S03.E10: Lantern

[PeterPirate]

6 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!

For that matter, the character Seven in Star Trek Voyager wore an extra-extra-extra-tight-fitting uniform made from a special material to help her skin regenerate after she was rescued from the Borg.  They could make something like that to help Chuck recover from his near-life-threatening burns. They could probably go easy on the tight-fitting part, though.

And if that doesn't work, I understand there is a pie-maker out there with magical powers who likes to bring people named Chuck back to life. 

[smorbie]

I'm not big on the tight-fitting uniform idea, and I don't understand the pie maker reference.

But, maybe Superman saved him.  Or maybe he'll come out with just his face burnt and he can put make up like like the joker.

[benteen]

Breaking Bad often had flashbacks with characters that had just died.

With Chuck having had his relationship with HHM severed and having severed his relationship with Jimmy, I just don't see the storyline purpose of Extra Crispy Chuck still being alive.  I have thought for a while that he was long dead and one of the reasons that Jimmy becomes Saul.  Chuck was a great character but he has served his purpose.  To me, the future is seeing how Chuck's death with affect Jimmy and to a lesser extent Howard.

I have no doubt we'll get flashbacks with Chuck.

Edited June 22, 2017 by benteen

[torontomeridith]

I forgot my favorite part of the episode. 

Jimmy's American Somoa college of law T shirt. 

I own the T-shirt: https://www.teepublic.com/t-shirt/149383-bcs-university-of-american-samoa-law-school

[Madding crowd]

I was mostly satisfied with the way things played out with a few exceptions. Too much of Chuck tearing the house apart. They could have cut that in half and we would get the idea. I assume Chuck is gone and will appear in flashbacks but I don't need to know anything else. Many times there is no real reason for animosity among family members that makes sense to outsiders. My husband really dislikes one of his brothers and says once their mother dies (she is 87), they won't talk to each other again-I can't pinpoint the reason. 

I enjoyed Nacho's story this season but don't want to see a lot of the drug cartel. I don't really need to see more of Gus or Hector to understand their characters. I have long felt that their should have been a separate show for those who want background stories for the drug cartels-I had enough in BB. I'm guessing there isn't enough story to go around with just Jimmy and his law associates, but then they need to end the show (IMO).

I really disliked Jimmy for the way he treated Irene but having him just reverse his actions didn't make sense to me.  If you want to portray Jimmy as the type of guy who would take an old ladies friends away-just do it and commit to it whether it makes people hate Jimmy or not. 

I would be interested in learning more about the personal lives and backstories of Howard and Kim. I would rather see that then more drug deals. 

[ShadowFacts]

Chuck's house was looking quite good with the daylight and electrical light.  I guess flashbacks will have to take place somewhere else.  I think I saw a jug of Costco maple syrup in Chuck's fridge.  I wonder who made the Costco run for him because that place is a sensory punch even if you don't have anxieties. 

[DrSpaceman73]

9 minutes ago, Madding crowd said:

I was mostly satisfied with the way things played out with a few exceptions. Too much of Chuck tearing the house apart. They could have cut that in half and we would get the idea. I assume Chuck is gone and will appear in flashbacks but I don't need to know anything else. Many times there is no real reason for animosity among family members that makes sense to outsiders. My husband really dislikes one of his brothers and says once their mother dies (she is 87), they won't talk to each other again-I can't pinpoint the reason. 

I enjoyed Nacho's story this season but don't want to see a lot of the drug cartel. I don't really need to see more of Gus or Hector to understand their characters. I have long felt that their should have been a separate show for those who want background stories for the drug cartels-I had enough in BB. I'm guessing there isn't enough story to go around with just Jimmy and his law associates, but then they need to end the show (IMO).

I really disliked Jimmy for the way he treated Irene but having him just reverse his actions didn't make sense to me.  If you want to portray Jimmy as the type of guy who would take an old ladies friends away-just do it and commit to it whether it makes people hate Jimmy or not. 

I would be interested in learning more about the personal lives and backstories of Howard and Kim. I would rather see that then more drug deals. 

I cant imagine Howard's story being that interesting.  As a character he is more of a personification of the law firm and what it represents, like the figurehead and voice of the company Chuck work's for, their views of things.  He is a necessary character for that purpose, but not that interesting, IMO. 

Kim I would like to know more about, wouldn't mind that. 

[Madding crowd]

Howard isn't that interesting based on what we have been given, but the writer's can come up with anything they want. The alternative is more drug cartel stuff, more of Jimmy's scams. I'm not sure how much. 'New' they can come up with regarding those things-we certainly spent a lot of time retreading Chuck and his issues this season. But you may be right and Howard remains a blank background character. 

[Tikichick]

6 minutes ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

I cant imagine Howard's story being that interesting.  As a character he is more of a personification of the law firm and what it represents, like the figurehead and voice of the company Chuck work's for, their views of things.  He is a necessary character for that purpose, but not that interesting, IMO. 

Kim I would like to know more about, wouldn't mind that. 

I think we will likely see a lot of Howard battling it out with Jimmy, hammer and tong.

I can think of a lot of ways Howard's story could be interesting.   I had thought a lot about what Howard likely put up with joining the firm with his father and Chuck, knowing Chuck's penchant for exacting detail.  Got me to thinking what Howard's father is/was like -- and what his history with Chuck might have been like.  My gut instinct has always been he may have been an overbearing piece of work who possibly mentored Chuck -- and never let him forget it for a moment.  

