S03.E06: Off Brand

[Boilergal]

On 5/16/2017 at 7:27 AM, Bryce Lynch said:

b) He did not attempt to ruin Jimmy professionally until AFTER Jimmy attempted (and largely succeeded) to ruin him professionally, by committing multiple felonies against him and his client.

Chuck has always seemed to do things to hamper Jimmy's career.   First by not hiring him at HHM.  Then during the Sandpiper meetings, Chuck only seemed to attend those meetings to question Jimmy's methods in front of other lawyers, causing them to doubt.    And every time Jimmy seems to come out smelling like a rose, so Chuck took the step to ruin his career to ensure that Jimmy would never be a lawyer again.  Of course Jimmy gave him the fuel by tampering with the documents - but it was a dream come true for Chuck.  

I wanted Jimmy to tell Rebecca - you know he won't let me in the house - call Howard.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Boilergal

[smorbie]

8 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. 

And he was done, emotionally spent.  Imagine what he went through all of his life.  Think of being that little boy and having a much older brother.  You would adore him.  You would think he was Superman, that he could do anything.  Then Chuck went away and spent many years ignoring that little boy because the child wasn't good enough for him.

The little boy, admittedly way down the wrong track, tried his best to earn that big brother's love. He thought going to law school and passing the bar would make his brother love him.  No doubt he thought it had.

Then all the crap started flying to the fan.

And Jimmy found out.  He discovered his brother didn't love him, never loved him.  Sure, he suspected he would get some kind of admission on the stand, but I don't think he was prepared, really, for what he heard.  I think hearing that he was never going to get what he needed from Chuck was truly brutal.  

Also, when you've prepared for a hugely emotional endeavor like that, there is a degree of emotional exhaustion that accompanies it.  That was certainly on display, too.

And, yeah, Saul's there.  He always has been.  And we know Chuck has a part in creating Saul.

8 hours ago, Quilt Fairy said:

He was trying to get him disbarred, destroying his livelihood.  That's a lot more than just hurting someone's feelings. I was  not surprised when he said Chuck was not his brother anymore.

She seems to be a bit of a rich (b)witch who doesn't have a clue that some people really have to work.  I would be willing to bet she comes from money.

2 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Maybe my memory is fuzzy because 7 a.m. and caffeine issues, but didn't that scene happen the same day as the hearing?  They were drinking champagne to celebrate Jimmy "only" getting a suspension.  So Chuck trying to destroy his career and basically admitting on the official record to hating him since he was at least 9 years old would still be pretty raw.  I'd be hard pressed to even go through the motions of giving a hot damn about Chuck who may or may not be setting me up again too.

Slow clap

[smorbie]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Chuck "stole" the client from Kim, who "stole" the client from HHM.

She really didn't.  She brought them into HHM.  They wanted her to be their attorney and were more than happy to follow her when she left.

That happens.  It's why hairdressers call their clients when they change shops.  And lawyers customarily call their clients when they change firms.

[Bryce Lynch]

32 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

 

Kim did not steal them from HHM.  She recruited the client initially, left the firm and was taking them with her.  HHM could have easily let it go, they would lose very little over it.  They had no idea they could even have them as a client without Kim.  There was no reason for Chuck to try and keep them with HHM other than just his desire to kick Jimmy, metaphorically.

This is all child nonsense, by both of them, I agree with that.  Which is why after three seasons I tire of it, no matter who's side I take or how much I favor one or the other.  Chuck may not have legally entrapped Jimmy with his scheme, but it was just as devious and underhanded as what Jimmy did, playing on Jimmy's devotion to his brother and obvious weakness for a family member with a psychiatric problem to extort a confession he could not prove otherwise.  Again, what is legal is not always what is right. 

I would not call Jimmy/Saul a "good guy", we know what he does later.  He is an interesting character. 

Pulling off a "devious and underhanded" scheme to get someone to admit to a devious and underhanded felony that they had committed against you and your client does not seem wrong to me, or at least not nearly as bad as the original scheme.  

Nobody really "stole" the client from anybody.  They competed for the client and HHM won.  Happens every day in business.  What almost never happens is for a larger company to say, "Ah, lets let the little guy have that customer, they need it more than we do."  You don't get to be a large company doing that.  

Sure, it was personal to Chuck, but there was absolutely noting morally, legally or ethically wrong with HHM trying to retain its client.  If a salesman tries extra hard to close a deal, because he hates the salesrep from the competitor company, his motivation might be wrong, but he is only doing the job he should have been doing for the right reason.  

15 minutes ago, smorbie said:

She really didn't.  She brought them into HHM.  They wanted her to be their attorney and were more than happy to follow her when she left.

That happens.  It's why hairdressers call their clients when they change shops.  And lawyers customarily call their clients when they change firms.

Oh, I agree, that is why I put "stole" in quotes.  Neither firm stole anything.  They competed for a client.  

[Bryce Lynch]

29 minutes ago, Boilergal said:

Chuck has always seemed to do things to hamper Jimmy's career.   First by not hiring him at HHM.  Then during the Sandpiper meetings, Chuck only seemed to attend those meetings to question Jimmy's methods in front of other lawyers, causing them to doubt.    And every time Jimmy seems to come out smelling like a rose, so Chuck took the step to ruin his career to ensure that Jimmy would never be a lawyer again.  Of course Jimmy gave him the fuel by tampering with the documents - but it was a dream come true for Chuck.  

