McGill vs McGill: Jimmy vs. Chuck

[ShellSeeker]

Quote

Let the debate about the ethics and shadiness of Jimmy and Chuck, and who's really the worse person, commence!

[qtpye]

I really need a solid flashback to their childhood with both of them and their parents.  The pettiness Chuck has held onto seems so silly, though I have no doubt Jimmy got away with murder in their house.  A

Also, Jimmy does Elder Law...is Chuck considered a senior citizen?  He seems considerably older then Jimmy and it does not feel like they would be children at the same time.

[Jextella]

I've been rewatching because there is so much great dialogue and nuance that I miss.  

In Season 2 Episode 5, Chuck relays a storty to Kim about his and Jimmy's father. His only dream in life was to own his own business.  He accomplished his goal by owning a small neighborhood convenience store.  It wasn't much, but it kept food on the table.  Their father was well liked and a good man.  Chuck said he was incapable of seeing sin in others.   Unfortunately, he wasn't much of a business man.  At one point, Chuck was in school but clerking.  He made a trip home to organize the books and discovered $14k was missing.  He told Kim Jimmy stole the money while working at the store.  Ultimately, the store had to close, and their father died six months later.  

I'd love to learn at one point that Jimmy wasn't responsible for the theft and that Chuck made an erroneous assumption (or maybe Chuck stole the money!).  We know Jimmy pilfered from the register at least once, i.e. after the con artist comes in.  However, Jimmy has a good heart - as Chuck also states to Kim, and I hope that stealing from his father in an ongoing manner would be a low to which even Jimmy wouldn't sink.  I mean, if Jimmy turns down the Kettleman money because "it's the right thing to do" ... or if the real reason was to help a loved one, i.e. to help Kim get the case back, seems he wouldn't hurt his own father in such in egregious way.

That aside, based on a rewatch thus far (and with several episodes to go), I've decided there is no black and white where the Jimmy vs. Chuck saga is concerned.  They have been both right and wrong about each other and they've both mistreated each other (and others).   I don't know that we'll ever see a true begining of how the rift started because I sorta think it's been there since they were born.

They are wired differently.  They have different sets of moral values and see the "shoulds" of the world differently.  This is perhaps what makes the relationship so interesting for me.    There isn't a clear line.   Not yet, anyway.

As to age, if Chuck was clerking, he'd have finished his undergrad and at least two years of law school which would put him at around 24 or so.   If Jimmy was still at home watching the store, he may have been around 15 or 16ish?  I'd guess they are around 8 years apart in age.  

Edited May 21, 2017 by Jextella

[Adiba]

I agree with you, @Jextella, there is (at least at this point) no black and white where Jimmy and Chuck are concerned. I'd also love for there to be some more twists where their respective characters are not merely a thieving con man nor a sanctimonious prick. I think thus far the writers  are doing a good job, which is why I find this show so entertaining.

As an aside, I started watching BCS before ever watching BB-- only after season 2 did I Netflix all seasons of BB. So I appreciate that the writers did a show that can stand on its own--I do not need every single BB character to make an appearance on the show for it to be satisfying. 

[Atlanta]

On 5/21/2017 at 4:18 AM, Jextella said:

I'd love to learn at one point that Jimmy wasn't responsible for the theft and that Chuck made an erroneous assumption (or maybe Chuck stole the money!).  We know Jimmy pilfered from the register at least once, i.e. after the con artist comes in.  However, Jimmy has a good heart - as Chuck also states to Kim, and I hope that stealing from his father in an ongoing manner would be a low to which even Jimmy wouldn't sink.  I mean, if Jimmy turns down the Kettleman money because "it's the right thing to do" ... or if the real reason was to help a loved one, i.e. to help Kim get the case back, seems he wouldn't hurt his own father in such in egregious way.

Agree. It seems out of character. Jimmy is very loyal to those he loves and fourteen grand seems like an awful amount of money for one kid to pilfer even if Dad McGill was the worst bookkeeper ever. 

Heh heh. Maybe Chuck becoming a sanctimonious jerk is him compensating for past sins like taking $14,000. LOL! Maybe that paid for his law school and that's why he's All About The Law!

[Jextella]

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Chuck was the real thief.  Gilligan talks about what it would take for Jimmy to turn to Saul.    

Despite the recent disbarrment hearing and year-long suspension, it seems that there needs to be more to make the switch complete.  Jimmy had a good gig going with the seniors prior to the Sandpiper fiasco.   He could build his elder law practice back up when his suspension is over.   He just needs a job in the meantime, which I'm sure he could find.

Also, Jimmy has been shown to be a loving and caring person who actually has done the right thing in life several times over, e.g. working in the mail room while putting himself through law school, being an honest attorney to the seniors, turning in the Kettleman money because it helped Kim and was the right thing to do.

Turning to a legal career in which he facilitates the meth trade seems like a really extreme about-face.  Seems whatever flips Jimmy's switch should be just as extreme.  Far more extreme than a year-long suspension and a feud with his brother.

IMO, something has to happen that completely changes Jimmy's moral code.  Not that it was completely upstanding to begin with but supporting the meth trade - even indirectly - clearly hurts, or has the capacity to hurt, good people.   Beyond a con job with some jerk at the local bar, Jimmy has never been about hurting good people.

The only thing that could hurt Jimmy this badly would have to do with Chuck and/or Kim.   Seems as though one of the more shattering things Jimmy could experience would be learning his brother hurt their father by stealing money and then blaming it on him....or some such thing.  Jimmy could care less about HHM, Davis and Main, etc. but a doublecross along these lines by his brother would cross the line - enough for Jimmy to lose faith in human decency. So much so that he'd opt to work for those who've done the same  (or who never had it to begin with).

Where Kim is concerned....she's made her position known to Jimmy all along.  She doesn't want to be made aware of his shenannigans. If she leaves him because Jimmy wants to be Saul, I don't think it would crush him.  If she turns on him in some way and begins to think of him in the same light Chuck does, that might do the trick. 

....it just occurred to me that another thing that might break Jimmy's soul is losing his relationship to seniors.  He'd probably lose all he'd gained by not being able to practice for a year, but could be his name is drug through the New Mexico mud in such a way that he couldn't build his business back up once the suspension is over.  Seems as if Elder law was the only track that worked consistently for him and to lose that - to lose the ability to be with those who love him - could do him in as well.

Edited May 24, 2017 by Jextella

[Hanahope]

I'm pretty sure in some way, Jimmy becomes Saul because Kim leaves.  As long as Kim is around, Jimmy will still try to do the right thing, in general.  but when Kim goes, Jimmy says 'fuck it all' and becomes Saul for good.  so the story is how/when/why Kim leaves.

[Jextella]

I just posted a link to an article from The Atlantic in the media thread.  Gilligan says Chuck has just as much Cicero slipperiness as Jimmy - if not more (or something like that).   What I think/hope we'll see is that Chuck is the greater con men of the two and he's been playing everyone - Jimmy, Howard/HHM, and Kim.  Jimmy finds out and this betrayal is what makes him turn.  Fully turn.

I can't help but think that $14k is involved.  I also suspect it's only one of many cons Chuck runs.

[rue721]

I don't think that Chuck is a con artist, or a criminal. He's got a killer instinct to him that I think would make him so brutal as an actual criminal that there would be no mistaking it. Look at how much damage he's managed to do and how much money/influence/whatever he's been able to accumulate even without breaking the law.