Kim Wexler is one of the most interesting and best female roles on the large or small screen for a very, very long time.  If she departs our storyline I pray she does so on her own terms and in a position of strength and guided by her own sense of direction.

[Captanne]

2 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

Kim Wexler is one of the most interesting and best female roles on the large or small screen for a very, very long time.  If she departs our storyline I pray she does so on her own terms and in a position of strength and guided by her own sense of direction.

Wow, so true.  Well said.

[smorbie]

I'm actually totally content to let the characters of Howard and Kim lie.  To me they have always been ancillary to Jimmy.  As interesting and finely drawn as they are, they still orbit around him.

As for the cartel stuff, my son keeps assuring me their stories and Jimmy's will meet at some point.  But, I'm not certain I care enough to watch.

I can't oversell how boring I find that story line.  I don't even watch it.  I read on here all the time what a fine actor the guy plays Nacho is.  I dunno, maybe he is.  I don't watch him.  People talk about how menacing Hector is.  Hector speaks mostly Spanish, so I pay no attention to him at all.  I know who he was in BB, but I honestly only paid attention to him there because his story dovetailed with the main characters.

[Captanne]

I love the cartel storyline but mainly because I adore Mike.  He and I go way back -- to "Wiseguy".  The LOVE I had for that character in Wiseguy knows no bounds.

I also really like Nacho and Gus Fring.  Hector is great but I don't feel affinity for him as much.

[Quilt Fairy]

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 9:27 AM, Eulipian 5k said:

All that time mastering the Dewey Decimal System;, gone the way of the buggy whip and cassettes?

Dewey is still around, at least for cataloging physical books in the library.  And similar to the card catalog, I like being able to go to a shelf and peruse the array of  what's available on a particular subject.  And then you see all the tangential things on the next shelf and the tangential things on the shelf below and then you see -- ooh, shiny!.........  ;-)

 I guess there will come a day when libraries don't have books.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Quilt Fairy

[benteen]

1 hour ago, Tikichick said:

I think we will likely see a lot of Howard battling it out with Jimmy, hammer and tong.

I can think of a lot of ways Howard's story could be interesting.   I had thought a lot about what Howard likely put up with joining the firm with his father and Chuck, knowing Chuck's penchant for exacting detail.  Got me to thinking what Howard's father is/was like -- and what his history with Chuck might have been like.  My gut instinct has always been he may have been an overbearing piece of work who possibly mentored Chuck -- and never let him forget it for a moment.  

Kim Wexler is one of the most interesting and best female roles on the large or small screen for a very, very long time.  If she departs our storyline I pray she does so on her own terms and in a position of strength and guided by her own sense of direction.

Kim really is an excellent character.  There really aren't a lot of prominent female characters on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul when you think about it and Kim is one of the few ones.

[ghoulina]

18 hours ago, J----av said:

It took 4 full seasons for Walt to become Heisenberg. It will probably take the same for Jimmy to become Saul. Vince Gilligan will take his time and do Jimmy's transformation the right way

Absolutely. I wouldn't want them to rush right into it. But I just feel the story is lacking some variety. Walt's transition involved many external factors. With Jimmy/Saul, it feels (at this point) like it's all Chuck, Chuck, Chuck. If that's all it is, I'd prefer they shorten the series and not drag it out as long as BB. If there's more to the evolution, let's get to it. I'm not itching for 100% Saul to emerge, but it just feels like a lot of rehashed storylines, to me. 

[Tikichick]

44 minutes ago, Captanne said:

I love the cartel storyline but mainly because I adore Mike.  He and I go way back -- to "Wiseguy".  The LOVE I had for that character in Wiseguy knows no bounds.

I also really like Nacho and Gus Fring.  Hector is great but I don't feel affinity for him as much.

Don't get me wrong, the cartel storyline is well done.  Maybe that's part of my problem.  I've noticed when the show focuses a lot on the cartel storyline I get incredibly tense.  Mike, Nacho, Gus, Hector -- absolutely fabulous performances by each and every actor, kudos, standing o.  That said, I like watching Mike and Nacho.  Hector and Gus make me twitchy.  Hector's malevolence is right out there in the open.  Gus is currently in a phase where he could fool you if you hadn't seen him on Breaking Bad.  I at least understand a bit of where Gus' ruthlessness comes from.

Hector is one of those characters who simply terrifies me.  I had a similar reaction when Bobby Cannavale brought Gyp Rosetti to life on Boardwalk Empire for those who are familiar with that show. 

Breaking Bad left me anxious and in knots.  BCS does the same when it focuses on the cartel.  The fact that BCS has so much lightness and humor outside of that realm really drove that point home to me.  I've decided I'm enjoying the "lighter" side of the McGill Brothers' Greek tragedy and those in their orbit. 

42 minutes ago, benteen said:

Kim really is an excellent character.  There really aren't a lot of prominent female characters on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul when you think about it and Kim is one of the few ones.

If you really look at her there aren't many female roles anything like hers in television or movies, period.  She's involved with Jimmy and she's in Jimmy's orbit for sure.  But that's not anywhere near scratching the surface of Kim Wexler. 

[Captanne]

The fellow who plays Hector Salamanca is utterly terrifying.  It helps that the character is so convincingly terrifying to those who play opposite him (Nacho in particular.  That actor's fear is palpable.  But he's also formidable.)

I'm so sad to know that Salamanca ultimately "gets his man", so to speak.

[Clanstarling]

6 hours ago, Tikichick said:

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.)

I speculated a little about Chuck having no will, but I didn't think of a good reason why he wouldn't - but you came up with a very logical one. 

