S03.E10: Lantern

[Captanne]

For me, the emphasis on the opening bit was Chuck assuring his frightened brother that everything would "be okay".  It was kind of touching.  

The idea that Chuck's final, particularly cruel speech and behaviour toward Jimmy was warning of his impending suicide is interesting but not convincing for me.  I hadn't thought of that but, now that I do, I don't believe Chuck has the capacity at that point to try to assure Jimmy.  He did in the tent when they were young and only a bedtime fiction was at stake.  But not now -- there was no assurance in MM's tone.  There was only indifference and resignation.  He was quite literally dismissive.

At least that's how it came across to me.

[Bryce Lynch]

17 hours ago, Lurky McLurkerson said:

I may have cheered out loud when Howard handled Chuck and his ceremonial send-off.  Who would have though Howard was the selfless one of that pair?  Chuck seems to think that everyone owed him some sort of debt - Jimmy for bailing him out so many times, Howard for the rainmaking Chuck did to build HHM - but those debts are eventually paid and Chuck had no markers to cash in any more, only his own selfish interests.  Good for Howard for ousting him before he could metaphorically burn the firm down.

As I watched and then read through the comments here, I'm kind of wondering if there is a parallel being drawn between Chuck and Hector.  They both have the same bullying, selfish personality, but Chuck is more devious and restrained whereas Hector is all id and bravado.  Chuck lived in a prison of his mental illness, and Hector under the thumb of the cartel - but both seemed to be fighting for control of others around them by force and deception.  By burning their relationships with those around them (Chuck with Howard and Jimmy; Tio Hector with Gus and Nacho), they brought about their own demises -- and this is where I would have liked to see Mike show up because where I really think Mike and Gus connect is their loyalty and cultivation of personal relationships and the long game. 

I think Gus Fring is still my favorite TV villain of all times.  What a fucking long game that guy plays.  Strategic, able to keep his ego out of it, and making personal connections to build his network.  His self-control is amazing.

a) I'm not sure Howard was being "selfless".   His move seemed at least partly ego driven to me. He could have patched things up with Chuck, kept an eye on him to make sure he didn't harm the firm, fought the insurance premium increase, or found another carrier and HHM would have survived just fine.  He also could have continued to gently encourage Chuck to retire  instead of immediately taking it to Defcon 1, when Chuck balked at the suggestion, by saying, "What if it is not a suggestion?" and telling Chuck he was going to kick him out if he didn't retire.  

b) Chuck WAS owed a debt (equity more accurately) by Howard and HHM.  He was a partner in a large firm he had built from the ground an he was entitled to his share.  The idea that he should have just let Howard push him aside and leave with nothing, is preposterous.  

c) I'm not sure I see the "control freak" Chuck that others talk of.  He was perfectly happy to let Howard run HHM while he dealt with his illness.  When it came to Jimmy, while he obviously hated the idea of Jimmy being a lawyer (with excellent cause as we find out in BB), the only tried to keep "control" over Jimmy to the extent that he didn't want him working for HHM, or have Jimmy's practice associated wiht his.  In the early episodes, he gave Jimmy advice and encouragement in his public defender work, and helped him with his wills.  He only tried to get him disbarred after Jimmy sabotaged his Mesa Verde files, and Jimmy absolutely, 100% deserved to be disbarred for that. 

c) Chuck seems to have been admired and respected by his colleagues and staff.  Hector seems to be respected by nobody, (with the exception of his psychopath nephews), only feared.   

d) Jimmy played at least an equally important role in burning down their relationship as Chuck did.  

[Captanne]

I think Howard's motivation was as simple as wanting to protect HHM and being God-damned fed up with Chuck's behaviour.  There was no "mental healing" in sight so HHM would have to deal with this lunatic for the foreseeable future and that was starting to be more of a liability than an advantage (or even status quo.)

 

ETA:  I think everything Chuck did was driven by a need to control.  Absolutely everything.  Even down to committing suicide -- he controlled the time of his death.  Sure, Howard was running HHM but Chuck was maintaining his position, wanted to get back to litigating, and expected extreme measures to accommodate him every time he walked through the door.  One huge ego trip all controlled by Chuck.  In order to control a spinning dial, he literally tore his beloved house apart and then utterly destroyed it.  He controlled Jimmy so expertly that even his last interaction was to merely dismiss him from his presence.  Wow.  Control freak par excelance.  

When he realized that Howard was going to maintain control of HHM without him (Howard said "you won" but I'm not sure that's true), that was the last straw.  Chuck had lost his advantage of control.  (He either continues to control his role at HHM or HHM goes under, was his original strategy.  I get to play or I'm going to take the toys and no one gets to play.)

Edited June 22, 2017 by Captanne

[Bryce Lynch]

31 minutes ago, smorbie said:

I know.  I thought about that, too. And it really does seem there was some catalyst to his burning hatred.  But...how did he know Jimmy first started slippin at nine?  That's an awfully specific date to point to.  Did he catch him stealing?  And why wouldn't he have tried to steer Jimmy back from that mindset?  He obviously had a big influence on his baby brother.  He could have taken him under his wing and corrected Jimmy's thinking.  Jimmy would have listened because Chuck was his BIG brother and he would have wanted to please him.

There's something more there.  I would love to know what it was. 

I'm not sure it is reasonable to expect an older brother to fix a younger brother's character flaws.  Jimmy obviously got that con artist instinct into his  In real life, I don't think I would ever look at a con artist, drug dealer, hit man arranger, money launderer, etc. and think that his successful, upstanding older brother must have dropped the ball by not changing his thinking. 

I do agree that there might have been a specific incident at 9 years old that Chuck is referring to.  Maybe we will see it in a flashback.  