I wanted Jimmy to tell Rebecca - you know he won't let me in the house - call Howard.

Chuck only "hampered" Jimmy's career to the extent it involved HHM.  He was under no obligation to hire him and HHM and had some very, good reasons for not doing so.  His main fault there was not having the courage to tell Jimmy to his face, and instead letting him think Howard was the "pig effer". 

As for showing up at the Sandpiper meetings, he probably was trying to rattle Jimmy, but he did make an excellent point about avoiding solicitation, which Jimmy had been engaging in.

I agree that Jimmy should have told her Chuck won't let him in and she should call Howard.  That would have been 100% true and good advice, and would show her that he cared, but there was nothing he could do.  I think it was the fact that he was so cold and said Chuck was no longer his brother was what was so shocking to her.

I don't really blame Jimmy for being cold after all he had been through with Chuck, but I don't blame Rebecca for being taking aback by that coldness.  

[seasquared]

I'm only half way through all the comments, so I apologize if someone already brought this up, but can we just discuss the awesomeness that was Saul's commercial??? The line about "better get ready to have the paparazzi take your picture!" while he's snapping a photo with a ....wait for it.....POLAROID Camera!!!!!  Pure gold.

[Bannon]

13 hours ago, Dobian said:

So this is taking place in 2001 then?  35 year old booze in a box that says 1966.  I always guessed it was around 2004.  Yay Lydia!  I'm personally happy to see another one of BB's oddball characters.  Chuck trying to force himself to tolerate electricity will accomplish nothing other than to torture himself.  The only cure is to convince that part of his brain that the electricity isn't harming him in the first place.  So Nacho has one of Hector's stroke pills.  I wonder if he's going to replace them with a placebo now that Hector wants to drag his dad into the business.  BB Hector might be coming soon.  Hello Saul Goodman.

The 35 years is in the barrel, aging. A bottle like that can easily stay with a liquor distributor or retailer for a few years, prior to to customer buying it. This is taking place later than 2001.

[Bryce Lynch]

21 minutes ago, seasquared said:

I'm only half way through all the comments, so I apologize if someone already brought this up, but can we just discuss the awesomeness that was Saul's commercial??? The line about "better get ready to have the paparazzi take your picture!" while he's snapping a photo with a ....wait for it.....POLAROID Camera!!!!!  Pure gold.

I loved the commercial.  

"Great services, great products, and most of all, that face! You're a star! Wrap it all up in your natural charisma, and bam! You belong on TV! Better watch out for autograph hounds and paparazzi!"

I could really see it working on small business owners.  It would play to their desire for more business, their pride in their business and their vanity, all at once.

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

[Auntie Anxiety]

Quote

 Like, Hector tried more aggressively to get his dad involved in their business, and Nacho, not wanting his law abiding father getting dragged into this and finding out what Nacho does outside his shop, messed with his meds?

Unlike Mike and Gus, Hector doesn't abide by the rule of not involving people in your schemes who aren't already in the game. It's sort of an "honor among thieves" situation, which makes Hector even more vile.

Quote

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

Except for Mad Men.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Auntie Anxiety

[Bannon]

59 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Pulling off a "devious and underhanded" scheme to get someone to admit to a devious and underhanded felony that they had committed against you and your client does not seem wrong to me, or at least not nearly as bad as the original scheme.  

Nobody really "stole" the client from anybody.  They competed for the client and HHM won.  Happens every day in business.  What almost never happens is for a larger company to say, "Ah, lets let the little guy have that customer, they need it more than we do."  You don't get to be a large company doing that.  

Sure, it was personal to Chuck, but there was absolutely noting morally, legally or ethically wrong with HHM trying to retain its client.  If a salesman tries extra hard to close a deal, because he hates the salesrep from the competitor company, his motivation might be wrong, but he is only doing the job he should have been doing for the right reason.  

Oh, I agree, that is why I put "stole" in quotes.  Neither firm stole anything.  They competed for a client.  

It is plainly unethical for Chuck to not reveal to Mesa Verde the conditions that Chuck works in, given those conditions entail A) violation of the law, and B) exposing Mesa Verde's vital documents to being in an unsecured setting for extended periods of time.  

[shapeshifter]

1 hour ago, smorbie said:

13 hours ago, Dobian said:

Chuck trying to force himself to tolerate electricity will accomplish nothing other than to torture himself.

I'm oddly okay with that.

At first I thought Chuck was attempting a form of Exposure Therapy. But then it seemed more like he was attempting. . .

13 hours ago, Dobian said:

. . . to convince that part of his brain that the electricity isn't harming him in the first place.

Anyway, Jimmy was a de facto enabler of Chuck's condition all these years (as was Howard), as are many family members throughout societies (Mike enabling Stacey's paranoia and codependency on him, and many other examples just from my own family).
Too bad Chuck wasn't getting Exposure Therapy.
If mental illness didn't have such a social stigma (especially in professions like the law), Chuck would probably not have a problem seeking professional psychological or psychiatric help.
The doctor he's calling from the phone booth is not a psychiatrist, right?

