Jump to content
Forums forums
PRIMETIMER
Tara Ariano

S04.E04: Talk

Recommended Posts

When Ira asked Jimmy if he knew where he could steal more Hummels did anyone else think Jimmy paused for a moment, thinking about whether to tell Ira about Mrs. Strauss and the other Hummel hoarding geezers at Sandpiper before deciding against it?

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Yes, I understand wanting his guys to all be represented by lawyers who were under his control, but using the same one for all 9 was a red flag.  But, to use that same lawyer, to put the cash in the safe deposit boxes, a job that any trusted person could have done, was really foolish.  It seems out of character for Mike to take foolish shortcuts.  He typically meticulously plans his crimes. 

But the whole point was that it was a hastily jury-rigged system, right? Originally all their funds got paid into their offshore accounts, but after Walt's magnet scheme exposed Gus's financials, they had to scramble to set up a new way to keep the hazard pay flowing so no one would be tempted to flip. So it makes sense to me that it was not airtight.

1 hour ago, MissBluxom said:

1) Jimmy's new partner might realize he left the glove and do something dumb like go back to get it.

He did realize he'd left the glove. We see him grab it back the first time Neff leaves the room.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, sempervivum said:

Re. Mike's behavior in the therapy group: how likely is it that his relationship with Anita goes anywhere after his outburst?!

I am wondering if Anita becomes Mike's version of Jesse's Andrea.  

They both met the women in group counseling at the church.

Both women are minorities with somewhat similar, dark, curly hair.

Both of their names start with An and end in a.   

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
22 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I don't know if Mike is a hypocrite for attending grief meetings that Stacey wants him to attend. Doing things that another person wants you to do, and you are inclined to agree to do because that person controls something that is dear to you, doesn't make you a hypocrite.

Not hypocritical for initially acquiescing to go, I agree.  For staying while letting his anger at these people whose style of grief annoys him, a little bit hypocritical.  And not a good look when he releases the anger.  He needed to just quit going. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Dev F said:

But the whole point was that it was a hastily jury-rigged system, right? Originally all their funds got paid into their offshore accounts, but after Walt's magnet scheme exposed Gus's financials, they had to scramble to set up a new way to keep the hazard pay flowing so no one would be tempted to flip. So it makes sense to me that it was not airtight.

But, Mike could normally come up with excellent schemes.  I guess one explanation could be that everyone Mike trusted was in jail.  Still, the safe deposit box scheme was dumb.  It required the lawyer to make regular appearances and to open about 10 boxes in front of a bank employee, and then to have 10 family members of Mike incarcerated guys to come to the bank to open those same boxes, a short time later.   The more I think about it, the more I am convinced the bank employees would have been very suspicious and would have reported it to management or the police.  

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

Not hypocritical for initially acquiescing to go, I agree.  For staying while letting his anger at these people whose style of grief annoys him, a little bit hypocritical.  And not a good look when he releases the anger.  He needed to just quit going. 

I agree he should stop attending, but if the person who controls what you value most wants you to keep attending, that's likely what you are going to do. That's not hypocritical, in my view.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

8 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

Not hypocritical for initially acquiescing to go, I agree.  For staying while letting his anger at these people whose style of grief annoys him, a little bit hypocritical.  And not a good look when he releases the anger.  He needed to just quit going. 

I don't think it was hypocritical to keep going with Stacey, if Stacey thought it helped her.  Plus, I'm not sure Mike felt that way all along.  I think perhaps, the memory he had about young Matt and the cement was about him finally starting to really grieve and the outburst was about him not being able to handle it.  Since Matt's death, he has been very busy scheming to kill the cops who murdered him, getting out of town, helping Stacey and Kaylee, working at the parking lot, doing a couple of jobs for Jimmy, plotting to get Tuco imprisoned, robbing Salamanca trucks, plotting to kill Hector, finding out who was tracking him, doing a job for Gus, etc.   Once he had the big score from the truck robbery and a way to launder it, and quit his job, he clearly got bored, and the boredom may have given him more time to feel the grief.   That might be why he wanted to keep busy by doing his fake Madrigal job for real.  

Edited by Bryce Lynch
  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/28/2018 at 8:47 AM, sempervivum said:

Re. Mike's behavior in the therapy group: how likely is it that his relationship with Anita goes anywhere after his outburst?!