6 hours 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.

Just saying - you can love some one a lot and still not respect their choices. 

5 hours ago, qtpye said:

• 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.

My brother was much older than me as well. In our case, he was the Jimmy (in most of the ways, except being a scammer) - and I was the one who protected him as much as I could from our father - who was Chuck on steroids. Yep, this show always makes me think of my family dynamics.

[Clanstarling]

3 hours ago, smorbie said:

I'm not big on the tight-fitting uniform idea, and I don't understand the pie maker reference.

But, maybe Superman saved him.  Or maybe he'll come out with just his face burnt and he can put make up like like the joker.

The pie maker refers to the show Pushing Daisies, where a pie maker has the ability to bring the dead back to life with a touch (but then he can't touch them again, as I recall). I only watched a few episodes. It was very popular, but it didn't really click for me.

[smorbie]

1 hour ago, Quilt Fairy said:

Dewey is still around, at least for cataloging physical books in the library.  And similar to the card catalog, I like being able to go to a shelf and peruse the array of  what's available on a particular subject.  And then you see all the tangential things on the next shelf and the tangential things on the shelf below and then you see -- ooh, shiny!.........  ;-)

 I guess there will come a day when libraries don't have books.

You know it's heartbreaking.  I can't tell you the number of times I went to the library in search of something and found a whole different treasure I never knew existed.

[PeterPirate]

8 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

4 hours ago, smorbie said:

I'm not big on the tight-fitting uniform idea, and I don't understand the pie maker reference.

But, maybe Superman saved him.  Or maybe he'll come out with just his face burnt and he can put make up like like the joker.

The pie maker refers to the show Pushing Daisies, where a pie maker has the ability to bring the dead back to life with a touch (but then he can't touch them again, as I recall). I only watched a few episodes. It was very popular, but it didn't really click for me.

And the lead female character in Pushing Daisies was Charlotte "Chuck" Charles.

[DrSpaceman73]

3 hours ago, Tikichick said:

I think we will likely see a lot of Howard battling it out with Jimmy, hammer and tong.

I can think of a lot of ways Howard's story could be interesting.   I had thought a lot about what Howard likely put up with joining the firm with his father and Chuck, knowing Chuck's penchant for exacting detail.  Got me to thinking what Howard's father is/was like -- and what his history with Chuck might have been like.  My gut instinct has always been he may have been an overbearing piece of work who possibly mentored Chuck -- and never let him forget it for a moment.  

Kim Wexler is one of the most interesting and best female roles on the large or small screen for a very, very long time.  If she departs our storyline I pray she does so on her own terms and in a position of strength and guided by her own sense of direction.

If learning more about Howard means more Chuck, then I am not interested.  And if it involves more legal wrangling between Jimmy and Howard, again, not interested. I've had enough of that character and those stories. 

would much rather learn more about Kim. 

[LoneHaranguer]

5 hours 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.

Depends on what Jimmy did with the money; if Chuck saw Jimmy with expensive items, like sports memorabilia, he wouldn't have had to be around when Jimmy bought them.

[JudyObscure]

I

3 hours ago, Tikichick said:

Kim Wexler is one of the most interesting and best female roles on the large or small screen for a very, very long time. 

I agree, she is intensely independent, committed to her own moral code,  very intelligent, and is  soft spoken and kind.  That's a combination you almost never get with women characters in TV or movies.  Too many times the writer's concept of "strong woman," is "woman who acts like redneck man."

[Jextella]

delete

Edited June 22, 2017 by Jextella
edit

[PeterPirate]

I suppose a tent scene was the best way to work in a lantern.  I still think they dubbed in Michael McKean's voice. 

 

Kim is my favorite too. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by PeterPirate

[qtpye]

Quote

Kim really is an excellent character.  There really aren't a lot of prominent female characters on Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul when you think about it and Kim is one of the few ones.

If you really look at her there aren't many female roles anything like hers in television or movies, period.  She's involved with Jimmy and she's in Jimmy's orbit for sure.  But that's not anywhere near scratching the surface of Kim Wexler. 

So many writers are lazy with female characters.  There is even a Seinfeld episode where they talk about how they have no idea about how to write women.  It is like women are not regular human beings with complex range of emotions.  The idea of successful women on t.v. is one who magically is impeccably groomed, wears all the latest fashions, and obsesses about her love life and nothing else.   We are told she is successful, but never see her put in any hard work, beyond showing up.    In contrast Kim is hard working, kind, very attractive, but does not have tailor made clothing, and has more interests then getting a ring on her finger.

Television is getting better, but Kim is still one of the stand out female characters and I appreciate Gilligan for that.

[ShadowFacts]

4 hours ago, Tikichick said:

Breaking Bad left me anxious and in knots.  BCS does the same when it focuses on the cartel.  The fact that BCS has so much lightness and humor outside of that realm really drove that point home to me.  I've decided I'm enjoying the "lighter" side of the McGill Brothers' Greek tragedy and those in their orbit. 

Same here.  I have been happy for the relative low level of violence, but I'm always expecting mayhem.  For example, I was sure something terrible was going to happen to Nacho and/or his father, but nope.  I appreciated that.  I also like the lighter touch of this show, though I've noticed a bit of a lack of humor in this season.  It's been pretty dark.  Painful stuff like what Jimmy and Chuck have been doing don't lend themselves to as much humor, I suppose. 

[Jextella]

21 hours 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.

 

21 hours 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. 