[Bannon]

3 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Jimmy ruined his own career by breaking into another lawyer's files, and doctoring the documents and sabotaging the client's regulatory hearing, to steal the client for his girlfriend.  

Chuck never tried to damage Jimmy's career until after he committed that highly illegal and unethical act 

Is it wrong for the victim of a crime to seek justice?  And Chuck did not even seek full justice (prison time.  He only wanted Jimmy disbarred, which was a totally reasonable goal.

Totally agree. Jimmy's decision not to go to Chuck's was (uncharacteristically) rational.  His attitude was uncharacteristically cold-hearted, especially from the perspective of Rebecca who hasn't been around to see all of what has gone on 

Chuck plainly tried to damage Jimmy's legal career by dishonestly putting forth the notion that it was Howard who was the roadblock to Jimmy working for HHM as an attorney. Concealing from a person the nature of what is preventing the person from obtaining their career goals is harmful to that person's career, because it prevents them from making informed decisions.

[smorbie]

30 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

At first I thought Chuck was attempting a form of Exposure Therapy. But then it seemed more like he was attempting. . .

Anyway, Jimmy was a de facto enabler of Chuck's condition all these years (as was Howard), as are many family members throughout societies (Mike enabling Stacey's paranoia and codependency on him, and many other examples just from my own family).
Too bad Chuck wasn't getting Exposure Therapy.
If mental illness didn't have such a social stigma (especially in professions like the law), Chuck would probably not have a problem seeking professional psychological or psychiatric help.
The doctor he's calling from the phone booth is not a psychiatrist, right?

I think she's an ER doctor.  You would think someone of such extreme intelligence would realize that.  Bored to tears by the meth talk, I turned it off before that point.  Did he actually ask for her help?

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Pulling off a "devious and underhanded" scheme to get someone to admit to a devious and underhanded felony that they had committed against you and your client does not seem wrong to me, or at least not nearly as bad as the original scheme

Two wrongs don't make a right.

[kieyra]

Seems like Chuck V Jimmy, Ethics Of deserves its own thread. 

[Bryce Lynch]

33 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Chuck plainly tried to damage Jimmy's legal career by dishonestly putting forth the notion that it was Howard who was the roadblock to Jimmy working for HHM as an attorney. Concealing from a person the nature of what is preventing the person from obtaining their career goals is harmful to that person's career, because it prevents them from making informed decisions.

That is a rather ridiculous stretch.  Jimmy knew HHM was not an option for him, the specific reason was not relevant to his career, only to his relationship with Chuck.

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. :) 

12 minutes ago, smorbie said:

I think she's an ER doctor.  You would think someone of such extreme intelligence would realize that.  Bored to tears by the meth talk, I turned it off before that point.  Did he actually ask for her help?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

Schemes to get guilty people to confess are not "wrongs" and they are quite common.  Was Columbo (along with just about every other TV and real life detective) a horrible person for tricking criminals into confessing or otherwise incriminating themselves? 

[scenario]

Chuck and Jimmy have a toxic relationship. I get the feeling that it's always been, Jimmy does everything he can to please Chuck. Chuck ignores his efforts. Jimmy says screw it I'm going to have some fun. Chuck finds out and his view of Jimmy as an accident just waiting to happen gets reinforced. The harder Jimmy tries to go the straight and narrow to please Chuck, the more Chuck suspects that he's trying to pull one over. It goes back and forth for many years. 

Jimmy will never please Chuck no matter what he tries but he's caught in a self destructive loop. Chuck's sense of duty forces him to try to get Jimmy to shape up but he sets the standards so high that no one could possibly reach them so he's always disappointed in Jimmy.

Then when Chuck took Kim's only client (which he had a perfect right to do) Jimmy took it personally. It's kind of like the woman who puts up with an abusive boyfriend until the boyfriend abuses her child. To Jimmy, that was the last straw. In his mind, he's done everything possible to help Chuck since he was a child and he's gotten nothing but scorn back for his efforts. Chuck going Kim solely to hurt Jimmy was the last straw. He didn't care what he had to do, he wasn't going to let Chuck get away with yet another thing to hurt Jimmy. 

Jimmy was absolutely wrong to do what he did. But it was the result of a low grade war the two brothers have been fighting against each other for years. Chuck was the older and more mature brother. He should have recognized that what they were doing to each other was wrong but he never did. The war brought out the absolute worst in both Jimmy and Chuck. 

Jimmy and Chucks relationship is like the parents who have no control over their children but then try to put in controls when the kids are teenagers. It's never going to work. 

[Bryce Lynch]

48 minutes ago, shapeshifter said:

At first I thought Chuck was attempting a form of Exposure Therapy. But then it seemed more like he was attempting. . .

Anyway, Jimmy was a de facto enabler of Chuck's condition all these years (as was Howard), as are many family members throughout societies (Mike enabling Stacey's paranoia and codependency on him, and many other examples just from my own family).
Too bad Chuck wasn't getting Exposure Therapy.
If mental illness didn't have such a social stigma (especially in professions like the law), Chuck would probably not have a problem seeking professional psychological or psychiatric help.
The doctor he's calling from the phone booth is not a psychiatrist, right?

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. 

[smorbie]

10 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

That is a rather ridiculous stretch.  Jimmy knew HHM was not an option for him, the specific reason was not relevant to his career, only to his relationship with Chuck.