It could go either way.  Anita could realize that Mike was acting to protect the group from a possible scam artist and respond appropriately.  

Mike's relationship with Stacey is also up for grabs.  

Also, I will have to re-watch the scene again, but I didn't get the impression that Mike was bothered by Stacey's sharing about forgetting her husband.  

Edited by PeterPirate · Reason: Change "scam artist" to "possible scam artist".
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Anyone else notice the Esmeralda reference (Marie's inexplicable name for Holly in BB)? Between this and the unsliced pizza of last episode, I'm digging the tiny easter eggs.

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
32 minutes ago, Dev F said:

He did realize he'd left the glove. We see him grab it back the first time Neff leaves the room.

Oh no! My dreams are shattered. But thanks for that info.

Edited by MissBluxom
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, monagatuna said:

Anyone else notice the Esmeralda reference (Marie's inexplicable name for Holly in BB)? Between this and the unsliced pizza of last episode, I'm digging the tiny easter eggs.

Skyler was such a bitch for not letting Marie name her baby. :)

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
19 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:
49 minutes ago, sempervivum said:

Re. Mike's behavior in the therapy group: how likely is it that his relationship with Anita goes anywhere after his outburst?!

It could go either way.  Anita could realize that Mike was acting to protect the group from a scam artist and respond appropriately.  

Mike's relationship with Stacey is also up for grabs.  

Also, I will have to re-watch the scene again, but I didn't get the impression that Mike was bothered by Stacey's sharing about forgetting her husband.  

I definitely was left with the impression that Anita looked shocked or affronted by Mike's accusation.

OTOH, Mike didn't seem shocked or affronted by Stacy's admission, but he could realize that she doesn't have the guilt that colors his grief.

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Have we bet Anita before? I thought this was a rather odd episode, in that it introduced characters and premises as if they had been previously established, like the grief support group Stacy is going to. I mean, has she ever even mentioned that before? Now all of a sudden it's a regular thing and she got Mike to go with her. I don't know, this was just oddly written IMO. The confrontation between Gus and Mike too . . . I didn't really understand what was going on there. So far as I could tell, Nacho was doing everything Gus asked of him, then he had that weird confrontation in a warehouse or whatever where he basically called Gus out on taking over the territory, and next thing you know Gus is calling Mike out on the carpet. WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Have we bet Anita before? I thought this was a rather odd episode, in that it introduced characters and premises as if they had been previously established, like the grief support group Stacy is going to. I mean, has she ever even mentioned that before? Now all of a sudden it's a regular thing and she got Mike to go with her. I don't know, this was just oddly written IMO. The confrontation between Gus and Mike too . . . I didn't really understand what was going on there. So far as I could tell, Nacho was doing everything Gus asked of him, then he had that weird confrontation in a warehouse or whatever where he basically called Gus out on taking over the territory, and next thing you know Gus is calling Mike out on the carpet. WTF?

Anita was in 2 previous episodes, (306 & 307) and she had some fairly extensive interaction with Mike, that suggested she might be a potential love interest.  Stacey and Mike were in the grief counseling in those episodes.  

Gus felt that Mike had broken the spirit of his deal with Gus not to kill Hector (Gus wants to do that in a time and manner of his choosing) by not telling Gus about Nacho's plan to kill Hector, (he might also know that Mike indirectly helped him get the pill casings).  Mike responded that he agreed not to kill Hector, not to be his bodyguard.  

Edited by Bryce Lynch
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
8 minutes ago, sempervivum said:

I definitely was left with the impression that Anita looked shocked or affronted by Mike's accusation.

OTOH, Mike didn't seem shocked or affronted by Stacy's admission, but he could realize that she doesn't have the guilt that colors his grief.