2 minutes ago, Captanne said:

I think Howard's motivation was as simple as wanting to protect HHM and being God-damned fed up with Chuck's behaviour.  There was no "mental healing" in sight so HHM would have to deal with this lunatic for the foreseeable future and that was starting to be more of a liability than an advantage (or even status quo.)

But, Chuck had actually made a lot of progress (before he had the apparently fatal relapse), and as far as Howard could see it was greater progress than we knew it to be.  I wonder if Howard felt threatened by Chuck seemingly starting to recover and being able to again take an active role in running the firm.  He seemed to see Chuck as much less of a threat when he was essentially an invalid.  I'm not saying Howard was totally wrong for wanting Chuck out, but I don't think his motives was as pure as he made them out to be.  

[Captanne]

Hmm.  But Howard is responsible for HHM and its employees and clients.  He may have seen Chuck making progress on that one visit to Chuck's house -- but from a legal standpoint, his opinion may have been outweighed and more influenced by the terrible performance at the hearing and by the insurance company's blanket rate increase.  These are two things that affect HHM directly in the wallet.  The firm's reputation had been put on the line publicly.

Chuck's illness has been going on for a long time.

I think Howard was fed up and not hopeful for a full recovery.  The firm was clearly going to suffer.

 

ETA:  The beautiful thing about this show is that no one's motives are always clear or pure.  Even the "good guys", when compared to the drug runners and cartel who are genuine "bad guys", are working with blurred intentions.  

In this particular instance, however, I don't sense a whole lot of grey area.  Howard's firing of Chuck is one of the clearer decisions.  Obviously, that's just my impression.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Captanne

[Clanstarling]

11 minutes ago, Captanne said:

ETA:  The beautiful thing about this show is that no one's motives are always clear or pure.  Even the "good guys", when compared to the drug runners and cartel who are genuine "bad guys", are working with blurred intentions.  

In this particular instance, however, I don't sense a whole lot of grey area.  Howard's firing of Chuck is one of the clearer decisions.  Obviously, that's just my impression.

It is one of the things I love about this show too. And I think Howard's decision was a long time coming. I think he held on for a lot of reasons, including affection and respect for Chuck, and he'd reached his limit when Chuck's behavior started actively affecting the firm.

[Ohwell]

7 hours ago, Christina said:

I've now read the NY Times article where Michael McKean says in absolute terms that Chuck is dead, but they want to bring him back in flashbacks, and still don't think he is dead.

I bolded because I'm confused.  So Michael McKean says he's dead, but the writers don't think he's dead?

[Tikichick]

It has been a miserable few weeks not being able to keep up on my favorite show, worrying that I would have plot points spoiled before I had a chance to watch.

I knew this is where we would wind up when I learned the episode titles for the season.  I'm really going to need great flashbacks at all of the appropriate points, because so much of this Greek tragedy of the brothers McGill is still unexplained.  Plus, how could any show pass up the possibility to put Michael McKean's superb performance as Chuck on their screen?

I read through all of the posts to see if anybody else agrees with my husband, who has largely convinced me Chuck was tied up at the end.  Kind of surprised only one, @peacockblue mentioned it.  It seems to be true from watching the bit back again and again, but it makes me wonder why -- and what will be made of that fact when he is found.

Chuck was a meticulous, detail oriented control freak -- and that's precisely why I think it will turn out he died intestate, leaving Jimmy his heir.  It's not uncommon for people of a certain personality type to want to control everything so strongly that it short circuits their ability to execute an estate plan.  They simply cannot come to terms with the idea that they will be unable at some point to change what they have memorialized in their estate plan, cannot conceive that there will be a time they are not here to assess the current situation and make the changes they would if they were here.  (IMO Prince is someone everyone knows of who is an excellent example of this phenomenon.)

As far as Chuck not being a control freak being demonstrated by his allowing Howard to run HHM?  Howard danced to Chuck's tune.  Howard played bad cop, leaving Chuck to look like the good guy -- which was critically important to Chuck.  Howard had to get Chuck out of there once it was clear Chuck's first allegiance was to Chuck alone, completely oblivious to consequences for HHM.

Funnily enough this week revealed that to be a similarity the brothers McGill share(d).  Chuck was so invested in looking good, being the good one, he tormented himself with this "illness" as punishment for his misdeeds.  It's no coincidence he completely decompensated in the hours after delivering another devastating blow to his brother.  Chuck could not handle the knowledge that he's not the best little boy in the world.  Jimmy acknowledges his faults and misdeeds, accepting himself as a screwup/con/schemer.  What Jimmy cannot handle is when someone he thinks is a decent person not liking him or thinking badly of him.  May be another piece of why he adopts the Saul persona.   (Incidentally, there's no way Jimmy even attempts to fool the bar association or his insurance company with the change of name.  His pocketbooks will be able to handle the premium surge courtesy of Chuck's estate." 

I'm expecting to see a devastated and then very vengeful side of Jimmy emerge.  I think it will be Hatfields and McCoys with Jimmy and Howard, both feeling the other culpable in what happened.

Another spectacular portrayal is that of Nacho, which is making me curious to see his story play out -- although I have to confess I'm not sure I'm ready for the stress the Hector/Gus/cartel storyline brings.

Does Kim eventually bolt to Schweikert and Coakley?  Does the TX oilman make her an offer she decides she can't refuse?  Does she pack up and decide to head back home, hoping to bring her modern day, female Atticus Finch to make her hometown a better place?

[PeterPirate]

I wouldn't say that Howard's move was "selfless". Howard now owns Chuck's share of HHM and is entitled to Chuck's share of the future profits. But it was, as someone else pointed out, "ballsy".  I have nothing but respect for Howard. There's nothing he's done that I disagree with over three seasons. 