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. :) 

Schemes to get guilty people to confess are not "wrongs" and they are quite common.  Was Columbo (along with just about every other TV and real life detective) a horrible person for tricking criminals into confessing or otherwise incriminating themselves? 

You referred to it as a "lesser wrong" so I was responding to that.

[Bannon]

16 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

That is a rather ridiculous stretch.  Jimmy knew HHM was not an option for him, the specific reason was not relevant to his career, only to his relationship with Chuck.

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'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,

You really think it amazing, to hold Chuck to the standard of being truthful with Jimmy. with regard to whether Chuck will support Jimmy's career? Frankly, I find that extraordinarily amazing.

Edited May 17, 2017 by Bannon

[PeterPirate]

8 minutes 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. :) 

This.  In my mind we are watching a comedic version of The Godfather.  I've watched parts 1 and 2 many times (not so much on part 3). It's fascinating to watch criminals in action. 

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). 

[ShellSeeker]

11 hours ago, scenario said:

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. 

After everything that's happened, he's done with Chuck, and there's no going back. I completely understood how he felt. I had a sibling who put my family through quite a lot over the years, and then finally, he did something really horrendous that put me in an awful position. That was it for him and I.

[Bryce Lynch]

Just now, 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 ridicuous to state that dishonesty on this level is inconsequential to careers,

You really think it amazing, to hold Chuck to the standard of being truthful with Jimmy. with regard to whether Chuck will support Jimmy's career? Frankly, I find that extraordinarily amazing.

All people sometimes withhold the truth from their family members.  That is not damaging their careers.  Sure, it would have been better for Chuck to be honest with Jimmy (though that might also have crushed him and sent him on a dark path), but it is not even close to being in the same ballpark of the stuff Jimmy has done.

That sort of false equivalence in parenting is the sort of thing that could drive the well behaved sibling nuts.  "Jimmy stole my car, totaled it and the cops found a pound of meth in the trunk!"  Yes, Chuck but you lied and told Jimmy you needed the car to go out, instead of being honest with him and telling him you didn't want him driving it.  You are just as bad as your brother!". :)

[scenario]

9 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

That is a rather ridiculous stretch.  Jimmy knew HHM was not an option for him, the specific reason was not relevant to his career, only to his relationship with Chuck.

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. :) 

Schemes to get guilty people to confess are not "wrongs" and they are quite common.  Was Columbo (along with just about every other TV and real life detective) a horrible person for tricking criminals into confessing or otherwise incriminating themselves? 

I really don't have any problem with anything that Howard, Rebecca, or Kim has done to Jimmy. With the exception of Howard lying to Jimmy because Chuck ordered him to, he's been good to Jimmy and to Kim. 

Jimmy's at heart a con artist. Con artists generally don't trust people. Their attitude is frequently, the world sucks. There are winners and losers. I might as well be a winner. People are out to get me and I might as well get them first.

Chuck has done nothing but reinforce the bad in Jimmy ever since Jimmy was a child. Chuck never just confronts Jimmy and tells him what he expects. He sort of implies what he wants and then when Jimmy does what he wants, he moves the goal post.  Chuck's behavior tells Jimmy, you really can't trust anyone but yourself.  It's not Chucks fault that Jimmy is like he is. It's his fault that he's encouraged the bad behavior at every step. 

I've had bosses like Chuck. They never tell you what they expect or what they want you to do. Whatever you do is wrong and you should have done something else. But when the same thing happens again, whatever they told you to do last time was the wrong thing to do this time. Their goal is to keep you off balance and afraid all the time as a control mechanism. 

[Bryce Lynch]

8 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

This.  In my mind we are watching a comedic version of The Godfather.  I've watched parts 1 and 2 many times (not so much on part 3). It's fascinating to watch criminals in action. 

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). 

I think the comparison to The Godfather is a good one.  I think Gilligan and his crew use some of the same methods in both BB and BCS to get us to root for bad guys, though I think Gilligan takes it to a higher level.

I have no problem with people rooting for Jimmy.  I root for Jimmy and rooted for Walter White.  I just see the need to hate Chuck and magnify all his flaws to the point of making him the devil in order to root for Jimmy.

I loved seeing Jimmy take down Chuck on the witness stand and I loved seeing Walt put Hank in a corner with the fake confession video.  But, I still acknowledge that Chuck and Hank are better human beings than Jimmy and Walt.  

Perhaps the need to vilify Chuck, to justify rooting for Jimmy, is, in a way, a noble instinct that others have, that I lack.  

[Bannon]

13 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

All people sometimes withhold the truth from their family members.  That is not damaging their careers.  Sure, it would have been better for Chuck to be honest with Jimmy (though that might also have crushed him and sent him on a dark path), but it is not even close to being in the same ballpark of the stuff Jimmy has done.

That sort of false equivalence in parenting is the sort of thing that could drive the well behaved sibling nuts.  "Jimmy stole my car, totaled it and the cops found a pound of meth in the trunk!"  Yes, Chuck but you lied and told Jimmy you needed the car to go out, instead of being honest with him and telling him you didn't want him driving it.  You are just as bad as your brother!". :)

Not all family member are partners in law firms in which you hope to get a job as a lawyer. There is no way around this. That sort of lie harms careers.  I didn't make a false equivalency. I stated, with 100% accuracy, that the lie Chuck told Jimmy was harmful to Jimmy's career.