Anita was not happy.  Stacey was not happy.  It was totally inappropriate.  Anita only had a bet with Mike about the guy spinning yarns/using tells.  If Mike wanted to keep the guy away from either Anita or Stacey, he could have taken him aside privately and in his intimidating Mike fashion, the guy would not have dared return.  Those kind of outbursts in a support group are totally off limits.  Mike and Stacey have a transactional relationship, he wants access to Kaylee and she wants access to babysitting and probably financial support as needed.  But it seems like Stacey also wanted to be in the group for therapeutic reasons and maybe sincerely thought Mike could benefit as well.  He just blew that all up.  They may never be on the same footing again, or all might be forgiven, because transactional.  With Anita, she might be through with him after this, or her helper instincts might kick in, like she was going to reach out to the liar who she thought needed help. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, iMonrey said:

Have we bet Anita before? I thought this was a rather odd episode, in that it introduced characters and premises as if they had been previously established, like the grief support group Stacy is going to. I mean, has she ever even mentioned that before? Now all of a sudden it's a regular thing and she got Mike to go with her. I don't know, this was just oddly written IMO. The confrontation between Gus and Mike too . . . I didn't really understand what was going on there. So far as I could tell, Nacho was doing everything Gus asked of him, then he had that weird confrontation in a warehouse or whatever where he basically called Gus out on taking over the territory, and next thing you know Gus is calling Mike out on the carpet. WTF?

Nacho likely told Gus that Mike was aware of the pill swap plan, which is why Gus called Mike out. What I don't know is whether Gus fully anticipated that Mike would have no back-down within him, that Mike would essentially say, in a very matter of fact, no bluster tone, "I'm ready to die, right here, right now. Are you?", or whether Gus was merely hoping for that response, because it would establish once and for all to Gus that Mike was formidable enough to be a very close, most important, associate to Gus.

The ask has to either be related to the construction of the superlab, or something else to do with getting Eladio more dependent on Gus, something more significant than killing Nacho.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

Anita was not happy.  Stacey was not happy.  It was totally inappropriate.  Anita only had a bet with Mike about the guy spinning yarns/using tells.  If Mike wanted to keep the guy away from either Anita or Stacey, he could have taken him aside privately and in his intimidating Mike fashion, the guy would not have dared return.  Those kind of outbursts in a support group are totally off limits.  Mike and Stacey have a transactional relationship, he wants access to Kaylee and she wants access to babysitting and probably financial support as needed.  But it seems like Stacey also wanted to be in the group for therapeutic reasons and maybe sincerely thought Mike could benefit as well.  He just blew that all up.  They may never be on the same footing again, or all might be forgiven, because transactional.  With Anita, she might be through with him after this, or her helper instincts might kick in, like she was going to reach out to the liar who she thought needed help. 

We'll see.  But, I don't think an outburst in a grief counseling session is all that unusual.   People in emotional pain are prone to such outbursts.   If Mike handles the aftermath of it OK, it might not have a negative impact on either of those relationships.  

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post

Mike was right about the guy telling lies, which means he could have been a scam artist.  And when he voiced his concerns to Anita, he got blown off.  And given the reaction of the rest of the people in the group, he would have received the same response he got from Anita.  

I guess I don't understand the purpose of these grief sessions.  If they are so invested in their objective that they are willing to overlook potential predatory behavior, I question their value.   

Edited by PeterPirate
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

39 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

We'll see.  But, I don't think an outburst in a grief counseling session is all that unusual.   People in emotional pain are prone to such outbursts.   If Mike handles the aftermath of it OK, it might not have a negative impact on either of those relationships.  

In support groups generally, verbal attacks on other participants are mostly discouraged.  I think the leader says something like that to Mike, "you know the rules."  Pain leading to outbursts directed at others can be the opposite of helpful and descend into free-for-alls.

14 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Mike was right about the scam artist.  And when he voiced his concerns to Anita, he got blown off.  And given the reaction of the rest of the people in the group, he would have received the same response he got from Anita.  

I guess I don't understand the purpose of these grief sessions.  If they are so invested in their objective that they are willing to overlook predatory behavior, I question their value.   

We don't know the guy was a predator.  Maybe, or maybe some pathology there with attention-seeking, but Mike was equally disturbed with the others not able to see past their own grief.  It could be that some of them noted inconsistencies but did not see it as their role to say anything.   He said they were feeding off each other's misery.  Not too helpful, and that's his view, not everyone's, which is why he shouldn't be there.  It's a bit insulting.  As to the value of the group, everyone can take/give something different, they're not there to judge the other people's behavior, or shouldn't be. 