[smorbie]

44 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I'm not sure it is reasonable to expect an older brother to fix a younger brother's character flaws

We all have character flaws, but there are reasons most of us don't indulge in the worst of them.  Those reasons are often mom, dad, sister, brother, grandparents, church, teachers....

In the nature/nurture dispute I think you're generally right, nature is a huge determinant in what we become.  But nurture is, too.  And loving family members try shape the children towards a less criminal future.

Having given this some thought, though, I've been wondering whether Chuck's continued stress on age 9 as the year it all went wrong might have something to do with the year he went off to school.  Maybe that was the year he left, the first year of Jimmy's life where his loving brother wasn't around to help him learn the correct life lessons.

[qtpye]

1 hour ago, smorbie said:

I know.  I thought about that, too. And it really does seem there was some catalyst to his burning hatred.  But...how did he know Jimmy first started slippin at nine?  That's an awfully specific date to point to.  Did he catch him stealing?  And why wouldn't he have tried to steer Jimmy back from that mindset?  He obviously had a big influence on his baby brother.  He could have taken him under his wing and corrected Jimmy's thinking.  Jimmy would have listened because Chuck was his BIG brother and he would have wanted to please him.

There's something more there.  I would love to know what it was. 

What is interesting is that Jimmy has no respect for his father, who he considered a weak loser, who failed to protect the family business from wolves.

Jimmy respects Chuck, because he was a winner untill his illness.  The law is not a profession for sheep.  I would not be surprised if the parents let young Jimmy walk all over them and it was up to Chuck to discipline Jimmy, even though as the elder brother, it really was not his job.  I wonder if Chuck grew to resent this role and that is what colored  their adult relationship?

I have hated Chuck for a while, but think about it, if it was not for Chuck...Jimmy would be known as a sex offender who defecates on children.

[smorbie]

53 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

But, Chuck had actually made a lot of progress (before he had the apparently fatal relapse)

No, he really didn't.  When a person first seeks therapy, especially one who does it on his own, he has a tendency to soak up the therapist's words and advice and really, really adhere to it.  This gives the illusion of progress and it's what cognitive therapy is based upon, the idea that controlling your behavior will lead to controlling the thoughts that caused the behavior.

But a lot of times it's like the kid who comes home from the dentist with a new toothbrush and brushes his teeth five times a day.  He's not always going to do that, he's going to slide back into old patterns.

That's when therapy starts to get tough because whether it's cognitive or a more traditional model, the thinking is what has to change.

As long as the world was spinning the way he wanted it and Chuck could control his problems by naming colors, everything was great.  But when the first thing didn't go as planned, his whole world crashed around him.  That's not progress.  That's seed planted on rocky ground.  It springs up but at the first wind, it dies.

[smorbie]

46 minutes ago, Captanne said:

I think Howard was fed up and not hopeful for a full recovery.

I don't think it was even that.  I think it was what you said in your first sentence.  The firm is Howard's responsibility.  For good or ill he takes that seriously.  His first and foremost job is to keep HHM going.  Anything that gets in the way of that is a hindrance.  

The first absolutely could not pay the astronomical increase in premiums.  And I doubt any other insurance company would have been eager to insure it for less because Chuck was a liability.

As such he had to be handled.  He could have surrendered his license, left the firm, or retired.  Those were the choices.  Howard tried to steer him toward the best of those limited options. When he balked, Howard didn't have a choice.  He had to do something, because his first responsibility to is keep the firm afloat.

30 minutes ago, Ohwell said:

I bolded because I'm confused.  So Michael McKean says he's dead, but the writers don't think he's dead?

They're playing with us.

[JudyObscure]

13 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Does the TX oilman make her an offer she decides she can't refuse? 

When Francesca was on the phone to him in Blockbuster, I heard her tell him that Kim recommended a certain firm.  I couldn't tell if  that was for temporary problems or if she was answering a 'I'll have to find someone else," statement.

[Tikichick]

Just now, JudyObscure said:

When Francesca was on the phone to him in Blockbuster, I heard her tell him that Kim recommended a certain firm.  I couldn't tell if  that was for temporary problems or if she was answering a 'I'll have to find someone else," statement.

Francesca gave him Kim's recommendation of Schweikert and Coakley -- the same firm who offered Kim a spot last season.

[DrSpaceman73]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

a) I'm not sure Howard was being "selfless".   His move seemed at least partly ego driven to me. He could have patched things up with Chuck, kept an eye on him to make sure he didn't harm the firm, fought the insurance premium increase, or found another carrier and HHM would have survived just fine.  He also could have continued to gently encourage Chuck to retire  instead of immediately taking it to Defcon 1, when Chuck balked at the suggestion, by saying, "What if it is not a suggestion?" and telling Chuck he was going to kick him out if he didn't retire.  

b) Chuck WAS owed a debt (equity more accurately) by Howard and HHM.  He was a partner in a large firm he had built from the ground an he was entitled to his share.  The idea that he should have just let Howard push him aside and leave with nothing, is preposterous.  

c) I'm not sure I see the "control freak" Chuck that others talk of.  He was perfectly happy to let Howard run HHM while he dealt with his illness.  When it came to Jimmy, while he obviously hated the idea of Jimmy being a lawyer (with excellent cause as we find out in BB), the only tried to keep "control" over Jimmy to the extent that he didn't want him working for HHM, or have Jimmy's practice associated wiht his.  In the early episodes, he gave Jimmy advice and encouragement in his public defender work, and helped him with his wills.  He only tried to get him disbarred after Jimmy sabotaged his Mesa Verde files, and Jimmy absolutely, 100% deserved to be disbarred for that. 

c) Chuck seems to have been admired and respected by his colleagues and staff.  Hector seems to be respected by nobody, (with the exception of his psychopath nephews), only feared.   

d) Jimmy played at least an equally important role in burning down their relationship as Chuck did.  