[luna1122]

Neither Chuck nor Jimmy are especially good people. Hell, like Breaking Bad, hardly anyone on this show is. Like most people, there are shades of grey with their morality and their ethics and their honesty, tho most of the characters on the show also fall (I presume) farther down the criminal rabbit hole than most of us.

I loathed Walter White every second of every episode, but I loved Jesse. I hate Chuck, but I love Jimmy. I LOVE mike. But I can't argue that Jimmy, Jesse or Mike are better people than Walter or Chuck. They're just, perhaps, more inherently likable, rootable, understandable. Or not.

Watching Nacho beat the shit out of Krazy 8 and listening to his screams was rough. I hated Nacho then, tho I got why he did it, and tho Krazy 8 is no better a person than Nacho. I truly hate Hector. Does anyone like Hector?

[nodorothyparker]

Yes, Chuck was certainly within his rights not to want Jimmy in his firm as a lawyer, but the lie he told was not without fallout.  When we met Jimmy in the first season, he was devoting an awful lot of energy and some of his limited resources toward his animosity toward Howard and less directly HHM.  Anyone else remember the dustup over the copyrighted blue Hamlindigo tie?  What might his career path have been had he not been nursing that grudge while running himself ragged tending poor sick Chuck who big evil HHM was trying to avoid settling up with?

For me it's not about picking one team or the other.  It's a tragedy all around.  I don't like Chuck as a person and I'm certainly glad he's not my brother.  But I find him fascinating to watch and as a fellow survivor of sibling wars at times curiously sympathetic.  Jimmy can be as entertaining as hell to watch too, but I can also be glad I don't know him either as he's probably exhausting to be around long term always worrying about what he might pull next even before he gets in to the really dangerous stuff.

[carrps]

On 5/16/2017 at 6:42 AM, Bryce Lynch said:

2) The scene where he was sewing, reminded me of Jesse's fantasy of working on his box in shop class, while he was cooking meth in chains for the Nazis.  Nacho really seemed to enjoy the sewing, and was probably distracted by his worry and regret of being in business with Hector when he sewed his finger.

Yes! Me, too. It was partly that gorgeous golden lighting.

And Michael Mando is making me completely forget Vic the Dick. :-)

Edited May 17, 2017 by carrps
Added comment.

[buttercupia]

23 minutes ago, luna1122 said:

 Does anyone like Hector?

Tuco is devoted to him.  :)

[qtpye]

8 hours ago, shapeshifter said:

I wonder if another contributing factor to Jimmy's overt coldness towards Chuck (and by proxy towards Rebecca) at that moment was supposed to be his utter exhaustion with calming down infirm (former) clients that we saw earlier in the episode.

I think he wanted to make sure, in no uncertain terms, that Rebecca understood if she decided to take over caring for Chuck, Jimmy would not be a part of it, whatsoever.  Jimmy actually likes Rebecca and was doing her a kindness.  He has accepted that Rebecca will hate him forever for his attitude.  Also, as people have pointed out, he does not know if this another one of Chuck's "tricks".  Jimmy has finally realized that Chuck is as good of a conman as "Slippin Jimmy".  As the recapper once astutely pointed out, Chucks cons are just more elegant and usually totally legal.

6 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Maybe my memory is fuzzy because 7 a.m. and caffeine issues, but didn't that scene happen the same day as the hearing?  They were drinking champagne to celebrate Jimmy "only" getting a suspension.  So Chuck trying to destroy his career and basically admitting on the official record to hating him since he was at least 9 years old would still be pretty raw.  I'd be hard pressed to even go through the motions of giving a hot damn about Chuck who may or may not be setting me up again too.

One of the reasons it is hard to root for Chuck, even though he is right is because much of his antagonism towards Jimmy is rooted in pettiness.  A seventy year old man can not get over that mommy and daddy loved baby brother more (at least in his mind).

5 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

The show has done a masterful job in illustrating the huge chasm that can exist between what we know to be true and what may be common and publicly accepted as true, as well as what can be legally proven.  While we as viewers may know that Chuck is right about Jimmy, he couldn't prove it in any way that would have gotten him his desired result of Jimmy's disbarment.

 

2 hours ago, seasquared said:

I'm only half way through all the comments, so I apologize if someone already brought this up, but can we just discuss the awesomeness that was Saul's commercial??? The line about "better get ready to have the paparazzi take your picture!" while he's snapping a photo with a ....wait for it.....POLAROID Camera!!!!!  Pure gold.

I really think Kim is very well written.  When Kim saw the commercial there was a glimmer of shock in her eyes.  She has always loved Jimmy, but a woman of her deportment would not be caught dead with Saul Goodman.  The commercial showcased Saul in all his ass clown showy tackiness.  It was poignant to me that when Rebecca was chewing out Jimmy about not helping his brother, She spat out "Chuck was right about you" right in front of Kim.  This commercial is allowing Kim to begin on the road to understanding, that despite being the king dick in dick land, CHUCK WAS RIGHT.  Jimmy might be a ne'er do well scamp with a heart of gold, but Saul is pure shit.  Kim has just been introduced to Saul and she already hates him.