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

My first thought when Jimmy spoke to the store manager to ask why the store was so quiet and the manager's reaction was "yeah, I know," was that perhaps the store is set up for nefarious purposes (money laundering or something) and that's how Jimmy gets really involved in illegal activities.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/28/2018 at 5:47 AM, JFParnell said:

The cousins are surreal, indestructible creatures (er, for now anyway) who defy all natural and physical laws. Wonder what they do for fun on a day off from work. Ping pong tournaments? Golf?

 

 
 
Spoiler

I knew how badass they already were in BB but after this episode, where they are to the maximum, it's funny that their lives are brought to an end solely by one man and his SUV!

 
 
Edited by Scout Finch
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

Of course Jimmy is the one guy who wont just hang out and catch up on reading while getting paid, he has to get his hustle on. An idle Jimmy is a Jimmy in trouble. Or someone else is in trouble. 

Everyone might have been upset that Mike called the faker out (and maybe he should have said something to the guy privately), but he wasn't wrong to tell the guy to screw off. With his massive grief for his dead son, people making up stories of loss must be something that really pisses him off. Beside, that guy is an agent of Hell, I've seen The Good Place, I know whats up!

Liked the scene with Kim and the Judge, even though I cant say I know for sure what the point was. The judge told her to stop waiting for her big crusading lawyer moment and just get back to work, but she seems to miss working the little cases again. 

Nacho and his dad are just killing me dead. This is all inevitably leading to disaster, and while Nacho chose to get involved in the drug trade, he is clearly getting in over his head, and he certainly never wanted his dad to get involved. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

Of course Jimmy is the one guy who wont just hang out and catch up on reading while getting paid, he has to get his hustle on. An idle Jimmy is a Jimmy in trouble. Or someone else is in trouble. 

Everyone might have been upset that Mike called the faker out (and maybe he should have said something to the guy privately), but he wasn't wrong to tell the guy to screw off. With his massive grief for his dead son, people making up stories of loss must be something that really pisses him off. Beside, that guy is an agent of Hell, I've seen The Good Place, I know whats up!

Liked the scene with Kim and the Judge, even though I cant say I know for sure what the point was. The judge told her to stop waiting for her big crusading lawyer moment and just get back to work, but she seems to miss working the little cases again. 

Nacho and his dad are just killing me dead. This is all inevitably leading to disaster, and while Nacho chose to get involved in the drug trade, he is clearly getting in over his head, and he certainly never wanted his dad to get involved. 

I'm hoping Nacho and his dad will each order a  dust filter for a Hoover Max Extract® 60 Pressure Pro™.  That seems like the only way out for the 2 of them.  I am more afraid of Papi Nacho getting killed than Nacho himself.  

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, tennisgurl said:

Of course Jimmy is the one guy who wont just hang out and catch up on reading while getting paid, he has to get his hustle on. An idle Jimmy is a Jimmy in trouble. Or someone else is in trouble. 

 

His resorting to bouncing the ball to kill time reminded me of Jesse in the big meth lab beneath the laundry, just killing time by doing one childish, goofy thing after another.  ADD situations? Mike would have sat down and read a magazine.

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post

7 hours ago, icemiser69 said:

Mike should have walked out if he didn't like what was going on in the group.  People handle grief in different ways.  Not everyone moves on at the same pace.  Some people never move on.   He didn't need to add to their grief.

I will preface this by saying that I have counselor training: I disagree.  What Mike experienced in group is appropriate. At least it would be in my group. Mike is NOT over grieving. But his explosion was necessary. You will have people in groups that will buck against the process. Because it is similar to what Stacey said. Some people torture themselves if they suddenly realize that they have started to move on or to forget that person, even for one minute. I would not have kicked Mike out of the group. The fact that people are saying that survivors grieve differently, Mike's outburst is part of his grieving. We need to acknowledge that.  Is what he did pleasant? No. But this kind of stuff happens in groups. Just because Mike is stoic and quiet, but that does not mean that he is past it. He will never stop grieving and torturing himself. I would agree with a previous poster who said that Mike is getting into a dangerous element as a death wish. I think he wants to punish himself for what happened. As I watched the show, one sentence came to mind: Everyone is doing something that they hate. I think that Kim realized that her long years of working towards being a high paid corporate lawyer is not what she thought it would be. That is crushing and scary. I had a similar situation in my life. I pursued a high level degree for over 10+ years. Then when things finally worked out, I didn't think I wanted to do that "thing" anymore!  I started to hate it. It happens. We change or get burnt out. 

