S04.E09: Wiedersehen

[Bannon]

4 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

What about the potential of Werner alerting his wife she needs to gather up the hidden assets make herself scarce in the event they seek her out as a means of getting Werner to reveal himself?    

What about the potential of alerting his wife to wire funds that Werner can access to enable him to hide somewhere?

What if in fact the "wife" is merely a cover for a partner that he was in fact activating to wire funds to enable him to hide?  

The title may tell us a lot about the outcome, but it doesn't necessarily have to happen in the very next episode.  

Oh, sure, it's all possible. I just think a real planner could have located the lab before the job started, via process of elimination. There just can't be that many large commercial laundries in about the four possible southwestern states that the lab is in, with the right kind of ownership. With the internet of 2004, I think 50 hours of research would likely narrow it to a small number of possibilities.

[Tikichick]

1 minute ago, Bannon said:

Oh, sure, it's all possible. I just think a real planner could have located the lab before the job started, via process of elimination. There just can't be that many large commercial laundries in about the four possible southwestern states that the lab is in, with the right kind of ownership. With the internet of 2004, I think 50 hours of research would likely narrow it to a small number of possibilities.

He may have.  I can foresee the potential for these writers to spin a pretty compelling cat and mouse story if they chose to.  Might be entertaining to watch Mike's cranky frustration upon finding himself dealing with a pretty challenging mouse problem.

[ShadowFacts]

The engineer is cracking under pressure, he was losing it before the detonation and was speaking carelessly to barflies.  He was way off in his estimate of how long the thing would take and he wants out.  The escape may have been the best he can do.  I don't see him getting away.  Mike/Gus can't get a new engineer midstream.  And Mike can't be in Gus' good graces with Werner somewhere out there.  Plus

Spoiler

The description of the finale gives a hint about how the escape may play out.

[Bryce Lynch]

1 hour ago, ShadowFacts said:

The engineer is cracking under pressure, he was losing it before the detonation and was speaking carelessly to barflies.  He was way off in his estimate of how long the thing would take and he wants out.  The escape may have been the best he can do.  I don't see him getting away.  Mike/Gus can't get a new engineer midstream.  And Mike can't be in Gus' good graces with Werner somewhere out there.  Plus

  Hide contents

The description of the finale gives a hint about how the escape may play out.

Spoiler

The sneak preview of the Finale show Mike and Gus reading a letter from Werner, saying he would only be gone for 4 days and needed to see his wife. Mike tells Fring he believes Werner.  I wonder if Fring's move might be to threaten to kill Werner's boys if he doesn't return.  

[Tikichick]

1 hour ago, ShadowFacts said:

The engineer is cracking under pressure, he was losing it before the detonation and was speaking carelessly to barflies.  He was way off in his estimate of how long the thing would take and he wants out.  The escape may have been the best he can do.  I don't see him getting away.  Mike/Gus can't get a new engineer midstream.  And Mike can't be in Gus' good graces with Werner somewhere out there.  Plus

  Reveal hidden contents

The description of the finale gives a hint about how the escape may play out.

Aside from the quick blip of previews I know nothing about finale.  I enjoy speculating ideas, but the writing on this show in particular makes me determined to simply watch the episode and let it unfold without any official expectations of what's going to happen.  I love that I can really want the story to go here or there, yet where it goes is someplace else entirely and it's a pretty safe bet I'll enjoy the ride even if the destination isn't where I said I wanted to go.  I had a hard time contemplating this season knowing there was no going forward with Jimmy and Chuck.  I'm enjoying the season anyway.  Heck, I'm one of the many who reluctantly tuned into the series from the beginning because I hated Saul.  This may well be my favorite series of all time.   

[LoneHaranguer]

8 hours ago, Captanne said:

Now that I think about it, I'm not so sure the Board wasn't right in there assessment.  What I vehemently disagree with, though, is their not reinstating him. 

His story of how he became a lawyer didn't help. He told them that while working around lawyers, he decided hey, I could do that; "attended" a correspondence school because nobody else would take him; and even though he had no affinity for it, he put in a lot of hard work and bingo. To Jimmy it was a success story. To them, it was probably an insult to the profession that he got his license to begin with.

[Ellaria]

20 hours ago, Irlandesa said:

No I suspect someone works a miracle at the appeals process whether it's Kim, Jimmy/Saul or maybe even Howard standing up for him. I do not think he was behind the board's decision. There's really no reason for Howard to try and sabotage Jimmy.  He would have nothing to gain.

I agree. Not quite sure how it is done or who pulls the rabbit out of the hat but Jimmy's law license will be reinstated next week. There is no need to drag out this plot line into next season.

Here is a question: By the time we see Jimmy in BB, he is practicing law under the name of Saul Goodman and is advertising his services. So, its not a secret. Presumably, his original law license was issued to "James McGill." I am curious how he is able to practice under a pseudonym. It is hard to imagine that the local bar association wouldn't be aware that a previously suspended attorney is running a TV ad schedule under a different name.