[Auntie Anxiety]

25 minutes ago, qtpye said:

 This commercial is allowing Kim to begin on the road to understanding, that despite being the king dick in dick land, CHUCK WAS RIGHT.  Jimmy might be a ne'er do well scamp with a heart of gold, but Saul is pure shit.  Kim has just been introduced to Saul and she already hates him.

Jimmy was desperate to get out from under the financial obligations he had with the television station. He came off looking ridiculous and he seemed like a carnival barker, but what were his options? He's an excellent salesman, he knows his audience and he's not afraid to go out there and make a fool out of himself. At least he isn't a hypocrite about persuading people to buy something he's selling. He knew he had to go for it, just like he knew that the original D&M commercial wasn't going to attract attention. And this really is all about keeping Kim in the current premises and keeping Francesca employed.

Throughout the run of BB, I posted numerous times that I'd love to see a show with Saul Goodman as the main character and here we have it. I find Saul fascinating and funny. 

[qtpye]

2 minutes ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

Jimmy was desperate to get out from under the financial obligations he had with the television station. He came off looking ridiculous and he seemed like a carnival barker, but what were his options? He's an excellent salesman, he knows his audience and he's not afraid to go out there and make a fool out of himself. At least he isn't a hypocrite about persuading people to buy something he's selling. He knew he had to go for it, just like he knew that the original D&M commercial wasn't going to attract attention. And this really is all about keeping Kim in the current premises and keeping Francesca employed.

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.

[Bannon]

40 minutes ago, qtpye said:

I think he wanted to make sure, in no uncertain terms, that Rebecca understood if she decided to take over caring for Chuck, Jimmy would not be a part of it, whatsoever.  Jimmy actually likes Rebecca and was doing her a kindness.  He has accepted that Rebecca will hate him forever for his attitude.  Also, as people have pointed out, he does not know if this another one of Chuck's "tricks".  Jimmy has finally realized that Chuck is as good of a conman as "Slippin Jimmy".  As the recapper once astutely pointed out, Chucks cons are just more elegant and usually totally legal.

One of the reasons it is hard to root for Chuck, even though he is right is because much of his antagonism towards Jimmy is rooted in pettiness.  A seventy year old man can not get over that mommy and daddy loved baby brother more (at least in his mind).

 

I really think Kim is very well written.  When Kim saw the commercial there was a glimmer of shock in her eyes.  She has always loved Jimmy, but a woman of her deportment would not be caught dead with Saul Goodman.  The commercial showcased Saul in all his ass clown showy tackiness.  It was poignant to me that when Rebecca was chewing out Jimmy about not helping his brother, She spat out "Chuck was right about you" right in front of Kim.  This commercial is allowing Kim to begin on the road to understanding, that despite being the king dick in dick land, CHUCK WAS RIGHT.  Jimmy might be a ne'er do well scamp with a heart of gold, but Saul is pure shit.  Kim has just been introduced to Saul and she already hates him.

I really dont know what to make of Kim's reaction to the commercial as of yet. What is interesting to me is whether the relationship will end prior to Kim becoming aware that Saul is a guy who will tolerate extreme violence, up to and including murder, in furtherance of the pursuit of money. I kind of hope so, because I think that knowledge would break Kim's heart, in a way that just seeing Jimmy as a guy who is just too wedded to the con, for her to have a long term relationship with, does not. Saul will plumb depths of moral depravity that I really don't want Kim to see.

[Ohwell]

2 hours ago, kieyra said:

Seems like Chuck V Jimmy, Ethics Of deserves its own thread. 

Yeah, I agree.  I brought up the suggestion of a Chuck v. Jimmy thread a few pages back.  They have separate threads, but I think there needs to be a combined one since there's so much talk about their overall relationship. 

[Captanne]

Well, I thought the episode was another hit.  I keep reminding myself Chuck is severely and demonstrably mentally ill -- at which point he gets my sympathy but not a defense of his behaviour.  (Which, honestly, is saying something because I was a civil defense attorney for ten years.)  For me, Jimmy was completely in his rights to say no to the ex-wife's requests.  Twice over because she loped in after-the-fact and tried to guilt-trip him.  That really is an indefensible argument for her to make.

[JudyObscure]

1 hour ago, qtpye said:

I really think Kim is very well written.  When Kim saw the commercial there was a glimmer of shock in her eyes.  She has always loved Jimmy, but a woman of her deportment would not be caught dead with Saul Goodman.  The commercial showcased Saul in all his ass clown showy tackiness.  It was poignant to me that when Rebecca was chewing out Jimmy about not helping his brother, She spat out "Chuck was right about you" right in front of Kim. 

Interesting. I didn't take much notice of that at the time, just as I didn't when Kim said, "Rebecca is not what I expected." Now you have me wondering if Kim was impressed with Rebecca and surprised that Chuck had managed to get such a refined wife.  If so then she may have been more influenced by "Chuck was right about you," than I would have thought. Also.  Jimmy knows Kim and he was very reluctant to show her the cheesy commercial. 

Now I'm worried for my favorite TV couple.