  • Like 11

Share this post


Link to post

Jimmy at the cell phone store seems intent on being active, keeping the mind going, but Cinnabon Gene , who must have more customers, seems catatonic, he knows this is a dead end. At least cell phone Jimmy had Saul G to look forward to, and fall back on

  • Like 7

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, Pat Hoolihan said:

His resorting to bouncing the ball to kill time reminded me of Jesse in the big meth lab beneath the laundry, just killing time by doing one childish, goofy thing after another.  ADD situations? Mike would have sat down and read a magazine.

Great connection.  Both he and Jesse were both wearing brightly colored work clothing, though Jimmy's bright green vest was not quite as goofy looking as Jesse's yellow hazmat suit.   

Yes, Mike would have read a magazine, done a crossword puzzle, or listened to a ballgame on his transistor radio, while munching on a pimento cheese sandwich, an apple or some pistachios.  Can you imagine Mike and Jimmy together on a stakeout?  Mike would strangle him.  

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, ShadowFacts said:

In support groups generally, verbal attacks on other participants are mostly discouraged.  I think the leader says something like that to Mike, "you know the rules."  Pain leading to outbursts directed at others can be the opposite of helpful and descend into free-for-alls.

We don't know the guy was a predator.  Maybe, or maybe some pathology there with attention-seeking, but Mike was equally disturbed with the others not able to see past their own grief.  It could be that some of them noted inconsistencies but did not see it as their role to say anything.   He said they were feeding off each other's misery.  Not too helpful, and that's his view, not everyone's, which is why he shouldn't be there.  It's a bit insulting.  As to the value of the group, everyone can take/give something different, they're not there to judge the other people's behavior, or shouldn't be. 

I agree. Mike was hurling anger toward everyone in the group. Letting a faker prattle on is a pretty minor threat to the group, compared to the damage that could be done by Mike tearing everyone down.

My guess would be that the guy just wanted some sympathy and attention. He probably never had any serious romantic partner, and he liked pretending that he used to have one. It's creepy, but not an emergency.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Blakeston said:

I agree. Mike was hurling anger toward everyone in the group. Letting a faker prattle on is a pretty minor threat to the group, compared to the damage that could be done by Mike tearing everyone down.

My guess would be that the guy just wanted some sympathy and attention. He probably never had any serious romantic partner, and he liked pretending that he used to have one. It's creepy, but not an emergency.

I think Mike could have handled the situation better, and his outburst against the group was probably against protocol.  But, I don't see a grieving man having a negative, emotional outburst during a grief counseling session as such a huge deal.  I'm sure it is not uncommon.  Is anger one of the stages of grief  I think it is what comes after the outburst that matters.  If he doubles down on his criticism, that is one thing, but if he apologizes and deals with the emotions, it could be a positive for him and the group.

I think Mike might have a partial point, about how, if they are not careful, such a group can encourage wallowing in mutual self pity, instead of healing and moving on.

It reminded me a bit of Jesse's NA tirade in "Problem Dog".  He tells the group he killed his "dog",  for no good reason, other than it was a problem dog.  One of the women gets angry with him and the counselor says, "We're not here to sit in judgement" and seems to go way overboard with all the "self-acceptance" stuff he preaches.  To a point, self-acceptance makes sense, as bashing oneself constantly for your past mistakes and wrongs is not going to help you stay sober.  But, the idea that we should just accept whatever horrible things we do and immediately move on without any guilt, remorse or repentance, was over the line, IMO and Jesse was right to call it out as BS and condemn his own actions.  

I think the same can be true with grieving.  It is healthy and necessary to do, but if you turn it into a lifestyle and don't try to move on, it can be crippling and painful.  

Spoiler

The "dog" was actually Gale

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

The liar in the therapy session may have just had an unrequited love who died or went away and he manufactured his saga to be consoled by the group. It reminds me of the author's novel in "Nocturnal Animals".