Honestly, I think it's probably going to be something financial that makes Jimmy take Saul Goodman as his persona full-time. I'm watching the first season over again now, and right from the first, Jimmy seems very stressed out over money. Even though the parking ticket stickers brouhaha is funny, that Jimmy would let those $3 and $5 charges get under his skin *every day* kind of shows where his head is at, too, IMO. And I mean, at that point, he lives in a nail salon. He's begging Chuck to take a payout. Painting a picture of Chuck kicked out on the street, "inundated" with electromagnetic waves (or radiation or whatever). He's hustling for his public defender cases and playing the clerk with Beanie Babies, because he NEEDS that paycheck.

Jimmy has always been money-minded IMO. But in a very small-time kind of way, like he's always working from a baseline of "broke." He worked elder law specifically because he could grind out pretty small payments from a seemingly limitless number of elderly clients. It's not for nothing that he's the one who perked up when he heard about his client being on an "allowance," and noticed those charges on the Sandpiper bill. Chuck had worked Sandpiper and never noticed. Leave it to Jimmy to think about something like that. And of course when he went to negotiate for a settlement, he was shocked by Chuck throwing out the $20M figure. I don't think that Chuck was trying to blow anything up, I think the case genuinely was worth way more than a two-bit hustler like Jimmy would have even imagined.

I think he's REALLY stressed over money currently. Being in that bar and not being able to afford it was really getting to him. I think he figures that once he can't pay his half of the law office expenses, Kim is going to dump him.

I think he's going to start using Saul Goodman full-time for the same reason he's used it here and there -- to turn a quick buck.

ETA:

Although really, I think the business between Mike and Jimmy about the parking stickers back in S1 was at least partially about Jimmy wanting to be so "special" that Mike would just let him slide by, and not about the money per se. Jimmy just has no respect for rules or really even understanding of rules, he's all about the deal -- and Mike not being willing to deal with him (and being such a stickler) seemed aggravating to him. I think he took it at least a little personally. But I think, at the same time, Jimmy also legitimately didn't want to pay those $3 and $5 (etc) charges.

Edited May 25, 2017 by rue721

[Irlandesa]

On 5/23/2017 at 10:52 PM, Jextella said:

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if Chuck was the real thief.

I'd be shocked and I'd call shenanigans.  Something like that goes counter to what we've seen established about Chuck.  And while Jimmy may have not stolen 14K, we did see him steal.

8 hours ago, Jextella said:

I just posted a link to an article from The Atlantic in the media thread.  Gilligan says Chuck has just as much Cicero slipperiness as Jimmy - if not more (or something like that).   What I think/hope we'll see is that Chuck is the greater con men of the two and he's been playing everyone - Jimmy, Howard/HHM, and Kim.

And himself?  Because we see his belief in his illness even when he's alone.  The article is from April.  When they refer to Chuck being slippery, I am pretty sure they're referring to convincing Jimmy that his illness had taken a turn for the worse because of the potential typo in order to get Jimmy to confess.  And then to his [unaired at the time of the interview] plan to get Jimmy to break into the house by setting Ernesto up to "accidentally" hear the confession and tell Jimmy.  If Jimmy weren't the victim, I think he'd appreciate the effort.

[rue721]

Also, in rewatching S1 -- it seems from the very beginning that Jimmy knows that Chuck's condition deteriorates whenever he suspects Jimmy has done something wrong. He doesn't want Chuck to find out about the billboard scheme, for example, because he knows that it'll send him into an "episode" -- and it does. Chuck sees the story in the newspaper and collapses and needs to go to the hospital.

I'm wondering if it's something that Jimmy did that (ostensibly) "triggered" Chuck's condition in the first place?

I do think that Chuck believes that he really is allergic to electricity, and actually is at least somewhat mentally ill, because his lifestyle with this illness is frankly AWFUL. I don't think it's all a big con, at least not consciously.

I think that Jimmy has basically known the whole time that there is no actual allergy, but he is willing to play along because in his mind, whatever works to help his brother. Also, at the beginning, he has SO much respect for Chuck. He keeps talking about how brilliant he is, etc. I think that even though he knows that it's all crazy and fake, he plays along out of respect for Chuck, too.

I think that Chuck has always used his "allergy" to control Jimmy, though, and Jimmy has been aware of that from the start. In S1, he flat out promises to be good and says that Slipping Jimmy is gone forever, because he's afraid of Chuck having another "episode." It seems like he feels guilty? But in any case, I think that Jimmy didn't realize until recently that Chuck would actually *purposefully* use it to manipulate him into harming himself (by confessing on tape).

5 minutes ago, Irlandesa said:

And while Jimmy may have not stolen 14K, we did see him steal.

Yeah, the $14K is really interesting. Jimmy must have been a kid or a teenager when the business went under and their dad died, though, if Chuck was only in his early twenties. Would a young kid be able to pilfer $14K from the till? That seems like an unrealistic amount of pilfering.

I think the $14K probably was taken by one of the parents. Whichever one DIDN'T ask for Chuck to come and fix up the books ;)

Edited May 25, 2017 by rue721

[Jextella]

I'm going with what Gilligan said in the interview.  Chuck is more slippery than Jimmy - and it began while at home in Cicero.   And my money is on the fact that the electromagnetic thing is a ruse of some sort aimed at HHM primarily with Jimmy as collateral damage, i.e. a pawn in Chuck's game. Learning this is what does Jimmy in.  

I'm always, ALWAYS, wrong with predictions so make no never mind about it, but this what I think/hope the angle will be.

Edited May 25, 2017 by Jextella

[rue721]

14 minutes ago, Jextella said:

And my money is on the fact that the electromagnetic thing is a ruse of some sort aimed at HHM primarily with Jimmy as collateral damage, i.e. a pawn in Chuck's game. Learning this is what does Jimmy in.  

I personally don't think it's just a con, but I think that *Jimmy* might, at this point. And IMO you're right, and it has done him in.

I think that hearing from Chuck's own mouth that he was play-acting in order to get Jimmy on tape might have done it.

Edited May 25, 2017 by rue721

[Jextella]

1 hour ago, rue721 said:

I personally don't think it's just a con, but I think that *Jimmy* might, at this point. And IMO you're right, and it has done him in.

I think that hearing from Chuck's own mouth that he was play-acting in order to get Jimmy on tape might have done it.

Maybe your right.  I just re-read The Atlantic interview.  Gilligan says Chuck is more slippery than Jimmy and that it must be genetic.  Someone posted elsewhere they thought it could be one of the parents who stole the money - the one who didn't call Chuck.   If that's the case, then I'd have to back down on the electromagnetic allergy  as a ruse theory.  

I still think Chuck is up to something for Gilligan to have said what he did.  I also think it's pretty bad and that HHM is somehow involved - and possibly Howard's dad since his role in the firm has yet to be addressed.

[ShadowFacts]

9 hours ago, rue721 said:

I think he's REALLY stressed over money currently. Being in that bar and not being able to afford it was really getting to him. I think he figures that once he can't pay his half of the law office expenses, Kim is going to dump him.

