S04.E10: Winner

[Bannon]

16 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

Yeah, I guess Jimmy had the right to start at the top of the legal profession, with his shady background, and degree from the University of American Samoa...Go, Land Crabs!

The fact is, no decent firm would have hired Jimmy at that time and it would have been ridiculous for HHM to hire such an awful applicant, when they are turning away much better ones.  

Yes, Chuck should have told Jimmy the truth, but he didn't ruin Jimmy's life with the lie.  

Jimmy's one admirable thing was taking care of Chuck when he was sick, and it would have been nice for Chuck to tell him then, I doubt many people would tell their only living relative and their caretaker a secret like that, in that situation.  

Yes, Chuck should have been honest with Jimmy, though it probably would have crushed him.  But, if that is the worst thing Chuck ever did he was a saint. 

Who has suggested that Jimmy had a right to start at the top of the legal profession?

Ya ' know, it is not only lies which ruin lives which are contemptible, and the self serving aspect to the lie, which you are now acknowledging, is what made this lie so contemptible.

[Bannon]

12 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

As far as Jimmy not scamming innocent victims, I can't remember what the copier sales guys did that made them "fair game" for Jimmy's heist of the Hummel.  I know he told them they were stupid for wanting to hire him, but I view them as innocent victims whether they cared about their Hummel or not.  They had something of value and he had his co-conspirator bust in and steal it.  He received the proceeds of the sale of stolen goods. 

That theft was post Chuck, when Jimmy was far past scamming greedy larcenous jerks he met in a bar. He's about 90% Saul by then, and  yes, they were innocent. Making Jimmy mad by being too credulous in response to a sales pitch does not make someone a worthy target of a burglury. The sad part is that Jimmy could have taken the job, put in a week of hard work, and simply offered to take the "crap" in the display case off their hands, and they probably would have given it to him. That would have been slightly unethical, but not illegal at all. Another instance where Jimmy's inner anger leads him into yet more bad acts.

[PeterPirate]

1 hour ago, scenario said:

I had an ex-wife like that. Anything you said would be twisted around if she was in a bad mood.  But eventually you have to tell the truth.

Chuck could have told Jimmy that he believed that Jimmy would just hate working in a big law firm, which is true. Then told Howard to help Jimmy set up his own place.  That way he gets to look like the good guy. I really believe if Jimmy had a small successful law office, there would never be a Saul. More like a slippin Jimmy light.  

I agree with you on that.  At the very least, they should have given Jimmy the opportunity to respond well to an offer of assistance.

The only thing I would add is that Chuck had not yet gotten sick, so his response was not made with the intention of taking advantage of Jimmy.  I think it came from a mixture of his own feelings of hurt and fear, along with a feeling of duty to keep taking care of his wayward brother in accordance with his mother's wishes.  

 

1 hour ago, CigarDoug said:

They took some of the words from Jimmy's amateur, but well directed, ad and created a new, bland ad with a voiceover and a weird hypnotic background and released it. So, they DID advertise for Sandpiper clients, stealing Jimmy's idea, just made it a horrible ad that looked like it was written by a committee... which it was. That's what pissed Jimmy off, that they made an ad anyway, and a lousy one at that. If they had just said, "No ads", it might have blown over.

D&M had run a bland ad before.  Jimmy viewed it before making his own.  

 

1 hour ago, CigarDoug said:

The Music Store guys got Jimmy to lower his price to one free ad with the promise of buying additional ones, then they ran the ad themselves. So, they were going to rip Jimmy off. He would get nothing from producing their ad.

Jimmy made the first ad for free.  When the ad did well they agreed to more, but then learned that Jimmy had jacked up the price way above his costs.  They offered to compensate him for the first ad even though they had no legal obligation to do so.   

People can have differing opinions about whether the Music Store guys were trying to rip Jimmy off.  But the proper way to seek redress of grievances would have been to sue them in small claims court, not stage a fake accident.   I doubt there's anyone who would not report Jimmy to the police if they were the victim of such a scam and had video evidence showing him instructing his cameraman to film him right before taking his fall.     

Edited October 10, 2018 by PeterPirate

[Bryce Lynch]

2 hours ago, CigarDoug said:

They took some of the words from Jimmy's amateur, but well directed, ad and created a new, bland ad with a voiceover and a weird hypnotic background and released it. So, they DID advertise for Sandpiper clients, stealing Jimmy's idea, just made it a horrible ad that looked like it was written by a committee... which it was. That's what pissed Jimmy off, that they made an ad anyway, and a lousy one at that. If they had just said, "No ads", it might have blown over.