Here is a related article from the ABA Journal about attorneys using a different name: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/second_identity_lawyers_may_use_a_different_name_socially_or_when_writing_n/

This makes me wonder if Jimmy legally changes his name to Saul Goodman and, if so, if it happens in the finale. (Forgive me if this point is revealed in BB. I binged that entire series in a matter of weeks and have forgotten some of the details.) 

Edited October 4, 2018 by Ellaria Sand

[ShadowFacts]

33 minutes ago, Ellaria Sand said:

This makes me wonder if Jimmy legally changes his name to Saul Goodman and, if so, if it happens in the finale. (Forgive me if this point is revealed in BB. I binged that entire series in a matter of weeks and have forgotten some of the details.) 

I seem to hazily recall Saul telling Walt his real name at one point, and saying something about using a Jewish-sounding name for some reason.  That still doesn't explain how he might be permitted to use Goodman instead of McGill, and I don't have a guess beyond him legally changing it. 

[PeterPirate]

I wonder if the name change has something to do with the conditions of re-instatement.  I imagine that's something Howard would want.  

There is a German consulate in Albuquerque.  That's the limit of my desire to speculate about Werner.   

[Ellaria]

8 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

I wonder if the name change has something to do with the conditions of re-instatement.  I imagine that's something Howard would want.  

There is a German consulate in Albuquerque.  That's the limit of my desire to speculate about Werner.   

Very interesting suggestion, @PeterPirate. Howard steps in at Kim's insistence to re-instate Jimmy but with the condition that Jimmy not use the name McGill going forward. I know that some see Howard as the ultimate bad guy but, if this speculation is true, I fully understand Howard's reasoning here.

I'm also done wondering about Werner and his fate. 

[scenario]

I can't see why a lawyer couldn't change their name if it isn't fraudulent. 

Some names are toxic to some people. What if a lawyer had the same name as a known violent criminal or the name was an insulting word in another language? 

[Ellaria]

8 minutes ago, scenario said:

I can't see why a lawyer couldn't change their name if it isn't fraudulent. 

Some names are toxic to some people. What if a lawyer had the same name as a known violent criminal or the name was an insulting word in another language? 

No one is suggesting that a lawyer cannot change their name. However, the question arises about whether their name has to match their law license. It is why I linked to a short but interesting article from the ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/second_identity_lawyers_may_use_a_different_name_socially_or_when_writing_n/

Edited October 5, 2018 by Ellaria Sand

[scenario]

1 minute ago, Ellaria Sand said:

No one is suggesting that a lawyer cannot change their name. However, the questions arises about whether their name has to match their law license. It is why I linked to a short but interesting article from the ABA Journal: http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/second_identity_lawyers_may_use_a_different_name_socially_or_when_writing_n/

Can someone change the name on their law licence?

[Ellaria]

2 minutes ago, scenario said:

Can someone change the name on their law licence?

I don't know for sure but I imagine that the name under which you practice has to match the name on your license. That's why I posed the question about whether Jimmy legally changes his name to Saul.

[Irlandesa]

18 hours ago, Bannon said:

You may be correct, but 7 days a week intelligent people do things out of spite, despite having nothing to gain. Howard's demonstrated himself to be extremely insecure, and his last words to Jimmy were snarled in anger. Angry, insecure, people have been known to engage in behavior like that with some frequency.

While that's true, I don't think they've set up Howard to be someone who would spend political/legal capital to prevent Jimmy from getting back his law license just because he had some harsh words for Howard months ago.

2 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I agree. Not quite sure how it is done or who pulls the rabbit out of the hat but Jimmy's law license will be reinstated next week. There is no need to drag out this plot line into next season.

I guess we could get another time jump. 

[PeterPirate]

When we first meet Saul he says "My real name is McGill. The Jew thing I just do for the homeboys. They all want a pipe-hitting member of the tribe, so to speak."  

Given this is TV law, I'm going to accept that in New Mexico it is OK for an attorney to use a DBA.  And also that, when that scene was aired, Saul's explanation was intended to be the truth.  However, it's also fine if they do a little retconning and fashion some other explanation.  In Star Trek they spent several episodes explaining how the Klingons got their bumpy heads.  This is a lot easier than that.   And in the end an entertaining explanation is better than one that is 100% logical.  

Edited October 5, 2018 by PeterPirate

[Ellaria]

35 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

And in the end an entertaining explanation is better than one that is 100% logical.  

 

Entertaining and logical do not have to be opposing forces. Of more importance is that the explanation makes sense within the context of what we are now watching.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Ellaria Sand

[Clanstarling]

2 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

I don't know for sure but I imagine that the name under which you practice has to match the name on your license. That's why I posed the question about whether Jimmy legally changes his name to Saul.

I imagine the process is the same as what happens when a person marries and changes their name. With a legal name change, you go through the legal process to change your name on all your legal documents (what a pain in the ass that was - I didn't do it the second time around).

[Eulipian 5k]

2 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

And also that, when that scene was aired, Saul's explanation was intended to be the truth. 