I think he really is, too, but I thought that the whole day had not gone his way in terms of not being able to influence anybody.  He couldn't use his usual charm on the community service supervisor, he couldn't get the work crew on his side, he couldn't schmooze the potential commercial clients the way he did with the elders, and he couldn't get the insurance rep to budge.  He was very frustrated with his sudden inability to work people. 

6 hours ago, rue721 said:

I personally don't think it's just a con, but I think that *Jimmy* might, at this point. And IMO you're right, and it has done him in.

I think the collapse of any pretense of a loyal familial bond has done Jimmy in.  As for Chuck's possible con, I think it's a mixed bag.  You have to be screwed up mentally in some way to live the way Chuck has, but he has gained control over Jimmy, had him jumping to his tune, kept him in his place, for a long time so there was some payoff for Chuck, too. 

[Bryce Lynch]

On 5/24/2017 at 0:48 PM, Hanahope said:

I'm pretty sure in some way, Jimmy becomes Saul because Kim leaves.  As long as Kim is around, Jimmy will still try to do the right thing, in general.  but when Kim goes, Jimmy says 'fuck it all' and becomes Saul for good.  so the story is how/when/why Kim leaves.

I tend to think the opposite.  Kim leaves because Jimmy becomes Saul.  He is already becoming more and more Saul and less and less Jimmy.  The kindhearted hustler is slowly being replaced by a vindictive, cold-hearted criminal lawyer who kicks his brother while he is down and stiffs the delivery boy on the tip, rather than asking Kim to lend him a few dollars.  Season 1 and 2 Jimmy would never have acted that way. 

On 5/25/2017 at 7:29 AM, ShadowFacts said:

I think he really is, too, but I thought that the whole day had not gone his way in terms of not being able to influence anybody.  He couldn't use his usual charm on the community service supervisor, he couldn't get the work crew on his side, he couldn't schmooze the potential commercial clients the way he did with the elders, and he couldn't get the insurance rep to budge.  He was very frustrated with his sudden inability to work people. 

I think the collapse of any pretense of a loyal familial bond has done Jimmy in.  As for Chuck's possible con, I think it's a mixed bag.  You have to be screwed up mentally in some way to live the way Chuck has, but he has gained control over Jimmy, had him jumping to his tune, kept him in his place, for a long time so there was some payoff for Chuck, too. 

This is a good point.  I wonder if his ability to influence people through schmoozing them has diminished because the "heart of gold" (well sort of) that was always there beneath all the "chicanery" has become darker, and people sense it, which has caused his charm to fade. 

[Bryce Lynch]

I think it is highly, highly unlikely that Chuck stole the $14,000 and I'd be shocked (no pun intended) if Chuck's "allergy" was a long con, as opposed to a mental illness.

Based upon Chuck's claims, his tendency to think the worst of Jimmy, and the flash back where we see Papa McGill being conned and Jimmy stealing from the cash register, I would assume that Jimmy stole a portion of the $14,000 (though not enough to make the business go under) over many years and the rest went to various grifters who knew their father was an easy mark and conned him. 

[ShadowFacts]

I can't remember the scene when Chuck told Kim what a bad boy Jimmy had been, he didn't specifically say Jimmy took the $14,000, did he?  He must have hoped she would make that inference.  I don't think Jimmy did that, and I don't think Chuck believes he did, or he would not have installed him in his law firm, mail room or not.  It would have been too risky. 

I don't want to think Chuck did it, either, but it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility.  He is very much on his high horse about his reverence for the law.  Reminds me of evangelical preachers who pump out piety but get caught with their knickers down.  We've seen that he's not above deception. 

[rue721]

A major sticking point for me is that Jimmy must have been so young when the money went missing (since Chuck was only around 24 y/o, and he's significantly older than his brother), and the money was such a large amount, that I just can't buy that Jimmy would have even had the capacity to embezzle it. I mean, $14,000 back in the early 1970s would have been $65,000~ by 2002 (and $85,000+) today. That's much more than anybody could get pilfering the till. That's probably a lot more than the monthly revenue for a corner store like that. (No wonder the store went under soon after).

During Chuck's tirade in Chicanery, he accused Jimmy of not being able to keep his hand out of the cash drawer when Jimmy was nine, and quickly followed that up with accusations of Jimmy stealing their parents blind, etc. Did the $14,000 "go missing" when Jimmy was nine? It seems unbelievable that Chuck would actually think that a third grader would be capable of committing a sophisticated crime like that. But, to be honest, that timeline would also make some sense in terms of the characters' ages, because I think that Chuck and Jimmy are meant to be 10-15 years apart in age, and Chuck would have been in his early/mid twenties when he was clerking and trying to help out with the books (and discovered the missing $14,000).

It's also depressing to think that, if Chuck discovered the missing money when Jimmy was around 9 y/o, and then the store went under soon after, and their father died six months after that, then their father probably passed when Jimmy was still a pretty young kid (maybe 10-12 y/o). When the show started, it seemed to me that Jimmy did treat Chuck more like a father figure than a brother. I mean, asking if he was proud of him, etc. So I guess that would explain that. Man, it's sad how their relationship fell apart.

Anyway, in any case, I think that $14,000 is way too much to have gone missing because the father was pilfering the till to give money to some two-bit con men. To me, losing that amount of money is a lot more likely to be the result of either fraud, addiction, or some kind of gambling/get-rich-quick scheme gone awry. Although of course, who knows.

[Bryce Lynch]

On 5/26/2017 at 3:07 PM, ShadowFacts said:

I can't remember the scene when Chuck told Kim what a bad boy Jimmy had been, he didn't specifically say Jimmy took the $14,000, did he?  He must have hoped she would make that inference.  I don't think Jimmy did that, and I don't think Chuck believes he did, or he would not have installed him in his law firm, mail room or not.  It would have been too risky. 

I don't want to think Chuck did it, either, but it's not entirely outside the realm of possibility.  He is very much on his high horse about his reverence for the law.  Reminds me of evangelical preachers who pump out piety but get caught with their knickers down.  We've seen that he's not above deception. 

Here is Chuck's quote from his talk with Kim in "Rebecca":

Now, I'm no accountant, but I discovered $14,000 was just gone, vanished over the years. Turns out Jimmy had pilfered it in dribs and drabs just took it out of the till. My dad wouldn't hear it. Nope. Not his Jimmy. He ended up having to sell. Six months later, he was dead."

It seems clear that Chuck blamed Jimmy for the entire missing $14,000.   

I would think it would be wildly out of character for Chuck to have stolen the money. Chuck has used deception, but only to catch Jimmy in his own deception and he did not use it in an illegal manner.  It would also seem to be more or less impossible, because he was away at school when the money went missing.  The writers have not given even the slightest clue that Chuck stole the money.

I think the flashback with young Jimmy and the grifter both stealing from Mr. McGill gives a clear enough picture of what happened.  Jimmy stole a portion of the $14,000 and his father was conned out of a portion by various grifters.   

[Bryce Lynch]

On 5/28/2017 at 10:01 AM, rue721 said:

A major sticking point for me is that Jimmy must have been so young when the money went missing (since Chuck was only around 24 y/o, and he's significantly older than his brother), and the money was such a large amount, that I just can't buy that Jimmy would have even had the capacity to embezzle it. I mean, $14,000 back in the early 1970s would have been $65,000~ by 2002 (and $85,000+) today. That's much more than anybody could get pilfering the till. That's probably a lot more than the monthly revenue for a corner store like that. (No wonder the store went under soon after).