He actively attempted to get Jimmy disbarred with his scheme.  I don't know how much more of a control freak you can be than that

His entire mental illness is a passive aggressive control issue, getting others around him, including Jimmy and Howard, and really EVERYONE who came in contact with to cater to his "needs" and his "illness" that was obviously completely psychiatric in nature.  For whatever reason he could no longer deal with the real world and being in it, but he created a situation where everyone else, but him, adjusted so he didn't have to deal with his real problems.  No on that entered his house or came near him was allowed to use any electronics or electricity all based on his mental problems and nothing else.  That, IMO, is blatant control issues by Chuck.  the entire world around him and all his relationships were forced to adjust to him. 

I don't dispute, and I don't think anyone does, even Jimmy, that Jimmy played a large role in the destruction of their relationship.  Chuck fails to acknowledge ANY role in it though, he to the very end viewed himself as never doing anything wrong to contribute to the problem.  Jimmy specifically asked him about this in their last conversation, and Chuck still denied it all. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by DrSpaceman73

[smorbie]

13 minutes ago, qtpye said:

What is interesting is that Jimmy has no respect for his father, who he considered a weak loser, who failed to protect the family business from wolves.

Jimmy respects Chuck, because he was a winner untill his illness.  The law is not a profession for sheep.  I would not be surprised if the parents let young Jimmy walk all over them and it was up to Chuck to discipline Jimmy, even though as the elder brother, it really was not his job.  I wonder if Chuck grew to resent this role and that is what colored  their adult relationship?

I have hated Chuck for a while, but think about it, if it was not for Chuck...Jimmy would be known as a sex offender who defecates on children.

There was an awful lot of subcontext in a conversation between Chuck and Jimmy, I think earlier this season.  Chuck mentioned a story and Jimmy said his dad read it to him when he was little.  Chuck corrected him, saying "No, I read it you".  At the time I just thought how sweet that was, and that may have been it.

But Chuck was awfully involved with Jimmy's upbringing.  Maybe that's natural in a family where the children are so spread apart. But their dad was awfully busy running his store into the ground (yes, Jimmy was stealing, but I think their dad was probably a poor businessman).  It could be that Chuck was Jimmy's only read role model.  I don't know.  But, we know he didn't respect his dad, loved his mom a lot, and adored his brother.

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, smorbie said:

There was an awful lot of subcontext in a conversation between Chuck and Jimmy, I think earlier this season.  Chuck mentioned a story and Jimmy said his dad read it to him when he was little.  Chuck corrected him, saying "No, I read it you".  At the time I just thought how sweet that was, and that may have been it.

But Chuck was awfully involved with Jimmy's upbringing.  Maybe that's natural in a family where the children are so spread apart. But their dad was awfully busy running his store into the ground (yes, Jimmy was stealing, but I think their dad was probably a poor businessman).  It could be that Chuck was Jimmy's only read role model.  I don't know.  But, we know he didn't respect his dad, loved his mom a lot, and adored his brother.

I've been comforting myself about the loss of Chuck with the idea that at appropriate times in the ongoing tale of the escapades of Jimmy McGill we will get flashbacks to enlighten us of the backstory.  Your post just burst my balloon when I've realized the potential for flashbacks is greatly minimized because the source of flashbacks is limited to the surviving younger brother, the one who was too young and oblivious to much of what was likely going on -- and certainly never had any awareness his big brother resented him. 

I may have to go sit myself in the corner, hold myself tightly, hum and rock myself for a bit now.

[smorbie]

2 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

I've been comforting myself about the loss of Chuck with the idea that at appropriate times in the ongoing tale of the escapades of Jimmy McGill we will get flashbacks to enlighten us of the backstory.  Your post just burst my balloon when I've realized the potential for flashbacks is greatly minimized because the source of flashbacks is limited to the surviving younger brother, the one who was too young and oblivious to much of what was likely going on -- and certainly never had any awareness his big brother resented him. 

I may have to go sit myself in the corner, hold myself tightly, hum and rock myself for a bit now.

LOL.  I'm so sorry.  Maybe Chuck lived and we will get to see things from his crispy perspective.

Edited June 22, 2017 by smorbie

[ShadowFacts]

20 minutes ago, smorbie said:

As long as the world was spinning the way he wanted it and Chuck could control his problems by naming colors, everything was great.  But when the first thing didn't go as planned, his whole world crashed around him.  That's not progress.  That's seed planted on rocky ground.  It springs up but at the first wind, it dies.

I'm not well-versed in mental illness, but I wonder if Chuck was having a psychotic episode.  We see him starting to have pain when he's using the phone to cancel the appointment, he might have looked like he was in pain when he turned on the light in bed to look at his journal.  His destructive actions to his house are so over the top.  The look on his face, everything looked like he was in the grip of paranoia.  I think a psychotic episode can be brought on by extreme stress, and the way he was booted out of HHM was certainly that. 

47 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

I read through all of the posts to see if anybody else agrees with my husband, who has largely convinced me Chuck was tied up at the end.  Kind of surprised only one, @peacockblue mentioned it.  It seems to be true from watching the bit back again and again, but it makes me wonder why -- and what will be made of that fact when he is found.

I'm curious to know what in the scene suggests the tying up.  I will have to watch again.

[Captanne]

smorbie --- wide-age-differential siblings are not totally predictable.  My sister and I are ten years apart and she actively hated me from the day I came home from the hospital as an infant.  Still does.

 

ETA:  Thanks for the response below!  I'm perfectly at home with the situation, ob, or I wouldn't tell the Internet.  LOL  We're adults now and have moved on.  It's a shame but as a friend once said, "It's hard to like someone who hates you and they are not changing."  So, one either rolls with the punches or spends a lifetime absorbed in vainly trying to change someone -- oh, wait.  That's Better Call Saul!  LOLOL  :-)

Edited June 22, 2017 by Captanne

[Tikichick]

5 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

I'm curious to know what in the scene suggests the tying up.  I will have to watch again.