However, in Season 1 Slippin Jimmy gave another explanation that the tag line "It's all  good man" was the origin of the name. It's from before he ever thought of being a lawyer. He put the name on the card this season, several years later. He couldn't use the explanation that it's his grifter name to a client.

Edited October 5, 2018 by Eulipian 5k

[Captanne]

There is nothing wrong with an accredited law degree.  Jimmy's degree from American Samoa IS a success story for him given his background.  No "morals board" has any right to base their decision on whether he went to American Samoa or Harvard.  If it's accredited and he's admitted to a Bar, he's the same lawyer as anyone else.

I haven't checked the New Mexico ethics rules but -- goodness, his law degree is just as good as anyone else's.  That elitism is one of the subtle ways Chuck used to drive me nuts.  

 

They certainly do have a right to base their judgement on whether he's ethical or not -- "sincere" is the word they used.

 

(I'm not protesting here -- I happened to go to one of the best law schools in Washington DC but when I used to hear someone say, "Well, I went to Georgetown and he went to Howard....you know what that means......It used to make my skin crawl.  FTR, I went to Catholic University Columbus School of Law over 25 years ago.)

Edited October 5, 2018 by Captanne

[Bryce Lynch]

21 minutes ago, Captanne said:

There is nothing wrong with an accredited law degree.  Jimmy's degree from American Samoa IS a success story for him given his background.  No "morals board" has any right to base their decision on whether he went to American Samoa or Harvard.  If it's accredited and he's admitted to a Bar, he's the same lawyer as anyone else.

I haven't checked the New Mexico ethics rules but -- goodness, his law degree is just as good as anyone else's.  That elitism is one of the subtle ways Chuck used to drive me nuts.  

 

They certainly do have a right to base their judgement on whether he's ethical or not -- "sincere" is the word they used.

 

(I'm not protesting here -- I happened to go to one of the best law schools in Washington DC but when I used to hear someone say, "Well, I went to Georgetown and he went to Howard....you know what that means......It used to make my skin crawl.  FTR, I went to Catholic University Columbus School of Law over 25 years ago.)

Under NM Bar rules, an attorney suspended for longer than 6 months has a fairly heavy burden to earn reinstatement.  Here is what the rules say:

The hearing committee shall promptly schedule a hearing at which the respondent-attorney shall have the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent-attorney has the moral qualifications to practice law; that the respondent-attorney is once again fit to resume the practice of law; and that the resumption of the respondent-attorney’s practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest.

[ShadowFacts]

3 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Under NM Bar rules, an attorney suspended for longer than 6 months has a fairly heavy burden to earn reinstatement.  Here is what the rules say:

The hearing committee shall promptly schedule a hearing at which the respondent-attorney shall have the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent-attorney has the moral qualifications to practice law; that the respondent-attorney is once again fit to resume the practice of law; and that the resumption of the respondent-attorney’s practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest.

Given all that, he should have done a lot more than rehearse his facial poses.  He needed to rehearse answers with Kim or better yet, consult someone with experience in his situation.

[Bryce Lynch]

1 minute ago, ShadowFacts said:

Given all that, he should have done a lot more than rehearse his facial poses.  He needed to rehearse answers with Kim or better yet, consult someone with experience in his situation.

I love how Jimmy rehearsed facial poses, right before the hearing, but was outraged that they had the audacity to find him "insincere".  

[Milburn Stone]

32 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Under NM Bar rules, an attorney suspended for longer than 6 months has a fairly heavy burden to earn reinstatement.  Here is what the rules say:

The hearing committee shall promptly schedule a hearing at which the respondent-attorney shall have the burden of demonstrating by clear and convincing evidence that the respondent-attorney has the moral qualifications to practice law; that the respondent-attorney is once again fit to resume the practice of law; and that the resumption of the respondent-attorney’s practice of law will not be detrimental to the integrity and standing of the bar, the administration of justice, or the public interest.

That was useful to read. My reaction to the outcome when I watched was to feel awful for Jimmy--to share his reaction that an injustice had been done, I guess because I'm so invested in the character. But reading those criteria, I realize the committee made exactly the right choice, and made it not out of prejudice, but out of an uncommonly perceptive evaluation of the man. Much as I hated them at the time, kudos to them.

[Captanne]

I love that.  Thanks!  I think Jimmy had a higher hurdle to get over than he anticipated (I, too, was waiting for him to give Chuck a nod -- especially because we know that legal community is so small) but I do object when people think the basis for his denial was the quality of his law school.  (I know that's what he was thinking -- but it's not fair in real life.  It happens and I want to dispel it whenever I can.  Are you at a tactical disadvantage?  Sure.  Welcome to litigation.  But there should be no question about your right to practice law based on where you went to school.)

[Clanstarling]

1 hour ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I love how Jimmy rehearsed facial poses, right before the hearing, but was outraged that they had the audacity to find him "insincere".  

Which is part of what makes him so very human - that type of hypocrisy is rampant in humanity, past and present.