 

14 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

I suppose a tent scene was the best way to work in a lantern.  I still think they dubbed in Michael McKean's voice. 

 

Yes to the lantern (and baseball bat and bandaid box).  

But.....I can't help but wonder....the tent scene bore a striking resemblance to that of the Kettlemans'.   Backyard camping filmed at night 'n all.

The Kettlemans were trying to escape danger by camping in their own backyard.  I wonder if Chuck and Jimmy used backyard camping as a means of escaping some undesirable activity going on in their house too.  

Seemed wierd that an older teen would camp outside and read books to a much younger brother.  Or maybe not.  I guess those with siblings spaced far apart would know better than me.  On the flip side, it sure did demonstrate a ton of love on Chuck's part.  And how he encouraged Jimmy to think Mabel would make it out of the forest conveyed a ton of care as well.  

For Chuck to turn so far against Jimmy had to be the result of something major.  

Seems something is up with Mr. and Mrs. McGill. Not sure what, but...something.  But, I also like the possibility that Chuck did something wrong and it was the pain/guilt/whatever that did him in.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Jextella

[TVFan17]

On ‎6‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 8:37 AM, Bryce Lynch said:

And apparently space blankets are flame retardant...I'm just sayin'! :)  Seriously, I am 99.9% sure Chuck is dead.  I just think they should have either made it clear on the show or have the cast and crew keep their mouths shut until the season 4 premiere.   

Yes.  I agree with this completely.  Upon first viewing of the episode I was trying to ponder other possibilities for Chuck, should he escape the fire (and go hide under a dumpster!), that didn't involve actually dying -- but still had a huge impact on Jimmy and meant that Chuck was no longer on the show.  In other words, everything terrible could happen except for death, just to leave the possibility open for Jimmy/Saul/Gene to reunite with Chuck at the end of the series or something. 

But then Michael McKean started speaking up about how Chuck is dead, as far as he is concerned.  So that pretty much cleared it up and established that he is dead.

However, you're absolutely right that they should have either made it 100% clear on the show (specifically Talking Saul, but BCS as well), or everyone should have kept quiet and said nothing to leave everyone in suspense.  All or nothing -- make it obvious or don't say anything.

If Chuck is dead -- and it sounds like he is, according to Michael -- I actually thought the death was a bit underwhelming and lackluster.  I wanted something with a little more impact and shock, and something that left no doubt whatsoever about Chuck's fate.  This left a teeny tiny shred of doubt at first.

For some reason, kicking the lantern over and starting a fire didn't really give me that moment of shock and drama that I wanted, and I can't explain why.  I'm not even sure why, but it was a tad anticlimactic.   Sitting there and letting himself burn to death would have to be one of the worst possible ways to leave this world, but I actually thought that it was more jarring and unsettling when he banged his head at the copy place!

[Irlandesa]

16 hours 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?

I think the writers are pretty sure. I think the intent was that he died.  But they haven't started breaking the fourth season yet so I think they want to give themselves some wiggle room.

17 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

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.

I don't think Howard was all that fooled.  As soon as the insurance company left, he got up to turn off the lights because he wanted Chuck comfortable for what he was about to suggest.  When Chuck thought Howard was trying to boot him because of his condition, he got up, turned on the lights, grabbed one of the table lights and said he was fine.  Howard just looked at him, sadly, and said that wasn't what fine looked like.  MM's maniacal look there was terrific. 

15 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

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

He does but when Howard gave him a check for three million, he said it was the first of three payments per their partnership agreement.  So there is obviously some plan on how to remove one of the partners from the firm that allows for staggered payments.  And that's why I'm curious if the will matters.  If they could get rid of Chuck, they could probably get rid of his heirs if they wanted to.  We'll see if Howard is willing to put up his money then.

15 hours ago, smorbie said:

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.

Just like Prince.  So meticulous in his rights and business affairs that it was staggering to discover he didn't have a will.

1 hour ago, TVFan17 said:

For some reason, kicking the lantern over and starting a fire didn't really give me that moment of shock and drama that I wanted, and I can't explain why.  I'm not even sure why, but it was a tad anticlimactic.   Sitting there and letting himself burn to death would have to be one of the worst possible ways to leave this world, but I actually thought that it was more jarring and unsettling when he banged his head at the copy place!

I think the fact that it was a suicide surprised me but Chuck's death by lantern didn't.  We have had Chekhov's lantern all season long and then they go and basically confirm it by titling this episode "lantern."

While it wasn't that shocking, I was actually satisfied by it.  It felt very earned with the feud leading to Howard being done with him, Jimmy's con leading Chuck to try to get better, then the big regression when Chuck had already done too much damage to his reputation.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Irlandesa

[Christina]

When I first checked the thread after the episode aired, there were like five posts. When I checked the second time, there were five pages, and many people had stated that it was clear Chuck was dead and that everyone seemed to agree, which I why I posted that, while watching the episode, I didn't take away that he was dead, and the aftershow where Gould said they hadn't decided, but if not, they would bring him back in flashbacks, made me think I was right that he wouldn't die. Then, Michael McKean said he was dead, but I don't care, because the show didn't show me that, and that ending to his character sucked for this show.

21 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

I see what you're saying, but what was he doing then? 

This was addressed better by someone else, but during that scene, he was practically frozen in place, his eyes were slits and not wide open, and it took multiple kicks to knock over that lamp. It would have been one major one or a thrust to the papers to send that lantern falling off the table, and they didn't go that route. They, of course, want it to be in dispute, I think, and if he comes back, they will say he was in a psychosis.