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

BTW, although I appreciated the posters who reminded me of some of the Nacho/Mike/Gus background, I went to a BB wiki site -- I couldn't find a BCS one -- which includes BCS info on characters. Here's the one on Nacho, though it only goes to the end of S3.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
6 hours ago, Bannon said:

I don't know quite what to make of this comment. Mike Ehrmantraut, to me, is a very complex character, and a grief  guilt, and anger filled cauldron of qualities. Yes, he has chosen to participate in a business that ruins lives. That's sleazy. He's also a person who frequently does not try to maximize personal gain. He's nearly unfailingly honest about himself, without a molecule of hypocrisy. He can be difficult to like, but he also can inspire great respect and loyalty from others. I think the portrayal by Banks is magnificent.

I am not sure if he is truly living his life or just existing day to day.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

The liar in the therapy session may have just had an unrequited love who died or went away and he manufactured his saga to be consoled by the group. It reminds me of the author's novel in "Nocturnal Animals".

Or Mike Yanagita from the movie "Fargo".  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, Bryce Lynch said:
Just now, Eulipian 5k said:

The liar in the therapy session may have just had an unrequited love who died or went away and he manufactured his saga to be consoled by the group. It reminds me of the author's novel in "Nocturnal Animals".

Or Mike Yanagita from the movie "Fargo".  

Anything is possible.  There's also the line from The Rose that it's the one who won't be taken who never learns to give.  

Still, I'm glad for the Mike Ermantraut's of the world who look out for the rest of us.  Just like I'm glad the United Federation of Planets has Section 31.  

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I'm hoping Nacho and his dad will each order a  dust filter for a Hoover Max Extract® 60 Pressure Pro™.  That seems like the only way out for the 2 of them.  I am more afraid of Papi Nacho getting killed than Nacho himself.  

I'm pretty sure one or both of them are toast.  If it's his dad and not Nacho, it will be somewhat of a reversal of what Mike and Matty's situation was.  Mike tried to protect Matty and his "help" ended up getting his son killed.  Nacho told his father to play along at the upholstery shop and that did turn out okay so far, for dad, but we haven't seen the last of this and unless he gets some help from Mike, I don't think Nacho can finesse his way out.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, tennisgurl said:

Everyone might have been upset that Mike called the faker out (and maybe he should have said something to the guy privately), but he wasn't wrong to tell the guy to screw off. With his massive grief for his dead son, people making up stories of loss must be something that really pisses him off. Beside, that guy is an agent of Hell, I've seen The Good Place, I know whats up!

Wrong time, wrong place.  He should have taken the dude aside along with the grief counselor and have a private discussion.  He shouldn't have lashed out in front of the entire group.  Especially when the rest of the people in that group are dealing with their own tragedies.  They already have enough to deal with.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post

37 minutes ago, icemiser69 said:

Wrong time, wrong place.  He should have taken the dude aside along with the grief counselor and have a private discussion.  and buried him in the desert.  He shouldn't have lashed out in front of the entire group.  Especially when the rest of the people in that group are dealing with their own tragedies.  They already have enough to deal with.

FIFY! :)

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, PeterPirate said:

Anything is possible.  There's also the line from The Rose that it's the one who won't be taken who never learns to give.  

Still, I'm glad for the Mike Ermantraut's of the world who look out for the rest of us.  Just like I'm glad the United Federation of Planets has Section 31.  

As for me, “It's good knowin' he's out there, the Dude, takin' her easy for all us sinners.”

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
  3 hours ago, tennisgurl said:

Everyone might have been upset that Mike called the faker out (and maybe he should have said something to the guy privately), but he wasn't wrong to tell the guy to screw off. With his massive grief for his dead son, people making up stories of loss must be something that really pisses him off. Beside, that guy is an agent of Hell, I've seen The Good Place, I know whats up!

Wrong time, wrong place.  He should have taken the dude aside along with the grief counselor and have a private discussion.  He shouldn't have lashed out in front of the entire group.  Especially when the rest of the people in that group are dealing with their own tragedies.  They already have enough to deal with.

I agree.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post

  4 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

In support groups generally, verbal attacks on other participants are mostly discouraged.  I think the leader says something like that to Mike, "you know the rules."  Pain leading to outbursts directed at others can be the opposite of helpful and descend into free-for-alls.