[Bryce Lynch]

16 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

Which is part of what makes him so very human - that type of hypocrisy is rampant in humanity, past and present.

Yeah, I think his hypocrisy and lack of self awareness are strangely charming.  

There are so many of those contradictions in his case and in the show, in general.  

He was insincere in much of his testimony.  But, he actually was being sincere by not praising Chuck and saying he was his influence, because he resents Chuck and has blocked him out of his mind, and because Kim was his influence for becoming a lawyer, not Chuck.  But, the committee seemed to buy most of his BS, but flunked him for being "insincere" by not mentioning Chuck.  

On a wider scale, the same is true.  Their "insincerity" reason for denial is rather subjective and arbitrary.  They had no real evidence to back up that claim. But, all the crap Jimmy has done for the past year is ample grounds for disbarring him, only the committee doesn't know about it.    It is kind of like a criminal getting away with robbing Steve, but getting falsely convicted of robbing Joe.  

[ShadowFacts]

4 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Yeah, I think his hypocrisy and lack of self awareness are strangely charming.  

There are so many of those contradictions in his case and in the show, in general.  

He was insincere in much of his testimony.  But, he actually was being sincere by not praising Chuck and saying he was his influence, because he resents Chuck and has blocked him out of his mind, and because Kim was his influence for becoming a lawyer, not Chuck.  But, the committee seemed to buy most of his BS, but flunked him for being "insincere" by not mentioning Chuck.  

On a wider scale, the same is true.  Their "insincerity" reason for denial is rather subjective and arbitrary.  They had no real evidence to back up that claim. But, all the crap Jimmy has done for the past year is ample grounds for disbarring him, only the committee doesn't know about it.    It is kind of like a criminal getting away with robbing Steve, but getting falsely convicted of robbing Joe.  

My view is that they didn't deny him only for not mentioning Chuck. I don't think anything he said was actually disqualifying, they could have given him the benefit of the doubt, but in its totality it smelled insincere.  He should have said just about anything other than his last answer.  He really did have an affinity for his elder clients, he could have worked that in or any number of things that Kim might have suggested.  I think he just plain didn't think this out and expected his job and program completion was enough.  Any type of evaluation like this is going to be subjective and the interview part is tricky, that's why he should have prepared.  He's usually keener at this type of interaction.  He was treating the panel more like 'marks' than peers with power over his professional future. 

[Bryce Lynch]

6 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

My view is that they didn't deny him only for not mentioning Chuck. I don't think anything he said was actually disqualifying, they could have given him the benefit of the doubt, but in its totality it smelled insincere.  He should have said just about anything other than his last answer.  He really did have an affinity for his elder clients, he could have worked that in or any number of things that Kim might have suggested.  I think he just plain didn't think this out and expected his job and program completion was enough.  Any type of evaluation like this is going to be subjective and the interview part is tricky, that's why he should have prepared.  He's usually keener at this type of interaction.  He was treating the panel more like 'marks' than peers with power over his professional future. 

I think, "Credit where credit is due.  The University of American Samoa.  Go, Land Crabs!" was what tilted the committee against him.  Up until then, they seemed fairly receptive to his combination of truth and BS.  They might have had reservations, but it looked like they were mostly buying his act.  Even after the "What does the law mean to you?" question, that he started off slowly, but finished strongly on, the woman who asked it said it was "very eloquent". 

One interesting thing I noticed on rewatch was that he seemed genuinely sad and to be thinking about Chuck when he responded to the question about the reasons for his suspension by saying  "This past year, that's pretty much been the only thing on my mind."    

Edited October 5, 2018 by Bryce Lynch

[Eulipian 5k]

Who is Cinnabon Gene hiding from besides the police? All of Walt's enemies are dead, Mike's dead, & the Salamancas died with Hector. Is it just the police? Because he seemed to regard the taxi driver he ran from as a hit-man; a policeman wouldn't pretend to be a taxi driver- he would just detain Gene if he thought he was Saul. So who is paranoid Gene most afraid of?

[Bryce Lynch]

39 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Who is Cinnabon Gene hiding from besides the police? All of Walt's enemies are dead, Mike's dead, & the Salamancas died with Hector. Is it just the police? Because he seemed to regard the taxi driver he ran from as a hit-man; a policeman wouldn't pretend to be a taxi driver- he would just detain Gene if he thought he was Saul. So who is paranoid Gene most afraid of?

Gene also seemed afraid of the guy he mistakenly thought was staring at him, in the series premiere.  He also seemed more like a possible criminal than a cop.

From what I can think of, Gene should only be afraid of law enforcement.   It seems like everyone who would have a grudge against him or want to silence him, due to his involvement with the Heisenberg ring is dead, except for Jesse.  

[LoneHaranguer]

10 hours ago, Eulipian 5k said:

However, in Season 1 Slippin Jimmy gave another explanation that the tag line "It's all  good man" was the origin of the name. It's from before he ever thought of being a lawyer. He put the name on the card this season, several years later. He couldn't use the explanation that it's his grifter name to a client.