19 hours 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?

This was also addressed better by someone else, and a bit in my comment above, but I think McKean is going to get an Emmy and come to the table in a better position during contract negotiations. It sounds like he is contractually obligated at the moment, which is why they are throwing out there that he would return in flashbacks, but the minimal time from that versus the full time of a main player equals more money. However, I can't back up my theory with any facts at this time.

3 hours ago, TVFan17 said:

However, you're absolutely right that they should have either made it 100% clear on the show (specifically Talking Saul, but BCS as well), or everyone should have kept quiet and said nothing to leave everyone in suspense.  All or nothing -- make it obvious or don't say anything.

If Chuck is dead -- and it sounds like he is, according to Michael -- I actually thought the death was a bit underwhelming and lackluster.  I wanted something with a little more impact and shock, and something that left no doubt whatsoever about Chuck's fate.  This left a teeny tiny shred of doubt at first.

For some reason, kicking the lantern over and starting a fire didn't really give me that moment of shock and drama that I wanted, and I can't explain why.  I'm not even sure why, but it was a tad anticlimactic.   Sitting there and letting himself burn to death would have to be one of the worst possible ways to leave this world, but I actually thought that it was more jarring and unsettling when he banged his head at the copy place!

I totally agree with your post, including the portion I cut from the quote to save room. 

If he comes back to the show as not dead, I don't think that they will have the space blanket save him, but more that a neighbor saw the flames, called the fire department, and managed to get in and grab him because the flames went the other direction, toward all the debris they made a point of showing, leading to Chuck. You can see it in the clip posted above, too. 

11 hours ago, JudyObscure said:

I agree, she is intensely independent, committed to her own moral code,  very intelligent, and is soft spoken and kind.  That's a combination you almost never get with women characters in TV or movies.  Too many times the writer's concept of "strong woman," is "woman who acts like redneck man."

I'm really enjoying Claws, which has only aired two episodes, even though I think the women portrayed on that show are at the other end of the spectrum of soft spoken and kind, but I still see them as strong women.

There was an old episode of Psych on tonight (and most nights), and the women in that show were great, too. The Chief of Police was pregnant one season, and was always shown as stern and not bitchy, and the female detective was just shown as competent. The main character and his sidekick (Dule Hill was way more than a sidekick, and I still want a Myles Velour music cd) are always calling the female detective, as opposed to her male partner, or deferring to her when she's around. They did have to make the main male character and the female detective fall in love, though; a trope I hope dies in a fire like Chuck. They allowed the two detective partners to just become friends, which is a plus when writing for women. It's also a little thing I appreciate about Adam Ruins Everything. 

The women of Breaking Bad would pretty multifaceted, too. It's one of the reasons I can't understand Gould and Anna Gunn's confusion of the Skylar hate. Of course, they always compared her to Walt, and Gould insists that those of us who don't like her feel that way because she was a foil for Walt, when it's because she was written as a crappy person herself; to me, Walt's behavior doesn't cancel out hers.

Of course, I digress and write a book because my insomnia is kicking my butt, again. oooh a rerun of Dr. Who is on; I will go watch it and return to another three pages of comments on this forum. The sign of a good show. Uggg...Rose Tyler. Whiny woman, always screaming for a man to help her from alien life forms and making moony eyes at him.

[smorbie]

5 hours ago, TVFan17 said:

But then Michael McKean started speaking up about how Chuck is dead, as far as he is concerned.  So that pretty much cleared it up and established that he is dead.

And that's what put the doubt in my head.  I have never, never seen a show end on a cliffhanger where the actor came out and said "Yep, I'm a goner".  That's just strange.  But, it's interesting story telling.  It keeps people engaged in the argument and pushes TPTB at AMC to think about keeping the show.

[Tikichick]

11 hours ago, qtpye said:

So many writers are lazy with female characters.  There is even a Seinfeld episode where they talk about how they have no idea about how to write women.  It is like women are not regular human beings with complex range of emotions.  The idea of successful women on t.v. is one who magically is impeccably groomed, wears all the latest fashions, and obsesses about her love life and nothing else.   We are told she is successful, but never see her put in any hard work, beyond showing up.    In contrast Kim is hard working, kind, very attractive, but does not have tailor made clothing, and has more interests then getting a ring on her finger.

Television is getting better, but Kim is still one of the stand out female characters and I appreciate Gilligan for that.

"You are not feeding me, Jimmy.  There are some lines we do not cross."  Total matter of factness, no histrionics, just gets on with the business of eating her breakfast.  Figures it out on her own and she's fine with that. 

She cares about other people and tries to go about her business as a decent human being.  She presents a pleasant exterior, but it is done in a way to comport with the situation at hand, not the sum total of who she is.  (Everybody needs to let the ponytail go already.  That's not what Kim's about.)

She may love Jimmy, want to spend time with Jimmy and be willing to help him.  If it ended she would probably feel sad and miss him -- and then get up, square her shoulders and handle whatever business needed handling.  The fact this woman has taken a Blockbuster binge timeout is huge.  The one person Kim doesn't allow to slack is Kim.  I think serious winds of change are blowing for Ms. Wexler.

[benteen]

5 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

 

I don't think Howard was all that fooled.  As soon as the insurance company left, he got up to turn off the lights because he wanted Chuck comfortable for what he was about to suggest.  When Chuck thought Howard was trying to boot him because of his condition, he got up, turned on the lights, grabbed one of the table lights and said he was fine.  Howard just looked at him, sadly, and said that wasn't what fine looked like.  MM's maniacal look there was terrific. 