During Chuck's tirade in Chicanery, he accused Jimmy of not being able to keep his hand out of the cash drawer when Jimmy was nine, and quickly followed that up with accusations of Jimmy stealing their parents blind, etc. Did the $14,000 "go missing" when Jimmy was nine? It seems unbelievable that Chuck would actually think that a third grader would be capable of committing a sophisticated crime like that. But, to be honest, that timeline would also make some sense in terms of the characters' ages, because I think that Chuck and Jimmy are meant to be 10-15 years apart in age, and Chuck would have been in his early/mid twenties when he was clerking and trying to help out with the books (and discovered the missing $14,000).

It's also depressing to think that, if Chuck discovered the missing money when Jimmy was around 9 y/o, and then the store went under soon after, and their father died six months after that, then their father probably passed when Jimmy was still a pretty young kid (maybe 10-12 y/o). When the show started, it seemed to me that Jimmy did treat Chuck more like a father figure than a brother. I mean, asking if he was proud of him, etc. So I guess that would explain that. Man, it's sad how their relationship fell apart.

Anyway, in any case, I think that $14,000 is way too much to have gone missing because the father was pilfering the till to give money to some two-bit con men. To me, losing that amount of money is a lot more likely to be the result of either fraud, addiction, or some kind of gambling/get-rich-quick scheme gone awry. Although of course, who knows.

The money went missing over a period of years.  If Jimmy stole $10 or $12 a week and grifters got another $25, you'd get to $14,000 in about 7 years.  The flashback showed Mr. McGill being taken by a grifter and Jimmy stealing from the till.  I see no reason to assume the missing money went anywhere else. 

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Here is Chuck's quote from his talk with Kim in "Rebecca":

Now, I'm no accountant, but I discovered $14,000 was just gone, vanished over the years. Turns out Jimmy had pilfered it in dribs and drabs just took it out of the till. My dad wouldn't hear it. Nope. Not his Jimmy. He ended up having to sell. Six months later, he was dead."

It seems clear that Chuck blamed Jimmy for the entire missing $14,000.   

I would think it would be wildly out of character for Chuck to have stolen the money. Chuck has used deception, but only to catch Jimmy in his own deception and he did not use it in an illegal manner.  It would also seem to be more or less impossible, because he was away at school when the money went missing.  The writers have not given even the slightest clue that Chuck stole the money.

I think the flashback with young Jimmy and the grifter both stealing from Mr. McGill gives a clear enough picture of what happened.  Jimmy stole a portion of the $14,000 and his father was conned out of a portion by various grifters.   

That's certainly what he wanted Kim to think.  But I maintain that if Chuck really believed that, he would not want Jimmy in his firm's employ.  Not even the mail room, it's too risky that he might be pilfering petty cash or doing something else to drain small amounts of money from HHM. 

Chuck also used deception in his candlelit dinner for Rebecca.  He's not above it.  As far as any evidence that Chuck stole his parents' money himself, no, there is none.  But there's also no evidence besides Jimmy taking a few bucks from the till as a child that he took all of the $14,000.  Seeing one instance of it isn't conclusive proof that he kept doing it.  How does Chuck, not being an accountant, even figure out that $14,000 is lost over the years?  I don't think it's necessarily likely that Chuck took the money, but it's not impossible and there are other ways it could have gone missing.  We don't know, and I kind of hope they don't explore it further, because that would mean more Chuck/Jimmy dynamics which I actually hope are wrapped up soon.  Their relationship has crashed and burned, I'd like to see them jettison the remains of it sooner than later. 

[Bryce Lynch]

5 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

That's certainly what he wanted Kim to think.  But I maintain that if Chuck really believed that, he would not want Jimmy in his firm's employ.  Not even the mail room, it's too risky that he might be pilfering petty cash or doing something else to drain small amounts of money from HHM. 

Chuck also used deception in his candlelit dinner for Rebecca.  He's not above it.  As far as any evidence that Chuck stole his parents' money himself, no, there is none.  But there's also no evidence besides Jimmy taking a few bucks from the till as a child that he took all of the $14,000.  Seeing one instance of it isn't conclusive proof that he kept doing it.  How does Chuck, not being an accountant, even figure out that $14,000 is lost over the years?  I don't think it's necessarily likely that Chuck took the money, but it's not impossible and there are other ways it could have gone missing.  We don't know, and I kind of hope they don't explore it further, because that would mean more Chuck/Jimmy dynamics which I actually hope are wrapped up soon.  Their relationship has crashed and burned, I'd like to see them jettison the remains of it sooner than later. 

I think the flashback, along with Chuck's claim makes it pretty clear that Jimmy and various grifters were stealing from Mr. McGill.  Whether Chuck (who said, "I'm no accountant" got the figure correct, and what percentage Jimmy stole and what percentage was grifters is a mystery.

I do think the fact that Jimmy stole, right after getting the "wolves and sheep" speech from the grifter is meant to suggest his stealing from the register became a regular thing, though how much he took is impossible to know, except that it is almost certainly less than the $14,000.   

Yes, Chuck also deceived Rebecca about the reason for the lack of electricity.  But, again, he didn't break any laws.  While I don't think anything we've seen Chuck do has been wildly immoral, I could see Chuck doing things that are very immoral, as long as they are not illegal.  He is a very letter of the law, rather than spirit of the law type of guy.  

[ShadowFacts]

2 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I think the flashback, along with Chuck's claim makes it pretty clear that Jimmy and various grifters were stealing from Mr. McGill.  Whether Chuck (who said, "I'm no accountant" got the figure correct, and what percentage Jimmy stole and what percentage was grifters is a mystery.

I do think the fact that Jimmy stole, right after getting the "wolves and sheep" speech from the grifter is meant to suggest his stealing from the register became a regular thing, though how much he took is impossible to know, except that it is almost certainly less than the $14,000.   

Yes, Chuck also deceived Rebecca about the reason for the lack of electricity.  But, again, he didn't break any laws.  While I don't think anything we've seen Chuck do has been wildly immoral, I could see Chuck doing things that are very immoral, as long as they are not illegal.  He is a very letter of the law, rather than spirit of the law type of guy.  

We saw the flashback that is suggestive, but it isn't dispositive.  Also, Chuck didn't see what we saw.  Do we even know what he was referring to about 9 year-old Jimmy?  There is more that happened back there in Cicero that we haven't seen.  We haven't seen Chuck in flashback in those days.  So many things could have happened.  It's Cicero, there could have been protection money paid, mom might have been involved, etc.

Chuck gives the appearance of revering the letter of the law, of course.  There is the pesky problem of him living in a home that is not legally habitable, though, which Howard took care of for him when he had one of his breakdowns.  My view of the two brothers is that they are two sides of the same coin, more than either would like to admit. 

[kieyra]

So I'm rewatching Breaking Bad. In S3, when Skyler is inventing the story of Walt's gambling addiction, she randomly tells Marie that Walt lost $14,000 during his "fugue state". 

Just saying.

[Jextella]

10 hours ago, kieyra said:

So I'm rewatching Breaking Bad. In S3, when Skyler is inventing the story of Walt's gambling addiction, she randomly tells Marie that Walt lost $14,000 during his "fugue state". 