[smorbie]

2 hours ago, luna1122 said:

I loathed Walter White every second of every episode, but I loved Jesse. I hate Chuck, but I love Jimmy. I LOVE mike. But I can't argue that Jimmy, Jesse or Mike are better people than Walter or Chuck. They're just, perhaps, more inherently likable, rootable, understandable. Or not.

I hated him, too.

55 minutes ago, Auntie Anxiety said:

He knew he had to go for it, just like he knew that the original D&M commercial wasn't going to attract attention. And this really is all about keeping Kim in the current premises and keeping Francesca employed.

As Chuck said he has a way of doing bad things for noble reasons.  Man, I hate to agree with Chuck.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

5 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

Kim did not steal them from HHM.  She recruited the client initially, left the firm and was taking them with her. 

 

5 hours ago, smorbie said:

6 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Chuck "stole" the client from Kim, who "stole" the client from HHM.

She really didn't.  She brought them into HHM.  They wanted her to be their attorney and were more than happy to follow her when she left.

 

5 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Nobody really "stole" the client from anybody.  They competed for the client and HHM won.  Happens every day in business.  What almost never happens is for a larger company to say, "Ah, lets let the little guy have that customer, they need it more than we do."  You don't get to be a large company doing that.

Kim worked for HHM.  The client belonged to HHM, even if she recruited them.  Had she been a partner who left, there would likely have been something in her contract precluding her from reaching out to HHM clients to convince them to follow her.  Since that was obviously not a condition of her employment (probably because HHM did not think that an associate could bring in a big client), she was free to try to convince the client to follow her to her solo practice.  However, the client was HHM's and of course HHM would want to keep them.

5 hours ago, Boilergal said:

I wanted Jimmy to tell Rebecca - you know he won't let me in the house - call Howard.

That would be the appropriate answer.

Edited May 17, 2017 by ItCouldBeWorse

[TVFan17]

2 hours ago, luna1122 said:

Neither Chuck nor Jimmy are especially good people. Hell, like Breaking Bad, hardly anyone on this show is. Like most people, there are shades of grey with their morality and their ethics and their honesty, tho most of the characters on the show also fall (I presume) farther down the criminal rabbit hole than most of us.

I loathed Walter White every second of every episode, but I loved Jesse. I hate Chuck, but I love Jimmy. I LOVE mike. But I can't argue that Jimmy, Jesse or Mike are better people than Walter or Chuck. They're just, perhaps, more inherently likable, rootable, understandable. Or not.

Watching Nacho beat the shit out of Krazy 8 and listening to his screams was rough. I hated Nacho then, tho I got why he did it, and tho Krazy 8 is no better a person than Nacho. I truly hate Hector. Does anyone like Hector?

Oh my goodness... Hector is not even remotely charming, or nice, or decent, or anything positive.  I don't think we have seen any redeeming qualities about him at all, have we (in either BB or BCS)?  I mean, I guess I could say that his loyalty to his family is admirable, but I think he would kill one of them in a heartbeat if it served his purposes.   

We saw what he did (in a flashback scene) in Breaking Bad, shoving one of the Cousins' heads into the water until the other Cousin saved his brother.  I mean, as we all know, the Cousins grew up to be scary guys not to be messed with, but we can see that Hector was largely responsible for shaping them into who they became.

Has Hector ever smiled?  Even when he cracks a joke of some kind, it is usually insulting and offensive (like when he referred to Gus and his partner as The Butt Brothers or whatever it was, a couple of weeks ago on BCS).

Sometimes I felt bad for Hector when Gus was mercilessly taunting him (at Casa Tranquila) in Breaking Bad.  I almost felt bad for Hector when Don Eladio was talking about how well Gus does this or that (like wrapping up the money), and putting on the Los Pollos Hermanos T-shirt --  but that only lasted a minute.  Hector is awful.  However, that is a testament to how good Mark Margolis is at playing him.  Mark is making him so immensely awful, and he is doing it well!  Great acting on his part!

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.

[ItCouldBeWorse]

4 hours ago, Bannon said:

It is plainly unethical for Chuck to not reveal to Mesa Verde the conditions that Chuck works in, given those conditions entail A) violation of the law,

What law is Chuck violating?

Edited May 17, 2017 by ItCouldBeWorse

[Bannon]

1 hour ago, Captanne said:

Well, I thought the episode was another hit.  I keep reminding myself Chuck is severely and demonstrably mentally ill -- at which point he gets my sympathy but not a defense of his behaviour.  (Which, honestly, is saying something because I was a civil defense attorney for ten years.)  For me, Jimmy was completely in his rights to say no to the ex-wife's requests.  Twice over because she loped in after-the-fact and tried to guilt-trip him.  That really is an indefensible argument for her to make.

Hypocrisy is certainly far from the worst moral faliing, in terms of the damage on innocents it inflicts, but it is among the most annoying. Jimmy, as Saul, will certainly inflict more horrible damage on innocents than Chuck has ever done, although it bears noting that before Jimmy became a lawyer, the damage he inflicted was pretty much restricted to people who were engaged in dishonest, greedy behavior, because a well designed con often works best on dishonest, greedy people (which of course doesnt make the con morally sound). Jimmy was never a hypocrite, however, and Chuck is just a hypocrite of monumental proportions. That doesn't make Chuck a morally worse human being than Jimmy, but it does make him a lot more annoying. 

[ghoulina]

3 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. 