Watch Chuck's chest.  He appears to be unable to move his upper torso away from the chair, and where the space blanket opens across his chest there is a horizontal line.  It also explains the kicking.

I cannot understand the how or why, but then again I have to remember he was in the throes of a psychological episode, arguably his most severe one.

[Captanne]

 

The closest close up comes at about 1:10.  The lamp goes over around 1:18.  I don't see a rope.

[Lurky McLurkerson]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

a) I'm not sure Howard was being "selfless".   His move seemed at least partly ego driven to me. He could have patched things up with Chuck, kept an eye on him to make sure he didn't harm the firm, fought the insurance premium increase, or found another carrier and HHM would have survived just fine.  He also could have continued to gently encourage Chuck to retire  instead of immediately taking it to Defcon 1, when Chuck balked at the suggestion, by saying, "What if it is not a suggestion?" and telling Chuck he was going to kick him out if he didn't retire.  

b) Chuck WAS owed a debt (equity more accurately) by Howard and HHM.  He was a partner in a large firm he had built from the ground an he was entitled to his share.  The idea that he should have just let Howard push him aside and leave with nothing, is preposterous.  

c) I'm not sure I see the "control freak" Chuck that others talk of.  He was perfectly happy to let Howard run HHM while he dealt with his illness.  When it came to Jimmy, while he obviously hated the idea of Jimmy being a lawyer (with excellent cause as we find out in BB), the only tried to keep "control" over Jimmy to the extent that he didn't want him working for HHM, or have Jimmy's practice associated wiht his.  In the early episodes, he gave Jimmy advice and encouragement in his public defender work, and helped him with his wills.  He only tried to get him disbarred after Jimmy sabotaged his Mesa Verde files, and Jimmy absolutely, 100% deserved to be disbarred for that. 

c) Chuck seems to have been admired and respected by his colleagues and staff.  Hector seems to be respected by nobody, (with the exception of his psychopath nephews), only feared.   

d) Jimmy played at least an equally important role in burning down their relationship as Chuck did.  

 

With regard to A, I'm willing to concede that selfless wasn't the best choice of words, but it's the classic King Solomon situation, right?  Chuck willing to divide up the baby, ultimately killing it, and Howard dipping into his own pockets to buy Chuck out -- because Chuck refused to do the right thing and retire rather than force skyrocketing malpractice premiums onto the firm and waste an FTE on a babysitter for him.  He DID encourage Chuck to retire, and he kept paying him while he was out, holed up in his home under a space blanket, he coordinated delivery of groceries and supplies when Chuck (understandably) refused to accept Jimmy's help -- and did this for quite some time rather than bust up the partnership and bankrupt the firm.  Howard handled people like Chuck exactly how you have to handle people like Chuck.  I say well played, Hamlindigo Blue.

With regard to B, Chuck, in retirement, could have continued to draw equity from his share as long as he remained a partner.  He was owed money, not an opportunity to practice at great liability to the firm.  He put his own personal ego over the good of the organization, he refused to consider that his issues were mental and curable until Jimmy planted the battery on him, and he was putting up a front on how "cured" he was at the end (improved? yes, well enough to function as a partner at a good-sized local firm? no).  I work for a law firm that recently went through a transition to second generation leadership, and I've worked in legal for about 20 years.  Firms where the founding partners retire (or step back into emeritus roles willingly) and continue to draw their share do better than the ones where there is a power struggle from someone who won't let the next generation start to lead.  I am grateful that our founding leadership didn't Chuck things up here.

With regard to C, Chuck was incapable of running HHM while he was ill.  We didn't see that part of the timeline, but what other choice did Howard have but to step into a leadership role?  Chuck couldn't go outside without passing out from the perceived buzz of the electrical lines and streetlights.  Howard, Jimmy, and Ernie helped him survive when he was too ill to handle his own grocery store runs, and he repaid them all with selfishness and vitriol.  I can't pat Chuck too much for his support and encouragement when he was knifing every single one of them in the back. Jimmy absolutely should have been disbarred for his Mesa Verde scheme, but let's not completely ignore that Chuck played a hand in how he got there by poaching them from Kim and undermining her business development efforts.  (Again, I work in legal -- partners who sabotage their associates, the next generation of their firm, as a power play or to pick up billing credit, are selfish and not the leadership you want in your firm.)  Chuck's being respected and admired is running on fumes from his days as a rainmaker for the firm.

With regard to D, of course Jimmy contributed to this mess!  Feeling like Chuck is a shithead doesn't mean that I think Jimmy is a saint.  He's proto-Saul Goodman, for goodness sake.  His questionable moral compass, his shortcuts, and his thrill at pulling one over on someone are major problems.  I wouldn't want him on my malpractice insurance.  But Chuck at no point demonstrated enough respect for Jimmy as a person to be straight with him about why he couldn't be a lawyer at HHM, rather fake-supported him to his face and cut off his career path behind closed doors.  I have a great deal of sympathy for Chuck's frustration with Jimmy, but I have major issues with how those manifested in his behavior.  Chuck was never able to see Jimmy as anything more than his screw-up little brother who should be grateful for the never-ending opportunities to bring him his papers and groceries.  As is often the case with Vince Gilligan's characters, both are seriously flawed individuals.

[qtpye]

6 minutes ago, Captanne said:

smorbie --- wide-age-differential siblings are not totally predictable.  My sister and I are ten years apart and she actively hated me from the day I came home from the hospital as an infant.  Still does.

• I am sorry.  My brother is 11 years younger then me and I was pretty much a second mother to him.  I realized being much older that I would set the precedence for our relationship.  It is a tribute to the writing that this show makes many of us think about real life sibling relationships.