We don't know the guy was a predator.  Maybe, or maybe some pathology there with attention-seeking, but Mike was equally disturbed with the others not able to see past their own grief.  It could be that some of them noted inconsistencies but did not see it as their role to say anything.   He said they were feeding off each other's misery.  Not too helpful, and that's his view, not everyone's, which is why he shouldn't be there.  It's a bit insulting.  As to the value of the group, everyone can take/give something different, they're not there to judge the other people's behavior, or shouldn't be. 

I agree. Mike was hurling anger toward everyone in the group. Letting a faker prattle on is a pretty minor threat to the group, compared to the damage that could be done by Mike tearing everyone down.

My guess would be that the guy just wanted some sympathy and attention. He probably never had any serious romantic partner, and he liked pretending that he used to have one. It's creepy, but not an emergency.

could be.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, Bannon said:

This is the sloppiest, most un-Mike thing Mike ever did, having Kaylee's safe deposit box at the same bank branch where he had safe deposit boxes for the drug henchmen. Even very cautious people can make simple errors.

Maybe he puts it in Anita's bank out of some lingering love, loyalty or affection for Anita, which we're just now learning more about.  Rather than sloppiness or a simple error, both of which are uncharacteristic of Mike, it could have been an error of the heart...a characteristic that is consistent with Mike.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post

I'm totally lost. What deal was Mike going on with Gus. Who's on whose side with all these drug smuggling operations.... salamancas,  kankamankas...who the hell is on whose side and who's double dealing who? I have no flippin idea!

  • Like 8

Share this post


Link to post
23 minutes ago, 100Proof said:

I'm totally lost. What deal was Mike going on with Gus. Who's on whose side with all these drug smuggling operations.... salamancas,  kankamankas...who the hell is on whose side and who's double dealing who? I have no flippin idea!

I'm with you 100Proof

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
23 hours ago, thuganomics85 said:

Of course, since Henry was played by Marc Evan Jackson, I was just like "Well, duh, he's lying, because he's actually got a husband back in Brooklyn.  Holt would be very disappointed in you, Kevin!  And think about Cheddar!"

Better Call Saul obviously takes place in the time period before he moved to Brooklyn, but after he left his job in LA in the 1980s as the butler to a rich lady whose closeted son ran a women's wrestling promotion.

10 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

It could go either way.  Anita could realize that Mike was acting to protect the group from a scam artist and respond appropriately.  

Protect from what though. I am not convinced the dude was any kind of threat, but possibly just some sad lonely dude who has no other way to interact with people. Reminded me of Ed Norton at the beginning of Fight Club just going to support groups to feel close to others.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Kel Varnsen said:

Protect from what though. I am not convinced the dude was any kind of threat, but possibly just some sad lonely dude who has no other way to interact with people. Reminded me of Ed Norton at the beginning of Fight Club just going to support groups to feel close to others.

I have to admit that if that dude had a criminal record, Mike likely would have found it and informed the others.  

Still, anything's possible in this world.  I think a scam artist who was looking to con a widow out of her insurance money would target such people.  In BB Jesse tried to sell meth to people in a drug rehab group.  

 

7 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The "dog" was actually Gale

Until I saw that I had not made the connection.  

Edited by PeterPirate
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 hours ago, Tara Ariano said:

 

I didn't understand Jimmy spray painting a phrase on the store window.

First of all, it's not his store. The store owner didn't seem at all concerned about a lack of traffic. Yet Jimmy didn't bother to ask him about spray painting his windows?

Second, that has to be a very inferior way to advertise a topic and expect it to generate business. Isn't it? How many people driving by the store will take the time to read that message? How many would understand it? There are so many better and more cost-effective ways to advertise that concept.

Third, I found the actual phrase to be rather difficult to understand. I suppose Jimmy meant to say that the phones in that store would defeat all kinds of attempts by someone to listen in. But that is a complicated issue and its meaning is not really well explained in just two or three words.

Jimmy has shown himself to be very smart when it comes to thinking of ways to generate business. What is the point of spray painting that window?  Is it really as poor a choice as I'm thinking? Or maybe he had some other reason for doing it?

Edited by MissBluxom
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Customize font-size