He probably used quite a few fake names back in the day, each with its own origin. There's no reason to doubt him on why he chose that one for his practice, and no reason why he couldn't tell a client how he came up with it, were they to ask. He just doesn't volunteer that he had previously used it for shady purposes.

[Bryce Lynch]

13 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

He probably used quite a few fake names back in the day, each with its own origin. There's no reason to doubt him on why he chose that one for his practice, and no reason why he couldn't tell a client how he came up with it, were they to ask. He just doesn't volunteer that he had previously used it for shady purposes.

He originally came up with it as a play on "It's all good man".  But since it also sounds like a good Jewish lawyer name, and his cell phone customers knew him by that name, it is was a perfect choice.  

[Eulipian 5k]

19 minutes ago, LoneHaranguer said:

He probably used quite a few fake names back in the day, each with its own origin. There's no reason to doubt him on why he chose that one for his practice, and no reason why he couldn't tell a client how he came up with it, were they to ask. He just doesn't volunteer that he had previously used it for shady purposes.

I agree, he uses a different one when he's with Gisele. It just goes to show that nothing, outside of the law, that Saul says should be taken as true (ie "sincere"). Including the bits about "ex wives". Everyone is a "mark" to Saul. Kim may have begun to realize that when Saul emerges.

[Milburn Stone]

9 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Everyone is a "mark" to Saul. Kim may have begun to realize that when Saul emerges.

I may be one of Saul's marks, but I buy the sincerity of his emotional need for Kim.

[PeterPirate]

I think Kim could have helped Jimmy prepare for the hearing, but they were also busy returning from Texas following the blueprint caper.  

Switching gears:  

12 hours ago, Eulipian 5k said:

However, in Season 1 Slippin Jimmy gave another explanation that the tag line "It's all  good man" was the origin of the name. It's from before he ever thought of being a lawyer. He put the name on the card this season, several years later. He couldn't use the explanation that it's his grifter name to a client.

 

Jimmy said the same thing in the diner scene:  "And I already got a jump on my new practice.  Unexpected bonus of the drop-phone business.  It turns out it's great for client development.  Sooner or later, every last one of those idiots is gonna need an attorney.  Of course, they all know me as Saul Goodman."    

 

13 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Entertaining and logical do not have to be opposing forces. Of more importance is that the explanation makes sense within the context of what we are now watching.

 

Retconning usually changes how we look at a scene or piece of dialogue.  We now have to wonder what motivated Saul Goodman to tell Walt about why he used a different name, and also whether he actually had two ex-wives.  We can't take those statements at face value anymore.   I consider that a minor cost of watching BCS.    

Retconning in itself can be entertaining, and I still consider being entertaining more important than making sense, if such a choice has to be made.  Going back to the Star Trek Klingon head thing, in a DS9 episode they had used humor to hand-wave it away.  ("We don't talk about it with outsiders").  But some years later they used several episodes of Enterprise to explain how the change was the result of genetic engineering that cross-bred Klingons and humans.  Personally, I prefer the first choice.   And I like the dialogue from the diner, too.  They just slipped it in there (haha) without making a big deal out of it.  But If they bring back Howard to make the name change explicit, I guess that will be OK too.  It will be a good and fitting end to the character.    

Edited October 5, 2018 by PeterPirate

[monagatuna]

17 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

 

Here is a question: By the time we see Jimmy in BB, he is practicing law under the name of Saul Goodman and is advertising his services. So, its not a secret. Presumably, his original law license was issued to "James McGill." I am curious how he is able to practice under a pseudonym. It is hard to imagine that the local bar association wouldn't be aware that a previously suspended attorney is running a TV ad schedule under a different name.

 

This is something I'm concerned about, and I know I should have more faith in Gilligan & Co to not gloss over this, but you can't get around something like this with a name change. That is something that would be common knowledge to just about anyone and certainly to a lawyer as savvy as Jimmy. He will have to have his license reinstated normally and then change his name; there's no way around it. You can definitely change your name for any reason and it won't affect your law license, aside from filing the paperwork and paying the fees. If he were to practice under Saul Goodman without getting his license back legitimately, he would be immediately caught out for unauthorized practice of law. He'll have to get it reinstated. I don't think it'll be another year before he does, but I don't know how he's going to get it back. I'm really curious to see how this plays out. I expect the writers will expect some suspension of disbelief but I don't think they'll insult us with "well he changed his name and the bar didn't notice."

[LoneHaranguer]

22 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Going back to the Star Trek Klingon head thing, in a DS9 episode they had used humor to hand-wave it away.  ("We don't talk about it with outsiders").  But some years later they used several episodes of Enterprise to explain how the change was the result of genetic engineering that cross-bred Klingons and humans.  Personally, I prefer the first choice. 

Sounds like the writers ignored what had already been fanwanked (e.g. the Klingons are conquerers, and you could expect some interbreeding, so not all Klingons are going to look the same).