That maniacal look really was awesome.  Chuck also started shaking his hand like it had hurt him to touch it which also didn't help.

I don't see the point in concealing whether or not Chuck died.

Edited June 23, 2017 by benteen

[ShadowFacts]

1 hour ago, Christina said:

This was addressed better by someone else, but during that scene, he was practically frozen in place, his eyes were slits and not wide open, and it took multiple kicks to knock over that lamp. It would have been one major one or a thrust to the papers to send that lantern falling off the table, and they didn't go that route. They, of course, want it to be in dispute, I think, and if he comes back, they will say he was in a psychosis.

I agree it was an odd way to accomplish a lantern fire, and if Chuck is dead, how can it ever be explained, it will never be known.  Unless he left a note (which would have burned anyway) there will be no conclusive proof of suicide, it will probably be ruled accidental.  Although all of the destruction that's not from the fire is going to look strange. 

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, ShadowFacts said:

I agree it was an odd way to accomplish a lantern fire, and if Chuck is dead, how can it ever be explained, it will never be known.  Unless he left a note (which would have burned anyway) there will be no conclusive proof of suicide, it will probably be ruled accidental.  Although all of the destruction that's not from the fire is going to look strange. 

But isn't that kind of fitting for Chuck?  On some level he would relish the fact he confounded everyone.

[qtpye]

1 hour ago, smorbie said:

And that's what put the doubt in my head.  I have never, never seen a show end on a cliffhanger where the actor came out and said "Yep, I'm a goner".  That's just strange.  But, it's interesting story telling.  It keeps people engaged in the argument and pushes TPTB at AMC to think about keeping the show.

"Is Chuck dead?" might become our generation's "Who shot J.R.?"

[Meisty]

On ‎6‎/‎20‎/‎2017 at 7:27 AM, MissBluxom said:

I don't think she's become a slacker. I think she just has serious doubts in her abilities (based on her line, "I could have killed someone") and she is afraid to work as a lawyer for fear of failing her clients. Hopefully this will pass soon.

Didn't Kim feel some guilt over what happened with Chuck and the bar case?  Especially bringing his ex into it.  Now that Chuck died maybe she will feel like she did have something to do with his mental state and death and decide to leave? 

[Tikichick]

This show is always full of so many poetic cinematic moments and this episode was no different.  One of my favorites was Jimmy attempting a bit of "community service" for Kim via headlights at the site of her crash.

So many moments between these two evoke so much symbolism.

[Bryce Lynch]

23 hours ago, smorbie said:

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.

I think nurture is extremely important and free will is also a big factor.  We are all born with a propensity toward some types of character flaws, how we are raised plays a huge role in whether we overcome them, but ultimately we decide whether to fight our character flaws or embrace them.  

I could see putting some blame on Jimmy's parent's for his behavior (though we don't have much info on how they raised him), but I just don't think it is normally considered a sibling's responsibility to nurture and sibling.  It is a great bonus if it happens, but nurturing is mainly a parental responsibility.

23 hours ago, smorbie said:

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.

He wasn't cured but he was doing a much better job dealing with his condition.  When a person struggling with mental illness has his whole world crash around him, there is a high probability of a relapse and progress can be undone.  That doesn't mean the progress wasn't real.  

[Jextella]

3 hours ago, smorbie said:

And that's what put the doubt in my head.  I have never, never seen a show end on a cliffhanger where the actor came out and said "Yep, I'm a goner".  That's just strange.  But, it's interesting story telling.  It keeps people engaged in the argument and pushes TPTB at AMC to think about keeping the show.

I've read that the actors don't get the scripts until absolutely necessary for each episode.  

Patrick Fabian, Michael Mando, and Michael McKean were on the episode of "Talking Saul" that aired after "Lantern". 

It was interesting that they often spoke in first person when referring to their characters, e.g. "I am this", "I felt that".   They were also very emotional and passionate about their characters' experiences.  By not knowing the full scope of the story episode to episode, they end up on the same roller coaster the viewers are on (for the most part) and it clearly has an impact on them. 

As to what happens next or what may have happened in the past, they are in the dark as much as we are.  At least to some degree.

Maybe Chuck's death is an exception.  If these boards are any indication, some have grown weary of the Chuck storyline (discussion on other boards is a bit different in this regard, though).  

Maybe the writers gave Michael a green light to say such a thing to flag the weary ones that Chuck is gone.  Or maybe divulging the information is a mechanism to set the stage for next season in some way.

I dunno.  Just spit-ballin' here.

Edited June 23, 2017 by Jextella

[benteen]

1 hour ago, Meisty said:

Didn't Kim feel some guilt over what happened with Chuck and the bar case?  Especially bringing his ex into it.  Now that Chuck died maybe she will feel like she did have something to do with his mental state and death and decide to leave? 

I didn't think about that but yeah, Chuck's death will have a fallout for Kim too, as well as Jimmy and Howard.  Although I still say Chuck brought that all on himself.

[Bryce Lynch]

23 hours ago, DrSpaceman73 said:

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. 

He actively attempted to get Jimmy disbarred only after Jimmy committed multiple felonies and serious ethical violations by tampering with the Mesa Verde files.  Jimmy deserved to be permanently disbarred ten times over for that illegal and unethical behavior.  Nobody who would pull a stunt like that should ever be allowed to be a lawyer.  Prior to that, while he (wisely) kept Jimmy from practicing at HHM, he didn't try to impede his legal career and even gave him some good advice and encouragement.  That is the opposite of being a control freak.  He didn't like the idea of Jimmy being a lawyer, but he tried to ba as supportive as he ethically thought he could be. 