I think Jimmy knew it was likely a mental issue. Especially after the doctor revealed that she'd turned a button on his bed on and Chuck had no clue. But I think Jimmy also knew there was no telling this to Chuck. He knew how strongly Chuck believed it was a physical illness and he didn't see a point in challenging him. He just wanted to be there for him and do whatever he needed to in order to make Chuck comfortable. 

 

2 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I loved seeing Jimmy take down Chuck on the witness stand and I loved seeing Walt put Hank in a corner with the fake confession video.  But, I still acknowledge that Chuck and Hank are better human beings than Jimmy and Walt.  

Opinions obviously vary wildly, but I would not compare Chuck and Hank. I loved Hank! He was rough around the edges sure, but I think he loved his family and was fiercely loyal - neither of which I'd ascribe to Chuck. Hank was Walt's adversary, but he was ultimately just a man doing his job. For Chuck, it seems entirely personal. I did not get any joy out of that false confession video. I thought that was horrible, but then I never rooted for Walt the way I do for Jimmy. I don't feel I need to vilify the people Jimmy comes up against. I just find Chuck to be a miserable person, period. He's miserable to Kim and has been kind of unfair to Howard as well. Let's not even talk about how gross he was to Ernesto. For me, it's not just about the sibling crap; I just think Chuck is an ass. 

 

2 hours ago, luna1122 said:

I truly hate Hector. Does anyone like Hector?

Waiting for a lone "ding, ding, ding"....

 

2 hours ago, nodorothyparker said:

Yes, Chuck was certainly within his rights not to want Jimmy in his firm as a lawyer, but the lie he told was not without fallout.  When we met Jimmy in the first season, he was devoting an awful lot of energy and some of his limited resources toward his animosity toward Howard and less directly HHM.  Anyone else remember the dustup over the copyrighted blue Hamlindigo tie?  What might his career path have been had he not been nursing that grudge while running himself ragged tending poor sick Chuck who big evil HHM was trying to avoid settling up with?

Very valid points. Chuck was disgusted with the billboard shennanigans, but that was done because Jimmy was trying to fuck with Howard, whom he thought had an inexplicable grudge against him. At that time he saw Howard as his nemesis, the one holding him back. If his intro to law had been handled differently, we may never have had the billboard stunt. (Personally, I loved that stunt and don't see much wrong with it. Certain lawyers use all kinds of shady methods to drum up clients, so whatever.)

[Bannon]

4 minutes ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

What law is Chuck violating?

That house is illegal for people to occupy, in it's current condition. Moreover, based on season 1, the Albuquerque Police Department is aware of it, and the only way it wasn't red tagged was via some corrupt influence Chuck/HHM had over the city of Albuqueruque, which, if you know Albuquerque or New Mexico, at all, is 100% credible. 

[ItCouldBeWorse]

5 minutes ago, Bannon said:

13 minutes ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

What law is Chuck violating?

That house is illegal for people to occupy, in it's current condition. Moreover, based on season 1, the Albuquerque Police Department is aware of it, and the only way it wasn't red tagged was via some corrupt influence Chuck/HHM had over the city of Albuqueruque, which, if you know Albuquerque or New Mexico, at all, is 100% credible. 

I didn't remember this, but I take your word for it.  It would mean he was in violation of a housing ordinance, I suppose. and probably subject to a fine.

[luna1122]

Aren't there laws about storage of legal documents? Surely if the house is illegal to occupy, those documents aren't being correctly stored.

[nodorothyparker]

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.  Howard shows up shortly afterward and says he's talked to the DA and "made some calls" so Chuck won't suffer any consequences from the incident.  

Yes, I really did go back and Netflix this for a discussion last week because I didn't trust my memory.

[PeterPirate]

For that matter, the New Mexico Bar seems to have been willing to overlook the evidence presented at Jimmy's hearing that Chuck was keeping legal papers at his house next to lamps powered by fossil fuels.   

Edited May 17, 2017 by PeterPirate

[Bannon]

9 minutes ago, ItCouldBeWorse said:

I didn't remember this, but I take your word for it.  It would mean he was in violation of a housing ordinance, I suppose. and probably subject to a fine.

No, if you defy an order to not occupy a house, you are subject to jail. If you take corrupt measures to prevent such an order from being issued, of course, such as reminding the city's housing inspection department, or the police department, of your status in the legal community, that's possibly cause for incarceration as well. In any case, it certainly violates legal ehtics to not tell a client that you will be doing their legal work, including handling their vital documents, from a building which is illegal for people to occupy,because, among other reasons, it is a fire trap.

[nodorothyparker]

I think I would have laughed for days if Chuck had gotten a proper smackdown for his shoddy storage of client legal documents out of that hearing.  It would have made for great symmetry in the brothers' mutual destruction.  But since the hearing wasn't really about that, I guess they decided not to pursue it. 

[Bannon]

4 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

For that matter, the New Mexico Bar seems to be willing to overlook the evidence presented at Jimmy's hearing that Chuck was keeping legal papers at his house. 

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.  

14 minutes 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.  Howard shows up shortly afterward and says he's talked to the DA and "made some calls" so Chuck won't suffer any consequences from the incident.  

Yes, I really did go back and Netflix this for a discussion last week because I didn't trust my memory.

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