[Clanstarling]

3 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

He was insincere in much of his testimony.  But, he actually was being sincere by not praising Chuck and saying he was his influence, because he resents Chuck and has blocked him out of his mind, and because Kim was his influence for becoming a lawyer, not Chuck.  But, the committee seemed to buy most of his BS, but flunked him for being "insincere" by not mentioning Chuck.  

On a wider scale, the same is true.  Their "insincerity" reason for denial is rather subjective and arbitrary.  They had no real evidence to back up that claim. But, all the crap Jimmy has done for the past year is ample grounds for disbarring him, only the committee doesn't know about it.    It is kind of like a criminal getting away with robbing Steve, but getting falsely convicted of robbing Joe.  

Jimmy is often sincere, but his tendency to give a song and dance makes it unable for those around him to rely on his sincerity.

52 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Retconning usually changes how we look at a scene or piece of dialogue.  We now have to wonder what motivated Saul Goodman to tell Walt about why he used a different name, and also whether he actually had two ex-wives.  We can't take those statements at face value anymore.   I consider that a minor cost of watching BCS.    

Retconning in itself can be entertaining, and I still consider being entertaining more important than making sense, if such a choice has to be made.  Going back to the Star Trek Klingon head thing, in a DS9 episode they had used humor to hand-wave it away.  ("We don't talk about it with outsiders").  But some years later they used several episodes of Enterprise to explain how the change was the result of genetic engineering that cross-bred Klingons and humans.  Personally, I prefer the first choice.   And I like the dialogue from the diner, too.  They just slipped it in there (haha) without making a big deal out of it.  But If they bring back Howard to make the name change explicit, I guess that will be OK too.  It will be a good and fitting end to the character.    

 

In my experience, people in general (not just showrunners) retcon their backgrounds, especially their off hand stories. They tailor them depending on who they're talking too, how sensitive the full facts are, and sometimes just because it makes a better story than the reality.  So when it comes to offhand stories - I don't care if they don't sync up when the conversations are years apart. Jimmy's Saul Goodman journey was long and fraught with unhappiness. He's not going to tell Walt the full version ever, and it makes sense to me that he'd spin it in a slightly amusing way.

Oh, and I loved the DS9 version too. It was the best - short and sweet and no straining to come up with genetic explanations. I thought it was sufficient for all time. :)

Edited October 5, 2018 by Clanstarling

[Eulipian 5k]

5 minutes ago, Clanstarling said:

In my experience, people in general (not just showrunners) retcon their backgrounds, especially their off hand stories. They tailor them depending on who they're talking too, how sensitive the full facts are, and sometimes just because it makes a better story than the reality.

That's so true. In my case, I spent my entire HS days studying, working out with PJ., and going to Bible Study.

[Eulipian 5k]

2 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

I may be one of Saul's marks, but I buy the sincerity of his emotional need for Kim.

Heh, but is his need really sincere? Has he looked at Kim and her career and figured that sharing an office with him is what she needs or is it what he needs? That's why he sees nothing of what MV means to her life. We've asked where Kim is during BrBa but does Jimmy have a place for Kim when he's off being Saul?

[Ellaria]

3 hours ago, PeterPirate said:

Retconning usually changes how we look at a scene or piece of dialogue.  We now have to wonder what motivated Saul Goodman to tell Walt about why he used a different name, and also whether he actually had two ex-wives.  We can't take those statements at face value anymore.   I consider that a minor cost of watching BCS.    

Retconning in itself can be entertaining, and I still consider being entertaining more important than making sense, if such a choice has to be made.  Going back to the Star Trek Klingon head thing, in a DS9 episode they had used humor to hand-wave it away.  ("We don't talk about it with outsiders").  But some years later they used several episodes of Enterprise to explain how the change was the result of genetic engineering that cross-bred Klingons and humans.  Personally, I prefer the first choice.   And I like the dialogue from the diner, too.  They just slipped it in there (haha) without making a big deal out of it.  But If they bring back Howard to make the name change explicit, I guess that will be OK too.  It will be a good and fitting end to the character.    

Saul is/was such an outrageous, flamboyant character that I never took anything he said at face value. In retrospect, this serves BCS well because it is easy to retcon some of his claims by saying, "Come on, can't believe everything that Saul said to Walter, etc."

However, I don't understand why retconning a plot point cannot also equate to making sense and why making sense equates to something less than entertaining. These writers are quite skilled. They can make this plot point believable, logical, and entertaining. There is no reason to sacrifice one in favor of the other. I would find it perfectly logical and entertaining (in a dark way) if Howard forces the name change.

 

3 hours ago, monagatuna said:

This is something I'm concerned about, and I know I should have more faith in Gilligan & Co to not gloss over this, but you can't get around something like this with a name change. That is something that would be common knowledge to just about anyone and certainly to a lawyer as savvy as Jimmy. He will have to have his license reinstated normally and then change his name; there's no way around it. You can definitely change your name for any reason and it won't affect your law license, aside from filing the paperwork and paying the fees. If he were to practice under Saul Goodman without getting his license back legitimately, he would be immediately caught out for unauthorized practice of law. He'll have to get it reinstated. I don't think it'll be another year before he does, but I don't know how he's going to get it back. I'm really curious to see how this plays out. I expect the writers will expect some suspension of disbelief but I don't think they'll insult us with "well he changed his name and the bar didn't notice."