Chuck genuinely believed that electricity hurt him.  If a person believes something will badly injure of even kill him, wanting to keep that thing away from himself is not being a "control freak".  It is a mentally ill person desperately seeking to avoid psychosomatic pain, that he believes is physical.

Chuck is a bit snobbish and persnickety, but I saw no evidence of him being a control freak.  

[Tikichick]

3 minutes ago, benteen said:

I didn't think about that but yeah, Chuck's death will have a fallout for Kim too, as well as Jimmy and Howard.  Although I still say Chuck brought that all on himself.

As much as any of the three were at odds with Chuck, I don't think any of them wants to see him dead.  Not that I think that's what you're trying to say.

No matter how much he might try to evade and deny it, Chuck is culpable for his situation.

[Bryce Lynch]

8 hours ago, TVFan17 said:

Yes.  I agree with this completely.  Upon first viewing of the episode I was trying to ponder other possibilities for Chuck, should he escape the fire (and go hide under a dumpster!), that didn't involve actually dying -- but still had a huge impact on Jimmy and meant that Chuck was no longer on the show.  In other words, everything terrible could happen except for death, just to leave the possibility open for Jimmy/Saul/Gene to reunite with Chuck at the end of the series or something. 

But then Michael McKean started speaking up about how Chuck is dead, as far as he is concerned.  So that pretty much cleared it up and established that he is dead.

However, you're absolutely right that they should have either made it 100% clear on the show (specifically Talking Saul, but BCS as well), or everyone should have kept quiet and said nothing to leave everyone in suspense.  All or nothing -- make it obvious or don't say anything.

If Chuck is dead -- and it sounds like he is, according to Michael -- I actually thought the death was a bit underwhelming and lackluster.  I wanted something with a little more impact and shock, and something that left no doubt whatsoever about Chuck's fate.  This left a teeny tiny shred of doubt at first.

For some reason, kicking the lantern over and starting a fire didn't really give me that moment of shock and drama that I wanted, and I can't explain why.  I'm not even sure why, but it was a tad anticlimactic.   Sitting there and letting himself burn to death would have to be one of the worst possible ways to leave this world, but I actually thought that it was more jarring and unsettling when he banged his head at the copy place!

I think the ending would have been fine, if the cast and crew had kept their mouths shut.  I thought it was an ending that, while not as dramatic as many, gave me a lot to think about.  First, I thought it was an accident and he was just kicking the table because he was trying to get comfortable or something.  After the suicide prevention hotline # was posted I realized it was suicide or at least an attempt. That made me wonder about why he chose to do it by kicking over the lantern and dying a horrific death in a fire instead of something less painful.  Was he trying to make it look like an accident?  If so, why?  Was he trying to make it even worse on Jimmy and Howard?  Something else?

[Bryce Lynch]

7 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

I think the writers are pretty sure. I think the intent was that he died.  But they haven't started breaking the fourth season yet so I think they want to give themselves some wiggle room.

I don't think Howard was all that fooled.  As soon as the insurance company left, he got up to turn off the lights because he wanted Chuck comfortable for what he was about to suggest.  When Chuck thought Howard was trying to boot him because of his condition, he got up, turned on the lights, grabbed one of the table lights and said he was fine.  Howard just looked at him, sadly, and said that wasn't what fine looked like.  MM's maniacal look there was terrific. 

He does but when Howard gave him a check for three million, he said it was the first of three payments per their partnership agreement.  So there is obviously some plan on how to remove one of the partners from the firm that allows for staggered payments.  And that's why I'm curious if the will matters.  If they could get rid of Chuck, they could probably get rid of his heirs if they wanted to.  We'll see if Howard is willing to put up his money then.

Just like Prince.  So meticulous in his rights and business affairs that it was staggering to discover he didn't have a will.

I think the fact that it was a suicide surprised me but Chuck's death by lantern didn't.  We have had Chekhov's lantern all season long and then they go and basically confirm it by titling this episode "lantern."

While it wasn't that shocking, I was actually satisfied by it.  It felt very earned with the feud leading to Howard being done with him, Jimmy's con leading Chuck to try to get better, then the big regression when Chuck had already done too much damage to his reputation.

I think by this point, Howard didn't want to see any progress in Chuck.  Chuck was fine with the lights on in his presence.  I thought Chuck's "this is not what fine looks like" was a bit unfair.  Chuck was angry because he was Howard was trying to kick him out of the firm he built from the ground up.  The "maniacal" look had more to do with that, and he was showing that he could handle the electricity by picking up the light.  

It was similar to how Jimmy made him seem maniacal. (or at least way more maniacal than he really was).  Being falsely accused of having screwed something up and covering it up with a "crazy" story and having nobody believe you is the sort of thing that can actually put a person int a maniacal state.

[Bryce Lynch]

33 minutes ago, Jextella said:

I've read that the actors don't get the scripts until absolutely necessary for each episode.  

Patrick Fabian, Michael Mando, and Michael McKean were on the episode of "Talking Saul" that aired after "Lantern". 

It was interesting that they often spoke in first person when referring to their characters, e.g. "I am this", "I felt that".   They were also very emotional and passionate about their characters' experiences.  By not knowing the full scope of the story episode to episode, they end up on the same roller coaster the viewers are on (for the most part) and it clearly has an impact on them. 