[smorbie]

17 minutes ago, Captanne said:

smorbie --- wide-age-differential siblings are not totally predictable.  My sister and I are ten years apart and she actively hated me from the day I came home from the hospital as an infant.  Still does.

Yike!  I'm sorry.  If it makes you feel better, my sister hated me, too, and she's only 18 months older than I.

A lot of how a trailer baby is welcomed into the family depends upon the dynamic of the family as a whole.  I had a cousin who was an only child till she was 11, and then came twins.  She put up a good front, but really hated them.  And does to this day.

Then there's the late, great Mr. Smorbie's (honorary title) family.  He was 10 years younger than his oldest brother and 9 years younger than the closest one to him.  I never knew either of his brothers, but the late, great Mr. Smorbie absolutely adored the oldest of them and loved the other one very much as well.  I think, from what he said, they, especially the oldest, was very devoted to him.

[JudyObscure]

34 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

I've realized the potential for flashbacks is greatly minimized because the source of flashbacks is limited to the surviving younger brother, the one who was too young and oblivious to much of what was likely going on -- and certainly never had any awareness his big brother resented him. 

I may have to go sit myself in the corner, hold myself tightly, hum and rock myself for a bit now.

Hang on, Tikichick, name some colors!  The brothers must have had lots of interactions between Jimmy's childhood and their middle aged selves. We saw very little of those years. Our excellent writers could tell us a fine story about all that happened in that gap.

[ShadowFacts]

59 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

I wouldn't say that Howard's move was "selfless". Howard now owns Chuck's share of HHM and is entitled to Chuck's share of the future profits. But it was, as someone else pointed out, "ballsy".  I have nothing but respect for Howard. There's nothing he's done that I disagree with over three seasons. 

But Howard owning Chuck's share is not a done deal -- he still owes him $6 mil. 

9 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Watch Chuck's chest.  He appears to be unable to move his upper torso away from the chair, and where the space blanket opens across his chest there is a horizontal line.  It also explains the kicking.

Ok, thanks.  I saw the horizontal line, which could just be the fold line of the space blanket.  He is holding the front opening of the blanket with one hand, so at least one arm/hand wouldn't have been tied up.  I don't know what to make of all that,  but it is a bit of an odd choice to have him kicking the table instead of just overturning/pushing the lamp with that free hand.  Maybe it just means that he did not have all the courage that would be needed to do that, and had to keep a little distance and do it with his foot instead. 

[nachomama]

I'm kinda miffed, last week was a blur for me, I worked like 70 hours so I somehow missed episode 9 and when I went to get it on demand they wanted to charge me $2.99! I subscribe to the channel and generally stuff that airs this week goes up and I've never been charged. So I'm too cheap to pay so I'm missing gaps in my information, I know Kim had an accident and I know Chuck "cured" himself. How did he do that? Obviously it was temporary, I know his dismissal by Howard from HHM triggered a massive relapse. I do not think Chuck consciously tried to commit suicide, at the end when he was kicking the table he seemed totally catatonic and he reminded me of cockroaches turned over on their backs who've been bug sprayed and their legs just twitch reflexively. The more I hated Chuck the more I love Michael McKean, brilliant.

[Tikichick]

20 minutes ago, Captanne said:

 

 

The closest close up comes at about 1:10.  The lamp goes over around 1:18.  I don't see a rope.

We went back after the episode ended and my husband made the comment.  I hadn't noticed it initially while watching the episode, although I think I was in denial about all of what was happening even though I expected to wind up with the house on fire ever since I knew the episode titles.  We went back and watched and watched and watched.  Chuck's arms seem restrained from shoulder to elbow, his upper torso seems drawn back against the chair and there is a distinct horizontal line visible across his upper chest at one point.

Like I said, I cannot explain the how or the why, but I had to agree with my husband that it definitely appears that way.

[Tikichick]

13 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

Hang on, Tikichick, name some colors!  The brothers must have had lots of interactions between Jimmy's childhood and their middle aged selves. We saw very little of those years. Our excellent writers could tell us a fine story about all that happened in that gap.

Grey skirt, blue blouse, silver watch.  

I wanted to know what was the genesis of Chuck's resentment of Jimmy.  Considering Chuck had to hit Jimmy over the head with it I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest Jimmy has no insight into where it began.  I think the writers are superb.  However I cannot come up with a logical or plausible way to explain that without Chuck among the living.

Beige tile, brown desk, brown door . . .

Actually, I wanted to know the genesis of the resentment because I'm curious, but most of all I wanted it in the context of a reconciliation, even though I knew that since I know Saul I was kidding myself all along.  

I'll show myself to my corner.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Tikichick
Forgotten detail

[LoneHaranguer]

2 hours ago, smorbie said:

But...how did he know Jimmy first started slippin at nine?  That's an awfully specific date to point to.  Did he catch him stealing?

I think it would have been enough for Chuck if it seemed like Jimmy had money to spend he shouldn't.

3 hours ago, smorbie said:

Well, yeah, that could totally happen.  lost is space is a documentary.  :)

Lost in Space was set 20 years ago; there must be an ongoing government coverup.

[mattie0808]

8 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Grey skirt, blue blouse, silver watch.  

I wanted to know what was the genesis of Chuck's resentment of Jimmy.  Considering Chuck had to hit Jimmy over the head with it I'm gonna go out on a limb and suggest Jimmy has no insight into where it began.  I think the writers are superb.  However I cannot come up with a logical or plausible way to explain that without Chuck among the living.

Beige tile, brown desk, brown door . . .

Actually, I wanted to know the genesis of the resentment because I'm curious, but most of all I wanted it in the context of a reconciliation, even though I knew that since I know Saul I was kidding myself all along.  