Just saying.

Awesome.  Sounds like a great easter egg.  

[Bryce Lynch]

10 hours ago, kieyra said:

So I'm rewatching Breaking Bad. In S3, when Skyler is inventing the story of Walt's gambling addiction, she randomly tells Marie that Walt lost $14,000 during his "fugue state". 

Just saying.

The world's most expensive alibi. :)

[Bryce Lynch]

13 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

We saw the flashback that is suggestive, but it isn't dispositive.  Also, Chuck didn't see what we saw.  Do we even know what he was referring to about 9 year-old Jimmy?  There is more that happened back there in Cicero that we haven't seen.  We haven't seen Chuck in flashback in those days.  So many things could have happened.  It's Cicero, there could have been protection money paid, mom might have been involved, etc.

Chuck gives the appearance of revering the letter of the law, of course.  There is the pesky problem of him living in a home that is not legally habitable, though, which Howard took care of for him when he had one of his breakdowns.  My view of the two brothers is that they are two sides of the same coin, more than either would like to admit. 

There "could" have been all kinds of things going on in Cicero.  But the writers went out of their way to show the grifter conning Mr. McGill, giving Jimmy the "wolves and sheep" speech and then Jimmy stealing from the till.  YMMV, but personally, I believe the writers were showing us that Mr. McGill was a victim of con artists and his own son Jimmy.  They were showing that Chuck is partly right and partly wrong about Jimmy, not inviting us to come up wild, alternate theories about the money.  I think that was the main point of the flashback...that Chuck, in some ways knows Jimmy very well, but also imagines him to be much worse than he is.  

Edited May 31, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

There "could" have been all kinds of things going on in Cicero.  But the writers went out of their way to show the grifter conning Mr. McGill, giving Jimmy the "wolves and sheep" speech and then Jimmy stealing from the till.  YMMV, but personally, I believe the writers were showing us that Mr. McGill was a victim of con artists and his own son Jimmy.  They were showing that Chuck is partly right and partly wrong about Jimmy, not inviting us to come up wild, alternate theories about the money.  I think that was the main point of the flashback...that Chuck, in some ways knows Jimmy very well, but also imagines him to be much worse than he is.  

I do agree that Chuck is an unreliable narrator.  I don't agree that Dad McGill having paid protection money or having some other problem is a wild alternative theory, so yes, my mileage varies.  I think there are varied interpretations to what makes Jimmy tick.  Where does he come by the care he takes with his elders?  Is it a relic of how he saw his father as vulnerable?  Or is he atoning for taking advantage of his father's weakness?  Or something else entirely.  I don't think there's one answer.  I'd be more secure in concluding that it was all Jimmy + Dad being a soft touch if we had seen a little bit more of what Chuck's role had been back then.  As I've said, I just don't see Chuck giving Jimmy a job in his firm if he thought he had stolen from their father.  Too risky.  However I also have said I'm not keen to see much more of the Jimmy-Chuck messed up dynamic -- I think the show has gone a little unbalanced with it, and I'd be happy to see an end to it. 

[Jextella]

15 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

We saw the flashback that is suggestive, but it isn't dispositive.  Also, Chuck didn't see what we saw.  Do we even know what he was referring to about 9 year-old Jimmy?  There is more that happened back there in Cicero that we haven't seen.  We haven't seen Chuck in flashback in those days.  So many things could have happened.  It's Cicero, there could have been protection money paid, mom might have been involved, etc.

Chuck gives the appearance of revering the letter of the law, of course.  There is the pesky problem of him living in a home that is not legally habitable, though, which Howard took care of for him when he had one of his breakdowns.  My view of the two brothers is that they are two sides of the same coin, more than either would like to admit. 

Totally agree on both points.  I think what the writers are supremely skilled at is leaving doors open for multiple scenarios.

Who knows what ends up being on the other side, but the doors are open for sure.  

If I had my choice, there WOULD be more to the Cicero story than we've seen thus far.  I feel we need more depth to Jimmy's and Chuck's history - not to mention needing answers to questions like who stole the money and why the mom called out Jimmy's name on her death bed rather than Chuck's.

Totally agree about the brothers.  Other than the personability factor, they are both slippery.  Just in distinctly different ways.

15 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

I do agree that Chuck is an unreliable narrator.  I don't agree that Dad McGill having paid protection money or having some other problem is a wild alternative theory, so yes, my mileage varies.  I think there are varied interpretations to what makes Jimmy tick.  Where does he come by the care he takes with his elders?  Is it a relic of how he saw his father as vulnerable?  Or is he atoning for taking advantage of his father's weakness?  Or something else entirely.  I don't think there's one answer.  I'd be more secure in concluding that it was all Jimmy + Dad being a soft touch if we had seen a little bit more of what Chuck's role had been back then.  As I've said, I just don't see Chuck giving Jimmy a job in his firm if he thought he had stolen from their father.  Too risky.  However I also have said I'm not keen to see much more of the Jimmy-Chuck messed up dynamic -- I think the show has gone a little unbalanced with it, and I'd be happy to see an end to it. 

Disagree on this point :)  I love the story of the brothers and want desperately to see the entire family dynamic played out.  Having said that, I get that it's not enough for most viewers.  The writers seem to get it too as the drug stuff storylines are creeping in quickly.  Just speculating but I think/hope the Jimmy and Chuck thing will play out but as background story.....similar to what I think we'll see with Nacho and his father.  Maybe even Gus???  Who wouldn't want to see how Gus becomes Gus?  Maybe not another prequel but a little about what got this seemingly square-egg to enter the biz. Same for other characters, e.g. Lydia.

Edited May 31, 2017 by Jextella

[ShadowFacts]

36 minutes ago, Jextella said:

Disagree on this point :)  I love the story of the brothers and want desperately to see the entire family dynamic played out.  Having said that, I get that it's not enough for most viewers.  The writers seem to get it too as the drug stuff storylines are creeping in quickly.  Just speculating but I think/hope the Jimmy and Chuck thing will play out but as background story.....similar to what I think we'll see with Nacho and his father.  Maybe even Gus???  Who wouldn't want to see how Gus becomes Gus?  Maybe not another prequel but a little about what got this seemingly square-egg to enter the biz. Same for other characters, e.g. Lydia.

I think it will be hard to continue the McGill saga with their breach being so ugly at this point.  Although it could go on, given that Jimmy is sticking it to Chuck via the malpractice insurance.  If Chuck continues to be part of the show, then it would fill in some blanks to see what he was actually up to earlier in Jimmy's life.  With other characters such as Gus, maybe I'd like to see their genesis, depending on how they weave it into the show.  Gus in particular could be interesting, I've wondered why he would even want to continue in the drug trade after having his partner blown away right next to him.  Why not just get out of Dodge after that horrible trauma.  But then I don't like flashback-heavy shows in general. 

