  He was eventually going to get 20% of Sandpiper, just for walking to the mailbox to get his check and he had a partner track position, at a great firm, with the world's greatest assistant, a free apartment, a German luxury sedan and a cocobolo desk.  

But, he chose to throw that all away and embarrassed Howard and hurt Kim, who had both put their reputations on the line for him, in the process.

But, I am sure that was Chuck's fault, too.

Of course, I never stated or implied such a thing. I dont know why it is so hard to grasp that we harm people when we deceive them.

[Bryce Lynch]

13 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Of course, I never stated or implied such a thing. I dont know why it is so hard to grasp that we harm people when we deceive them.

 

13 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Of course, I never stated or implied such a thing. I dont know why it is so hard to grasp that we harm people when we deceive them.

But, Jimmy ended up in an amazingly great job in spite of Chuck's lying to him about who didn't want him at HHM.  I don't see how Jimmy's career was ultimately harmed.  

 It would be difficult to imagine things turning out any better for a guy with a law degree from the University of American Samoa (Go, Land Crabs!), and Jimmy chose to throw it all away.  

[Ottis]

On 5/15/2017 at 9:31 PM, TVFan17 said:

I appreciate that Rebecca cares for Chuck and his well being, and wants to help him, but I thought that she should have left well enough alone with Jimmy/Saul at that point. 

What's really dense on her part is that she was asking Jimmy to put himself in the EXACT same position he was in that led to the bar hearing. You cannot ask him to go back to Chuck's house and possibly need to break in to see if Chuck is OK. Even if you play the brother card, that's too much. 

So is BCS near the end of its run? because we seem to be lining up pretty closely with where we meet Walter White and all the rest of the shared characters.

[Bannon]

1 minute ago, Bryce Lynch said:

 

But, Jimmy ended up in an amazingly great job in spite of Chuck's lying to him about who didn't want him at HHM.  I don't see how Jimmy's career was ultimately harmed.  

 It would be difficult to imagine things turning out any better for a guy with a law degree from the University of American Samoa (Go, Land Crabs!), and Jimmy chose to throw it all away.  

Jimmy ended up in a successful law firm which was inept in using Jimmy's talents, and managing Jimmy's faults. Again, we don't know how things turn out if Chuck had been honest with Jimmy. When lying to people limits their universe of possibilities, then those people have been harmed. You don't get to lie to people, leading people to take paths they would not have chosen, and then rationalize the lie by saying, "Well, desptie my lie, the person I lied to still had a good opportunity, and didn't take advantage of it".  This is self seving nonsense in defense of unacceptable behavior.

Don't confuse me with others who make a case for Jimmy being a wonderful person. He's not, and will eventually harm innocents in ways that Chuck has never approached. That has nothing to do with Chuck's unaccptable behavior being, well, unacceptable.   

[luna1122]

4 minutes ago, Ottis said:

 

So is BCS near the end of its run? because we seem to be lining up pretty closely with where we meet Walter White and all the rest of the shared characters.

I'm unsure of the timeline of things, or of how long BCS might be planned out, but even if we get up to the BB era, we could then flash forward to Jimmy/Saul as Gene, and his life now. I don't think being a Cinnabon Manager for the rest of his life is likely in the cards.