I'll show myself to my corner.

Fear not! Do not assume our writers will let such things as death and limited character POV stop them! Remember, Jimmy doesn't know his mother said his name before she died, but the audience does. They can find ways. :)

[PeterPirate]

7 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

But Howard owning Chuck's share is not a done deal -- he still owes him $6 mil. 

Interesting point. I would say the transfer of ownership occurred when Chuck took the first check from Howard and walked out of HHM. At the point of his death, Chuck had $3 million and a receivable for another $6 million, but no equity in HHM.  

But if Chuck didn't cash the check and it was burned up in the fire, then there is no evidence the transaction occurred. Could be the grounds for a huge legal fight between Jimmy and Howard next season.  That check is going to be the BCS version of the Letters of Transit.

[smorbie]

Just now, LoneHaranguer said:

I think it would have been enough for Chuck if it seemed like Jimmy had money to spend he shouldn't.

Lost in Space was set 20 years ago; there must be an ongoing government coverup.

oh, that's fer sure.  Yesterday, I happened upon another documentary entitled Blood Drive.  It was set in 1999 when oil was 500 dollars a barrel and people were fueling their cars with blood instead.

Seriously, don't look for it, don't watch.  It's too stupid for words.  Mike and the bots wouldn't even touch it, it was so bad.

2 minutes ago, mattie0808 said:

Fear not! Do not assume our writers will let such things as death and limited character POV stop them! Remember, Jimmy doesn't know his mother said his name before she died, but the audience does. They can find ways. :)

Heretofore those ways were mainly Chuck.  But, with him gone and mom and dad long in their graves, I'm not really sure how that's going to happen unless Santa Claus happens along with his knowledge of Jimmy's good and bad doins as a kid.

[DrSpaceman73]

5 hours ago, millennium said:

That space blanket will like totally protect Chuck.   I saw this awesome episode of Lost In Space  where the Robinsons have to survive a supernova so they bundle themselves up in space blankets and take a siesta.  Worst thing that happens?   They wake up thirsty.    Salud, Chuck!

That's funny,

 

Which reminds me, as much as I loved Breaking Bad, some of the scenarios there were pretty far fetched, even if they were dramatic to see.  The machine gun in the trunk in the finale?  The poisoned bottle of alcohol and resulting chaos?  those two stand out. 

At the other end, some worked great.  The bombing of the nursing home to kill Gus for one, just classic.  And I would add, that scene is all the more powerful to me now knowing more of the history between those two.

It was hit and miss in that show though with some of the scenarios and believability.  At least on BCS, everything has been very believable

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, PeterPirate said:

Interesting point. I would say the transfer of ownership occurred when Chuck took the first check from Howard and walked out of HHM. At the point of his death, Chuck had $3 million and a receivable for another $6 million, but no equity in HHM.  

But if Chuck didn't cash the check and it was burned up in the fire, then there is no evidence the transaction occurred. Could be the grounds for a huge legal fight between Jimmy and Howard next season.  That check is going to be the BCS version of the Letters of Transit.

Anybody remember back to the time of the billboard?  It wasn't Chuck's sartorial choices Jimmy was emulating.  Jimmy regarded Howard as the enemy and was attempting to get under his skin with the image.

Things between Jimmy and Howard had evened out once it was revealed that Chuck was the one who stonewalled Jimmy's entry to HHM.  I think they're both going to now be laying blame at the other's feet, and battling it out over HHM.

[ShadowFacts]

2 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Interesting point. I would say the transfer of ownership occurred when Chuck took the first check from Howard and walked out of HHM. At the point of his death, Chuck had $3 million and a receivable for another $6 million, but no equity in HHM.  

But if Chuck didn't cash the check and it was burned up in the fire, then there is no evidence the transaction occurred. Could be the grounds for a huge legal fight between Jimmy and Howard next season.  That check is going to be the BCS version of the Letters of Transit.

I'm terrible at predicting, but I am pretty sure of the fact that Jimmy vs. Howard will take up a lot of Jimmy's time in his year off.  We didn't see Chuck sign anything, I doubt that would have been done offscreen.  Even if the partnership was dissolved via him walking out with a check, his estate will still need to be paid and Jimmy will be on that with guns blazing.   

[smorbie]

1 minute ago, Tikichick said:

Anybody remember back to the time of the billboard?  It wasn't Chuck's sartorial choices Jimmy was emulating.  Jimmy regarded Howard as the enemy and was attempting to get under his skin with the image.

Things between Jimmy and Howard had evened out once it was revealed that Chuck was the one who stonewalled Jimmy's entry to HHM.  I think they're both going to now be laying blame at the other's feet, and battling it out over HHM.

IF he's even the heir.  We don't know that anymore than we know the show will be back next year.  For all we know, Chuck left everything to the ex or to some law library, or even the electric company.

My bet would be that, though, (since we're spit ballin) that Chuck died without a will, or that he had a holographic will that burned up in the fire.  But my first guess is that he didn't have one at all.  He just doesn't seem to have that kind of foresight into himself.

[mattie0808]

4 minutes ago, smorbie said:

Heretofore those ways were mainly Chuck.  But, with him gone and mom and dad long in their graves, I'm not really sure how that's going to happen unless Santa Claus happens along with his knowledge of Jimmy's good and bad doins as a kid.

I guess I don't think anything is stopping the show from doing a flashback from the POV of a dead character? Or one that provides us information not available to Jimmy? To me the cold opens provide the audience context or foreshadowing or other information, and aren't meant to be literal flashbacks/memories the current characters are having... I'd think if the writers want to, there'd be little issue with them doing a Chuck flashback where we see or learn something Jimmy never did?