[Bryce Lynch]

1 hour ago, ShadowFacts said:

I do agree that Chuck is an unreliable narrator.  I don't agree that Dad McGill having paid protection money or having some other problem is a wild alternative theory, so yes, my mileage varies.  I think there are varied interpretations to what makes Jimmy tick.  Where does he come by the care he takes with his elders?  Is it a relic of how he saw his father as vulnerable?  Or is he atoning for taking advantage of his father's weakness?  Or something else entirely.  I don't think there's one answer.  I'd be more secure in concluding that it was all Jimmy + Dad being a soft touch if we had seen a little bit more of what Chuck's role had been back then.  As I've said, I just don't see Chuck giving Jimmy a job in his firm if he thought he had stolen from their father.  Too risky.  However I also have said I'm not keen to see much more of the Jimmy-Chuck messed up dynamic -- I think the show has gone a little unbalanced with it, and I'd be happy to see an end to it. 

The questions about Jimmy's motivations are interesting.  It is hard to say what they are, as we haven't gotten much on this, as far as I can remember.  How did he get started in elder law?  IIRC, he got a call for the "alpine shepherd boy" lady after his "rescue" of the billboard guy made the news.  It could just be that he found out that old people like him and he likes being liked.  

 I'm not sure how deeply Jimmy really cares about his elder law clients.  I noticed he botched the name of the client Kim was finishing up with and her daughter and he got some detail wrong (nephew vs. niece I think) when he was making the "I made a deal with the bar association" calls.  I think he is serving them, fine.  But, I never sensed a strong protective instinct toward with them that goes beyond being a good lawyer.  

As for alternate theories of what went on in Cicero, there is absolutely no evidence of them and the writers showed money being scammed by the grifter and stolen by Jimmy.  I suppose the writers could have used crayons to draw us a graphic of how much Jimmy stole and how much was scammed, but I think they respect the intelligence of their viewers enough , to allow us to figure a few things out.  

I'm all for speculating about what might have happened or what might be coming, when there is at least what could be a hint or clue in the show.  But, there was never a hint of any drug or gambling problem with Mr. McGill or mob shakedowns or anything else.  Any such theories are baseless speculation.  

[ShadowFacts]

30 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

As for alternate theories of what went on in Cicero, there is absolutely no evidence of them and the writers showed money being scammed by the grifter and stolen by Jimmy.  I suppose the writers could have used crayons to draw us a graphic of how much Jimmy stole and how much was scammed, but I think they respect the intelligence of their viewers enough , to allow us to figure a few things out.  

I'm all for speculating about what might have happened or what might be coming, when there is at least what could be a hint or clue in the show.  But, there was never a hint of any drug or gambling problem with Mr. McGill or mob shakedowns or anything else.  Any such theories are baseless speculation.  

I would argue not entirely baseless speculation.  Jimmy and Chuck come from Cicero, Illinois, not Provo, Utah or Happy Valley, Minnesota.  They're placed in that spot purposely.

As to viewer intelligence -- I think intelligent viewers, crayons aside, can reasonably conclude from one episode of Jimmy taking cash from the till that he only did it that one time, or maybe did it every single day that he could, or anyplace on a wide spectrum in between.  It would be a logical fallacy to think one time must = all the time.  Also in the area of shades of gray would be what the creep customer said about wolves and sheep.  Maybe from that one stranger's comment Jimmy decided to be a wolf, or never be a sheep, or protect sheep from wolves, or . . . it's one comment.  There's not one conclusion to draw. 

[scenario]

I think the person who stole most of the money at Dad's store was Dad. Not through theft but through bad bookkeeping. "Jimmy, I'm hungry. Take $10 from the till and go to the deli for us." "Jimmy, your toothbrush is too old. Take a new one off the shelf." "Where's my checkbook? Jimmy, go get $35 from the till for me to pay the electrician." He just forgot to wrote things down or tell the accountant, Mom, about what he took. 

I see Jimmy's father as the good salesman type who worked hard and was good with people but terrible with numbers. Since someone had to do the numbers and pay the bills for the store to stay open for more than a few months, I'd guess that was Mom's job. 

So I see the dynamic as Mom is the rules type person. Chuck was raised mostly by Mom while Dad was working long hours at the job he had before the store. Mom was a stickler for the rules. "Chuck, sit up straight." "Chuck do things right." "Chuck, the rules are the rules." By the time Jimmy was born 10 or 15 years later they owned the store and Dad was around more. Once Jimmy was old enough to work in the store he was around Dad more than Mom. He got his work ethic and people skills from Dad. He also learned that if you want something, you just take it. In school, he worked hard enough to get by. He usually did his homework and all of his assignments were done, so his teachers were more willing to put up with his class clown act. He got good at reading the teachers and knew just how far he could push them, so most of them really liked him and he got away with stuff. 

By the time the grifter came around, he was already a bit of a conman and he could spot one a mile away. When his Dad was so easily fooled, it hurt him. His perfect idol, Dad, wasn't really perfect. He started taking money from the till, just like his Dad always did. But it wasn't all that much. When Mom saw missing money, she had no way of knowing what Jimmy took, or even that Jimmy was taking any and what Dad took and just forgot to tell her. When Chuck found out there was money missing, it couldn't be perfect Dad's bookkeeping errors, it must be Jimmy. He probably saw Jimmy take money once or twice and just assumed that Jimmy took it all. 

[Jextella]

3 hours ago, scenario said:

I think the person who stole most of the money at Dad's store was Dad. Not through theft but through bad bookkeeping. "Jimmy, I'm hungry. Take $10 from the till and go to the deli for us." "Jimmy, your toothbrush is too old. Take a new one off the shelf." "Where's my checkbook? Jimmy, go get $35 from the till for me to pay the electrician." He just forgot to wrote things down or tell the accountant, Mom, about what he took. ,,,,,,

Someone above suggested the mom was the culprit.   Either way, one of ya may have hit the jackpot.  In an interview with The Atlantic (see media thread), Vince says Chuck has as much of that Cicero slipperiness that Jimmy has and that it must be genetic.   Mom and/or Dad have their own story to tell :)

Edited May 31, 2017 by Jextella

[rue721]

13 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

 YMMV, but personally, I believe the writers were showing us that Mr. McGill was a victim of con artists and his own son Jimmy.

I'm an accountant, and I find Chuck's narrative of how the store went under really unbelievable. Mostly because of how he characterizes his father's role in it.

The thing is, if the $14,000 Chuck refers to is missing cash, then what would have shown up on the books is increased sales revenue with no associated increase in cash deposits. That's a huge deal, because that means that the theft isn't shoplifting or shrinkage (aka, it isn't thieving customers), it's someone stealing directly from the drawer, the safe, or the bank (aka, it's a thieving employee/owner). That matches what what Chuck said. It also somewhat matches what we saw in the flashback. But only somewhat.

In the flashback, it's actually Mr. McGill who pilfers from the drawer. He takes five dollars cash from the drawer and gives it to the conman. On the books, that's going to look like a mismatch between sales revenue and cash -- like what it sounds like Chuck saw. What Jimmy does in that flashback is actually shrinkage. He lets the conman steal merchandise, and then pockets a payoff for it. (Typical behavior for him even as an adult, to be honest. I guess he's always been about abetting criminals, and making his own little side profit from it). The difference is that Jimmy never actually makes a sale (aka, never actually books the revenue), so there's going to be no resulting mismatch between the sales revenue and cash, only a mismatch between beginning and ending inventory. I know that sounds like a very nit-picky difference, but in terms of when and how the crime would be detected, it's very different.