And that was precisely my point. Once we hit BB, Saul is practicing and advertising his services. IMO, it would be taking the easy way out for the writers to say, "well, maybe the bar association won't notice" especially if it is because of a few throw-away lines in BB. I am a marketing director for a law firm. Local bar associations notice everything. And lawyers - even shady ones - pay attention, if they want to keep practicing. Jimmy/Saul wants to practice law. He does not want to uphold the law. He wants to stick it to the legal community.

[PeterPirate]

3 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Saul is/was such an outrageous, flamboyant character that I never took anything he said at face value. In retrospect, this serves BCS well because it is easy to retcon some of his claims by saying, "Come on, can't believe everything that Saul said to Walter, etc."

However, I don't understand why retconning a plot point cannot also equate to making sense and why making sense equates to something less than entertaining. These writers are quite skilled. They can make this plot point believable, logical, and entertaining. There is no reason to sacrifice one in favor of the other. I would find it perfectly logical and entertaining (in a dark way) if Howard forces the name change.

 

And that was precisely my point. Once we hit BB, Saul is practicing and advertising his services. IMO, it would be taking the easy way out for the writers to say, "well, maybe the bar association won't notice" especially if it is because of a few throw-away lines in BB. I am a marketing director for a law firm. Local bar associations notice everything. And lawyers - even shady ones - pay attention, if they want to keep practicing. Jimmy/Saul wants to practice law. He does not want to uphold the law. He wants to stick it to the legal community.

Retconning can be both entertaining and sensible, of course.  Star Trek VI did a great job of explaining how the peace with the Klingons came about.  But I also feel a loss that the "member of the tribe" bit was a cover story.  Charlize Theron (to each their own).   

I wonder if Vince Gilligan will ever offer clarity about this.  I have heard he created Saul Goodman with the idea of a separate show in mind.  I imagine that even during the BB days people were bringing up the name thing.  Maybe, even then, he planned to address the question years down the road.  (Alternately, he could have been channeling Aaron Sorkin, for whom such plot holes are meant to identify viewers who take such things too seriously and open themselves up to being mocked.)   

Edited October 6, 2018 by PeterPirate

[Eulipian 5k]

4 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

 I would find it perfectly logical and entertaining (in a dark way) if Howard forces the name change.

It would make sense. It's like me opening a MacDonalds Hamburger Chain, the Cease and Desist letters would be flying at ludicrous speed. ABQ and HHM does not need a McGill Bros Bail, Burners, & Briefs.

[carrps]

On 10/2/2018 at 6:31 AM, ShadowFacts said:

....  That woman wasn't a stupid greedy person that Victor and Giselle enjoyed messing with. 

Viktor. :-)

[scenario]

16 hours ago, Milburn Stone said:

That was useful to read. My reaction to the outcome when I watched was to feel awful for Jimmy--to share his reaction that an injustice had been done, I guess because I'm so invested in the character. But reading those criteria, I realize the committee made exactly the right choice, and made it not out of prejudice, but out of an uncommonly perceptive evaluation of the man. Much as I hated them at the time, kudos to them.

The thing I don't like about the decision is that it is based on how well he could talk. Some lawyers like Jimmy are slick, either in court or as a salesman. That is not inherently a bad thing, But slick would count against you because you wouldn't sound sincere enough. Other lawyers are more behind the scene and may be terrible at talking. That would also count against you because being nervous and stumbling over your own tongue could also make you seem like a liar. It seems like much of what real lawyers do is researching and writing stuff. That is what they are trained to do. They should be judged on what they did during their time off and what they are trained to do, not a skill that is only marginally related to the bulk of what they actually do. The board is acting like it can read minds. Punishing someone for things that they might do seems inappropriate and open to abuse. If someone on the board hated Italians because their dad was killed by an Italian during WWII, it would be easy to say that the lawyer in front of him just didn't seem right. They may not even realize that they are doing it. 

There are many, many reasons to disbar Jimmy but the board doesn't know any of them.

[shapeshifter]

On October 4, 2018 at 2:39 PM, Tikichick said:

What if in fact the "wife" is merely a cover for a partner that he was in fact activating to wire funds to enable him to hide?  

And/or Werner is a spy of some sort? Maybe going undercover for law enforcement in exchange for immunity from other charges? Or maybe a corporate spy of some sort?

 

 

14 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

He was insincere in much of his testimony.  But, he actually was being sincere by not praising Chuck and saying he was his influence, because he resents Chuck and has blocked him out of his mind, and because Kim was his influence for becoming a lawyer, not Chuck.  But, the committee seemed to buy most of his BS, but flunked him for being "insincere" by not mentioning Chuck.  