As to what happens next or what may have happened in the past, they are in the dark as much as we are.  At least to some degree.

Maybe Chuck's death is an exception.  If these boards are any indication, some have grown weary of the Chuck storyline (discussion on other boards is a bit different in this regard, though).  

Maybe the writers gave Michael a green light to say such a thing to flag the weary ones that Chuck is gone.  Or maybe divulging the information is a mechanism to set the stage for next season in some way.

I dunno.  Just spit-ballin' here.

I also noticed how the actors talked about the characters as if they were really them, especially Fabian.  I started to get annoyed with Fabian for being so smug and self righteous, on behalf of Howard, for what he had done to Chuck. :)

Mark Margolis also speaks very much from Hector's perspective in interviews.  In one about Nacho (after he quietly pressured him into beating up Domingo) Margolis said of Nacho something like "I trust him, but I don't think he is ballsy enough."   These actors really get into their characters and it shows in their performances.  I am a bit worried some of them might start dealing drugs or beating people up or something. :)

I forgot who, but one of the actors (or show runners) gave the opposite perspective on a podcast.  When some of them had gone on about how Daniel Day Lewis stayed in character constantly as Lincoln, one of them quoted Olivier saying, "Why don't you just try acting?" :)

Edited June 23, 2017 by Bryce Lynch

[DrSpaceman73]

21 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

He actively attempted to get Jimmy disbarred only after Jimmy committed multiple felonies and serious ethical violations by tampering with the Mesa Verde files.  Jimmy deserved to be permanently disbarred ten times over for that illegal and unethical behavior.  Nobody who would pull a stunt like that should ever be allowed to be a lawyer.  Prior to that, while he (wisely) kept Jimmy from practicing at HHM, he didn't try to impede his legal career and even gave him some good advice and encouragement.  That is the opposite of being a control freak.  He didn't like the idea of Jimmy being a lawyer, but he tried to ba as supportive as he ethically thought he could be. 

Chuck genuinely believed that electricity hurt him.  If a person believes something will badly injure of even kill him, wanting to keep that thing away from himself is not being a "control freak".  It is a mentally ill person desperately seeking to avoid psychosomatic pain, that he believes is physical.

Chuck is a bit snobbish and persnickety, but I saw no evidence of him being a control freak.  

His psychosomatic pain is classic secondary gain in medical terms, which is a classic control issue for patients.  They can't control or deal with things in their life so they create a passive aggressive way of trying to control those around them to help themselves, often leading to extreme problems and adjustments for everyone else besides them. 

And EVERYONE told him it was psychiatric and he refused to believe it or come to terms with it, insisting it was a physical problem and never seeking appropriate treatment for it.  He knew better than everyone else and just expected everyone to accept, come to terms with it and adjust to him.  Control freak. 

[Tikichick]

6 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

He actively attempted to get Jimmy disbarred only after Jimmy committed multiple felonies and serious ethical violations by tampering with the Mesa Verde files.  Jimmy deserved to be permanently disbarred ten times over for that illegal and unethical behavior.  Nobody who would pull a stunt like that should ever be allowed to be a lawyer.  Prior to that, while he (wisely) kept Jimmy from practicing at HHM, he didn't try to impede his legal career and even gave him some good advice and encouragement.  That is the opposite of being a control freak.  He didn't like the idea of Jimmy being a lawyer, but he tried to ba as supportive as he ethically thought he could be. 

Chuck genuinely believed that electricity hurt him.  If a person believes something will badly injure of even kill him, wanting to keep that thing away from himself is not being a "control freak".  It is a mentally ill person desperately seeking to avoid psychosomatic pain, that he believes is physical.

Chuck is a bit snobbish and persnickety, but I saw no evidence of him being a control freak.  

There's a lot of accuracy in what you say, however Chuck is absolutely, most sincerely a control freak.  Think back to the flashback we saw where Rebecca was going to meet Jimmy for the first time.  Chuck was definitely attempting to shape and define her impression before Jimmy arrived.  I believe he was even micromanaging her part in cooking the meal.   He was seriously displeased at dinner and after Jimmy left that Rebecca found Jimmy funny -- that was not the agreed upon narrative.  Look at what happened in the Mesa Verde hearing when the transposition of numbers was raised -- he attempted to shut down anyone else from speaking because HE knew the real facts.  Would Chuck stand for someone else trying to limit the terms of his relationship with someone he was about to meet if his impressions were different?  No.  Would Chuck be willing to sit back silently while someone he was working with indulged their arrogance in an insistence they could never have made the mistake and everyone should defer to that opinion?  No.  That was not the time nor place for that attitude and did not serve his client's interests and the outcome might have been different if he had fallen on his sword in the moment and dealt with what really had gone wrong later.     

I actually believe Chuck's illness is intertwined with his control tendencies.  He attempts to convince himself and everyone else that he is the smartest guy in the room and always is the good guy.  He cannot face the reality when his own motives are less than pure, however he cannot deny them entirely either, hence the illness.   It's no coincidence he unspooled so badly after saying what he did to Jimmy.  He knows what he said is not the truth.  Jimmy may have his faults and flaws, even Jimmy will concede that.  But the situation between Chuck and Jimmy emanates from some long-seeded resentment that only Chuck knew existed, one that it's doubtful a nine year old boy actually instigated.   This week's flashback showed us Chuck loved his little brother.  I don't believe a nine year old's actions could have destroyed that.  I do believe something happened to rock Chuck's world to the core and lit the fuse of resentment -- and probably set him on a path to make sure his world would never be out of his control again.