Missing cash would be detected very quickly by the manager (aka, by Mr. McGill). He would know about cash missing from the drawer by the end of the shift/day, when he counts out the drawer and restocks it for the next shift/day. He would know about cash missing from the safe by the end of the week, if not sooner, when he goes on his bank run. And he would know about cash missing from the bank by the end of the month, when he reconciles his bank statement. So if Jimmy were stealing cash, his dad would have known pretty much immediately. That's not to say that Jimmy was innocent -- just that there's no way that Jimmy was guilty and his dad didn't already know about it before years had passed and Chuck brought it up.

If what Chuck saw in the books was actually missing cash, then his father must either have been directly responsible for the thefts or at least in on them, because there's no way that Mr. McGill could have been in the dark about that for years -- or even months.

Personally, the idea that the money was lost to small time cons doesn't add up to me. Mr. McGill was apparently a soft touch, and probably did lose some money to con artists and beggars and what have you. But in the flashback, he lost $5 and Jimmy said the last one was a week earlier. At that rate, it's still just a couple hundred bucks lost a year. It sounds like there's more to that story, and Mr. McGill knew about it. What "more" was, though, I don't know.

In any case, missing inventory (unlike someone stealing cash/embezzling) would likely only really pop out when the store next does inventory. That could be quarterly or even yearly. And even then, customers are probably going to be responsible for more shrinkage than employees anyway. In a small family business like the McGills', I would also bet on everybody in the family being pretty casual with using/taking the merchandise (without necessarily bothering to book it). Like, for example, the dad just grabbing some TP or bread or candy or whatever off the shelf and taking it home as needed. The number of people responsible or who could potentially be responsible for shrinkage at a little family owned/run convenience store like that is huge. If what Chuck saw in the books was actually $14,000 worth of shrinkage (albeit it doesn't sound like it was), then him pointing the finger at Jimmy in particular and calling it Jimmy "robbing their parents blind" is pretty wild.

I don't think that Chuck is wrong per se, in that Jimmy was no doubt responsible for some theft at their parents' store. We literally saw Jimmy steal. And Chuck's wild accusation about Jimmy transposing the numbers was correct, so his wild accusations do have some credibility. I just can't buy the narrative that Chuck has created out of what he saw in the books, with kid!Jimmy victimizing their father (via shrinkage FFS) until the store is lost and their father is dead. YMMV.

Anyway! Speaking of the McGills theoretically using their store like an extension of their pantry, though, reminds me of how, even as an adult, Jimmy is always drinking the cucumber water or using the message chairs or playing with the nail polish or whatever at the nail salon, and basically using that store as his own personal living room, too. I mean, it's not for nothing IMO that the McGills had a family store where I guess Jimmy spent a good amount of time with his dad, and then he literally LIVES IN A STORE (the nail salon) as an adult. And then Saul's office is a storefront in a strip mall. That's home to him, I guess.

Edited June 1, 2017 by rue721

[PeterPirate]

13 hours ago, rue721 said:

I'm an accountant, and I find Chuck's narrative of how the store went under really unbelievable. Mostly because of how he characterizes his father's role in it.

(Snipped for space.)  

I know a little bit about accounting too, and I agree that it is somewhat fanciful to think that Chuck could have logically deduced that Jimmy had pilfered that much cash.

That said, this show is not being written by accountants. I personally believe that the writers intended to have Chuck honestly and reasonably believe what he said about Jimmy and the missing cash.  

[PeterPirate]

23 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I'm all for speculating about what might have happened or what might be coming, when there is at least what could be a hint or clue in the show.  But, there was never a hint of any drug or gambling problem with Mr. McGill or mob shakedowns or anything else.  Any such theories are baseless speculation.  

I generally analyze any show based on what is presented to me. But baseless speculation has its uses.  It can be done for amusement, such as "Is Anita's Husband really Gus Fring?  You decide."

[rue721]

6 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

That said, this show is not being written by accountants. I personally believe that the writers intended to have Chuck honestly and reasonably believe what he said about Jimmy and the missing cash.  

It isn't, but even though the writers might not know or care about the technical accounting differences between something like Jimmy stealing directly from his father or the cash drawer v. taking a payout from a conman, I am sure that they care a lot about the difference in what that says about Jimmy as a character. And IMO it *does* say something important about him.

I think the distinction in how that money would be accounted for in a technical sense is a reflection of the difference in what the money is *for,* who the transaction is between, and why Jimmy takes it. The money isn't for the cigarettes -- that wasn't a (retail) sale. The money paid for Jimmy's complicity, taking it made him complicit. In a way, IMO it was very similar to Kim telling Jimmy to put a dollar in her pocket or Saul telling Walt and Jesse to put a dollar in his. In my read, Jimmy pockets the conman's money in the flashback instead of leaving it in the cash drawer, because he understands that. He's not stealing, he's being bought off. And that fits with how Jimmy behaves as a grown man, too, IMO. Even/especially as Saul.

Likewise, I think that the holes in Chuck's story about his father the saint and his brother the scumbag are also there for a reason -- I don't think that we're simply meant to take his explanation at face value and leave it at that. Not that I think Chuck is lying -- I think he really does believe that Jimmy is substantially to blame for the missing $14,000, and therefore for the store going under, and therefore for their father's death. But I think he believes that because of what he knows and thinks about his brother, more than based on the evidence itself. And maybe, regardless of any evidence or lack thereof, he's right by instinct about the $14,000, just like he was right by instinct about the transposed numbers in the Mesa Verde filing -- or maybe not. Chuck does know Jimmy well, but it's not like he himself doesn't have a dog in this fight.

What I'm most curious about in terms of the missing $14,000 is if Jimmy knew that Chuck was going around making these allegations or even believing this about him. It sounds to me like Chuck initially went to their parents, and has told the story to people behind Jimmy's back since then (like Kim), but I don't know either way if Jimmy even knew anything about it before Chuck's tirade at the hearing.

[SunnyBeBe]

Ref. the $14,000.00.  Isn't it likely that was a GIFT, by someone who knew that $14,000.00 is the maximum amount you can gift without paying gift tax per year?  Most Powers of Attorney authorize it. 

http://blog.taxact.com/gift-tax-do-i-have-to-pay-gift-tax-when-someone-gives-me-money/

[ShadowFacts]

3 minutes ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Ref. the $14,000.00.  Isn't it likely that was a GIFT, by someone who knew that $14,000.00 is the maximum amount you can gift without paying gift tax per year?  Most Powers of Attorney authorize it. 

http://blog.taxact.com/gift-tax-do-i-have-to-pay-gift-tax-when-someone-gives-me-money/

But this was years ago and the maximum was lower then. 

[SunnyBeBe]

Oh....hmmm.....I suppose we have to assume the writers of the show know this. lol 

Edited June 2, 2017 by SunnyBeBe

[Jextella]

They may not be CPA's but BCS producers run million-dollar productions.  IMO, they know what $14k means today and they know what it meant when it went missing in the story they wrote.  Their accounting abilities are just fine. Better than most, I'd wager.

[ShadowFacts]

It really is too bad that the relationship between Jimmy and Chuck has gone to pieces, and not just because it leads to hard-bitten Saul.  It wasn't that long ago in their timeline that Jimmy was an eager collaborator in setting up Chuck's dinner with Rebecca.  Of course he took care of Chuck assiduously once his phobia really set in.  Then they worked together on the elder clients and Sandpiper.  Jimmy wasn't even finished with him after he found out about who was behind his not being hired at HHM.  It wasn't until Chuck messed with Mesa Verde that the gloves came off.  A shame, since they are each other's only family and despite Jimmy's many missteps and Chuck's resentments, they still had an enduring connection.  This has been very well-written and well-acted (though I am personally ready for it to wrap up). 