Kim tells Jimmy (and we, the audience, assume) it was Jimmy's failure to mention Chuck (and instead toss out the flippant "Go Land Crabs!" Remark) that cost him his reinstatement. But even though that may be true, he could have also oozed sincerity by talking about Kim as a role model. But just as Kim wound up in doc review for keeping silent about Jimmy's shennanigans, Jimmy did not tell the board about the inspiration of "Giselle." My migraine meds seem to be muddying my prose, but I'm trying to show a parallel between Kim's banishment to doc review because she refuses to blaim Jimmy, and Jimmy failing to get reinstated because he hides Kim as his inspiration.

[PeterPirate]

I think this response was pretty bad:  

"McGill, is there anything you'd like to tell us about the reasons you were suspended in the first place?" 

"This past year, that's pretty much been the only thing on my mind. And I'm humbled by the sheer stupidity of my actions. Remorse doesn't begin to cover it. I'm not gonna make excuses 'cause there's no excuse for what I did. But as I sit here, I can assure you nothing like that will ever happen again. Never."  

Jimmy was asked about the reasons he was suspended, he only barely talked about his actions that caused the suspension, and not at all about his reasons for those actions.  It reminds me of the scene from Road To Perdition when Paul Newman's character asks Danial Craig's character if he had anything to say after killing an underling.  His answer was so smarmy that Newman improvised slamming his hand on a table.  For a person who bore the responsibility of showing clearly and convincingly that he had sufficient "moral qualifications", Jimmy failed utterly here.  

 

Here is the dialogue from Road To Perdition:

Newman:   Connor, is there something you would like to say about last night?
Craig:  I'd like to apologize for what happened. Especially to you, Pa. Two wakes in a month... What can I say?
Newman:  We lost a good man last night. You think it's funny? Try again.
Craig:  I'd like to apologize...
Newman:  (Slams table) You would like to apologize? Try again.
Craig:  Gentlemen...my apologies. 

Edited October 6, 2018 by PeterPirate

[ShadowFacts]

6 hours ago, scenario said:

The thing I don't like about the decision is that it is based on how well he could talk. Some lawyers like Jimmy are slick, either in court or as a salesman. That is not inherently a bad thing, But slick would count against you because you wouldn't sound sincere enough. Other lawyers are more behind the scene and may be terrible at talking. That would also count against you because being nervous and stumbling over your own tongue could also make you seem like a liar. It seems like much of what real lawyers do is researching and writing stuff. That is what they are trained to do. They should be judged on what they did during their time off and what they are trained to do, not a skill that is only marginally related to the bulk of what they actually do. The board is acting like it can read minds. Punishing someone for things that they might do seems inappropriate and open to abuse. If someone on the board hated Italians because their dad was killed by an Italian during WWII, it would be easy to say that the lawyer in front of him just didn't seem right. They may not even realize that they are doing it. 

There are many, many reasons to disbar Jimmy but the board doesn't know any of them.

Yes, this is true.  Unconscious biases work against people every day.  There should ideally be a more objective way to make decisions like this.  The way this scene was written and acted, though, to me made it clear that Jimmy really flubbed it at the end.  It was a stark mistake.  Nobody could believe that someone was inspired by any online school when there are living, breathing role models.  Add that to not mentioning Chuck and laying on the Scalia too thick, and those three people felt queasy about Jimmy and voted to keep him out.  I think if I had been there I would have felt like his answers were lacking but give him the benefit of the doubt, but who knows, group think happens, maybe I give myself too much credit. 

[wendyg]

There was a long discussion of who Gene should fear in the topic for the season 4 premiere. Law enforcement for sure - they could probably go after him for racketeering, money laundering, and conspiracy to commit murder. (They might not be able to make all those charges stuck, but he'd be in jail while they investigated.) Walt may or may not be dead yet - and Gene may not know yet if he is. Skyler we know (and Gene can surmise) is giving all the evidence she can, and she certainly knows enough to implicate him. Francesca knows a *lot*, but we presume he is paying her for her silence. Neither Gene nor anyone else knows what has become of Jesse or what his state of mind is. And Gene doesn't know what's become of Todd, the Vamonos Pest guys, Todd's ultra-creepy family, or which pieces of the cartel may have survived to want him (either to kill or to hire as their lawyer). Also, I think it's just obvious that having chosen to Disappear, you *would* be constantly frightened of being identified as yourself instead of your new identity. Gene is very much on his own - which he's never been good at - without any of his usual protective coloring.

As for Werner and his wife: why are we assuming that Werner and his wife made no plans to protect him? Why shouldn't they have a thought-out advance plan that is invoked simply by the use of a few common words - say, "book club" - in a particular way? Why wouldn't Werner, knowing the circumstances were dangerous, have left emergency instructions and a "go bag" including the basic documents he would need and some cash? We know nothing about his wife. I'm not suggesting this is the case, but imagine he were married to Lydia. You don't think they'd have a plan?