[smorbie]

Just now, mattie0808 said:

I guess I don't think anything is stopping the show from doing a flashback from the POV of a dead character? Or one that provides us information not available to Jimmy? To me the cold opens provide the audience context or foreshadowing or other information, and aren't meant to be literal flashbacks/memories the current characters are having... I'd think if the writers want to, there'd be little issue with them doing a Chuck flashback where we see or learn something Jimmy never did?

I think that's a good point.  Those cold openings aren't flashbacks in the sense that they are something remembered, but they are cues to the audience.

Tikichick, you can come out of the corner, now honey.  Mattie fixed it.

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, smorbie said:

IF he's even the heir.  We don't know that anymore than we know the show will be back next year.  For all we know, Chuck left everything to the ex or to some law library, or even the electric company.

My bet would be that, though, (since we're spit ballin) that Chuck died without a will, or that he had a holographic will that burned up in the fire.  But my first guess is that he didn't have one at all.  He just doesn't seem to have that kind of foresight into himself.

First off, bite your tongue.  Self soothing in the corner isn't going to cut it if I have to contemplate my show not coming back.  I realize the deal isn't struck yet, however I did notice a promo for a new AMC series running during the commercial breaks "from the producer of Breaking Bad".  That's a good indication AMC wants to keep the talent in their stable.

Secondly, I agree, we don't know for certain Jimmy is the heir.  Third, I agree that Chuck is most likely to have died intestate because he was victim to his own inner control freak.  

I'm contemplating the chimp with a law license and the funds to pay the exorbitant malpractice insurance and an appetite for a flashy Caddy and less than subtle TV commercials. 

[smorbie]

Tiki, honey, remember your colors.  The world will keep spinning even if the show doesn't.  Trust me.  I had to kiss Bates Motel goodbye earlier this year.

Darn you!  purple pillow, pink mouse, red book...

[Dev F]

28 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

I think it would have been enough for Chuck if it seemed like Jimmy had money to spend he shouldn't.

Chuck tells Kim that he was away at college when his dad put Jimmy to work in the store, so I don't think he would've been there to witness any suspicious spending. My assumption was that Chuck just reckoned backward when he reviewed his dad's books much later -- Jimmy started working in the store at age nine, and money had been disappearing all along, so Jimmy must've been stealing it -- but perhaps he had seen nine-year-old Jimmy doing something specific when he came home to visit that in retrospect seemed to confirm what the books were indicating.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Dev F

[smorbie]

2 minutes ago, Dev F said:

Chuck tells Kim that he was away at college when his dad put Jimmy to work in the store, so I don't think he would've been there to witness any suspicious spending. My assumption was that Chuck just reckoned backward when he reviewed his dad's books much later -- Jimmy started working in the store at age nine, and money had been disappearing all along, so Jimmy must've been stealing it -- but perhaps he had seen nine-year-old Jimmy doing something specific when he came home to visit that in retrospect seemed to confirm what the books were indicating.

You may be right.  He keeps coming back to the age of 9, so it points to something happening then.  If we are pretending that Chuck was 10 years older (though he's obviously MUCH older than that), then he would have gone to college at 18 and maybe away to college at 19 or 20.  That's why I was thinking he was isolating that as the age Jimmy started slippin.

But, even at that, it just seems SO much more personal than petty theft from the till, doesn't it?  There's so much resentment and rage in Chuck.  And poor Jimmy (I know, I KNOW, but I'm thinking of the little boy Jimmy) was just...oblivious to it all.

[PeterPirate]

It's also possible that Jimmy started slipping when/because Chuck went away to college.  I surmise that Jimmy started getting into trouble at school at that point.   

Edited June 22, 2017 by PeterPirate

[Tikichick]

2 minutes ago, smorbie said:

You may be right.  He keeps coming back to the age of 9, so it points to something happening then.  If we are pretending that Chuck was 10 years older (though he's obviously MUCH older than that), then he would have gone to college at 18 and maybe away to college at 19 or 20.  That's why I was thinking he was isolating that as the age Jimmy started slippin.

But, even at that, it just seems SO much more personal than petty theft from the till, doesn't it?  There's so much resentment and rage in Chuck.  And poor Jimmy (I know, I KNOW, but I'm thinking of the little boy Jimmy) was just...oblivious to it all.

I've frankly assumed part of it is that it was an extreme hardship for Chuck to attend college and that most of the burden was on Chuck, but that things really went sideways when Jimmy was nine and now there was absolutely no support forthcoming for Chuck from home.   I have the feeling that somehow much of Chuck's recollection or perception of it all was twisted up by something, and I've honestly wondered several times if Chuck messed up somehow, made it through the situation by the skin of his teeth and cannot face his responsibility for whatever happened.

I really wanted the opportunity for the deep dive into the reality of what made Chuck tick, realizing it probably has ties somehow into the origination of Slippin' Jimmy as well. 

[smorbie]

9 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

I've frankly assumed part of it is that it was an extreme hardship for Chuck to attend college and that most of the burden was on Chuck, but that things really went sideways when Jimmy was nine and now there was absolutely no support forthcoming for Chuck from home.   I have the feeling that somehow much of Chuck's recollection or perception of it all was twisted up by something, and I've honestly wondered several times if Chuck messed up somehow, made it through the situation by the skin of his teeth and cannot face his responsibility for whatever happened.

I really wanted the opportunity for the deep dive into the reality of what made Chuck tick, realizing it probably has ties somehow into the origination of Slippin' Jimmy as well. 

You could be onto something.  There's more to it than Jimmy was taking from the till, as odious as that was.  There's clearly something that affected Chuck.

[DrSpaceman73]

I forgot my favorite part of the episode. 

Jimmy's American Somoa college of law T shirt. 

[smorbie]

Just now, DrSpaceman73 said:

I forgot my favorite part of the episode. 

Jimmy's American Somoa college of law T shirt. 

I didn't even notice that.  I love it.