[ShadowFacts]

Sorry double post.

Edited June 2, 2017 by ShadowFacts

[rue721]

7 hours ago, SunnyBeBe said:

Oh....hmmm.....I suppose we have to assume the writers of the show know this. lol 

 

4 hours ago, Jextella said:

They may not be CPA's but BCS producers run million-dollar productions.  IMO, they know what $14k means today and they know what it meant when it went missing in the story they wrote.  Their accounting abilities are just fine. Better than most, I'd wager.

Well, and they'd better know something about accounting and financial management IMO, because they're writing for a character who soon becomes a sophisticated money launderer. And not only that, but Saul Goodman seemed to prefer to launder money through small retail businesses specifically (businesses that in retrospect are pretty similar to his dad's, in terms of their financial setup). And he was good at what he did.

I mean, Saul definitely knew how to run a business, Jimmy seems very comfortable with budgeting and money (we've actually seen him doing his books onscreen at least twice -- when he was trying to legitimize the Kettleman's bribe, and when he and Kim were doing the books for the new office together), and even Gene is a retail manager. The writers can't just handwave real-life accounting basics or how small businesses are run, because that's something that Jimmy is actually very skilled at and comfortable with as a character.

To be honest, when Saul said that if he's lucky, he'd wind up managing a Cinnabon somewhere in Nebraska, I thought "OK, but why would you be manager?" But actually, it does make sense that he'd be manager. He would know how to manage a store. I don't mean just from when he was a kid working with his dad or whatever -- Saul also was running a successful business through a storefront. Granted, he supplied services instead of goods, but IMO that's just potato potawwwwwwto.

[Jextella]

On 5/31/2017 at 9:28 PM, rue721 said:

I'm an accountant, and I find Chuck's narrative of how the store went under really unbelievable. Mostly because of how he characterizes his father's role in it.

<snip> 

Personally, the idea that the money was lost to small time cons doesn't add up to me.

On 6/1/2017 at 6:31 PM, rue721 said:

<snip> What I'm most curious about in terms of the missing $14,000 is if Jimmy knew that Chuck was going around making these allegations or even believing this about him. It sounds to me like Chuck initially went to their parents, and has told the story to people behind Jimmy's back since then (like Kim), but I don't know either way if Jimmy even knew anything about it before Chuck's tirade at the hearing.

Totally agree about the missing money story not adding up.

My belief is that what Chuck has done thus far to Jimmy takes the most air out of Jimmy's sails yet, but its not enough to make Jimmy embrace a life-style working with hard-hitting and violent criminals as clients.  There needs to be more.  IMO, the more will be a betrayal by Chuck that hits at the very core of Jimmy's soul.  It has to be something very dark and hurtful ... something so dark and hurtful that Jimmy abandons the regular world in favor of it's criminal underbelly.  Something that nearly dismantles Jimmy's belief in humanity.

I feel it can only be one of two things.   Either Kim is seriously hurt in someway, e.g. jailed, disbarred, maimed, killed, suicide (leaving Jimmy wouldn't be enough .... he's well aware that they are so different they might not make it, and losing her job won't be enough....she could easily rebound).  Or, it will have to do with his parents - with Chuck's involvement.   Chuck has already insulted Jimmy, tried to get Jimmy disbarred, prevented him from getting a job, stolen Jimmy's clients, pushed around his girlfriend, etc.  That's a lot.  We know Jimmy continues being a  lawyer and is alive and well in the end, so I'm not sure there's much more Chuck can do at this stage to make Jimmy do such a significant about face.  I mean Jimmy could easily start over when his suspension is up.  He may have to move, but that's not a big deal.  

It's not what Chuck does in the future but rather what Chuck has already done in the past - which Jimmy only learns about in the present.

I think the $14k and the parents will be involved.  There is a story there and it is this story that hits Jimmy's core and changes his soul, i.e. flips Jimmy's switch.

Sounds melodramatic, but this is my theory.  Maybe a better way to say it is this is my hope.  I'd be disappointed if it were anything less.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Jextella

[scenario]

2 hours ago, Jextella said:

Totally agree about the missing money story not adding up.

My belief is that what Chuck has done thus far to Jimmy takes the most air out of Jimmy's sails yet, but its not enough to make Jimmy embrace a life-style working with hard-hitting and violent criminals as clients.  There needs to be more.  IMO, the more will be a betrayal by Chuck that hits at the very core of Jimmy's soul.  It has to be something very dark and hurtful ... something so dark and hurtful that Jimmy abandons the regular world in favor of it's criminal underbelly.  Something that nearly dismantles Jimmy's belief in humanity.

I feel it can only be one of two things.   Either Kim is seriously hurt in someway, e.g. jailed, disbarred, maimed, killed, suicide (leaving Jimmy wouldn't be enough .... he's well aware that they are so different they might not make it, and losing her job won't be enough....she could easily rebound).  Or, it will have to do with his parents - with Chuck's involvement.   Chuck has already insulted Jimmy, tried to get Jimmy disbarred, prevented him from getting a job, stolen Jimmy's clients, pushed around his girlfriend, etc.  That's a lot.  We know Jimmy continues being a  lawyer and is alive and well in the end, so I'm not sure there's much more Chuck can do at this stage to make Jimmy do such a significant about face.  I mean Jimmy could easily start over when his suspension is up.  He may have to move, but that's not a big deal.  

It's not what Chuck does in the future but rather what Chuck has already done in the past - which Jimmy only learns about in the present.

I think the $14k and the parents will be involved.  There is a story there and it is this story that hits Jimmy's core and changes his soul, i.e. flips Jimmy's switch.

Sounds melodramatic, but this is my theory.  Maybe a better way to say it is this is my hope.  I'd be disappointed if it were anything less.

I wouldn't be surprised if Chuck was somehow involved in his father's death. Not murder, but in some way he did something that caused it. Maybe his dad was desperate and he did something illegal to try to keep the store open and Chuck told him that he was going to go to the police. Dad killed himself and everyone told Jimmy it was a heart attack. In Chuck's mind, he had to blame someone else rather than himself so he blamed Jimmy because it was the missing money that drove his father to break the law and ultimately kill himself. 

[PeterPirate]

I think it's possible that Chuck was somehow responsible for their parents' downfall as well as Jimmy, and it is that guilt that is responsible for his mental problems.

But I also think it's possible that the narrative that we've been presented thus far ends up being canon. I'm OK with that since I appreciate the story. I don't have as high expectations of the TV writers as some, I suppose. 

Edited June 3, 2017 by PeterPirate

[Jextella]

11 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

I think it's possible that Chuck was somehow responsible for their parents' downfall as well as Jimmy, and it is that guilt that is responsible for his mental problems. 

I *think* I agree with this.  Assuming Chuck's not faking his illness, I think it makes sense that it would be the result of guilty feelings from some sort of misdeed.  Either the stress of the divorce or something having to do with the divorce caused it to surface.

Edited June 3, 2017 by Jextella