They didn't steal his idea.  They ran a similar lousy ad, for asbestos lawsuits years before.  Cliff was open to the idea of running an ad, but had to leave.  Omar showed the old D&M ad to Jimmy and told him how they had a bunch of meetings discussing how to get the swirl in the background just right...nebulous, but not too nebulous.  Jimmy realized they would never approve his style of ad, so he went rogue and made it and ran it, assuming that if it worked, all would be forgiven.

What Jimmy didn't understand is that D&M had a lot of prestigious clients who wouldn't want to be in business with the sort of firm that runs Jimmy's style of ad.  

[carrps]

On 10/8/2018 at 7:56 PM, nodorothyparker said:

We all knew poor doomed Werner was indeed doomed, but it didn't make it any less gutting when it happened.  There was something disturbingly beautiful about how it was framed and filmed.  Mike looked like he was wavering between weary resolve and just being sick.

It looked like a Maxfield Parrish painting.

 

On 10/9/2018 at 2:12 PM, Macbeth said:

Props finally paid to Michael McKean who was in "This is Spinal Tap."  I would not have been happy if Jimmy was a better singer.  Although his character, David St. Hubbins, would never sing a song by Abba.  I loved that they chose a song by Abba.

 

He was also in Christopher Guest's A Mighty Wind. He (and his wife, Annette O'Toole) wrote a couple of the songs. He has a wide ranging musical pedigree!

Edited October 11, 2018 by carrps
stupid typo

[Clanstarling]

On 10/8/2018 at 7:32 PM, JudyObscure said:

I think it was because this time she had really believed he was sincere.  This time she fell for his con herself and felt like a fool.  It's a whole different thing when you're not in on the joke.

Hell, I believed him. Damn, Odenkirk is good, huh? I felt almost as betrayed and disgusted as Kim.

On 10/8/2018 at 7:44 PM, Pat Hoolihan said:

I hated the opening. They had limited time to deal with a lot of things, and this was wasted time. At least come up with a better song for the karaoke than that piece of junk. And what about the Gene situation we saw in episode 1? They could have followed up on that.

 

That song was the perfect metaphor for the entire episode - not just Jimmy's part of it.

On 10/9/2018 at 7:27 AM, ahmerali said:

But I love BB and BCS. It's a whole different level of storytelling. Not everyone wants to dissect every little thing, many just want to see the story unfold. That's awesome! I like watching for these little things, and it seems other do too, and that's awesome as well. That's why there's chocolate and vanilla.

And strawberry. ;)

On 10/9/2018 at 8:03 AM, Eulipian 5k said:

The cold open was a revelation. I never knew Chuck would/did do so much for his younger brother.

• Vouched for him before the bar. (something he should have mentioned last week at the Board; it's certainly in the files they had. ).
• Brought home his sloshed younger brother
• put him to bed, took off his shoes, and stayed with him

We gave Jimmy a lot of points when he did the same for Space Blanket Chuck. Back then I saw Chuck as an ungrateful wretch not knowing he had done the same for Jimmy. The season started with Chuck's burial but the finale brought to life who he was for Jimmy. Plus: Chekov's Letter returns!
Saul really began to distance himself from Kim; thinking about the exploding files con, (WTF!), while questioning the effectiveness of Kim's long con. She now knows there's no place for her in the BrBa days to come.

BTW:

Ernie, don't let your Mom buy your clothes, she means well, but ... just don't.

He vouched for him, that is true. In very basic language which contrasted strongly with two of the others who gushed about the people they were vouching for. Of course he vouched for Jimmy - it would look pretty bad to his colleagues if he didn't (since he wasn't going to explain his reasons for being against Jimmy to the world)

Nonetheless, it was pretty nice to see him loosen up and have fun, and in fact, care for his brother. Relationships are complicated, aren't they? It is pretty sad what theirs became - regardless if you're on Team Chuck or Team Jimmy.

22 hours ago, Ellaria Sand said:

Not passive, necessarily. Defeated perhaps. I like @Penman61's description of the scene as "lyricized." I also think we were supposed to be watching Mike more than Werner (who was doomed weeks ago). 

I forgot about poor Margarethe. Guess she could be considered a loose end since she showed up in Albuquerque. Frankly, if I were Margarethe, I would be suspicious of the phone call from Werner saying - suddenly - that he didn't want to see me. I would probably file a police report. While that would not accomplish much, it certainly would qualify me as a "loose end."

 

If I recall correctly, she landed in Denver, not ABQ.

6 hours ago, Bryce Lynch said:

But, at what point does Nacho call Fring's bluff?  So, far, except for having to be shot and left in the desert, the arrangement has worked out well for Nacho.  He got a promotion and has put away a lot of cash. 

I don't think Fring strikes many people as a man who would bluff. A man of few words, maybe. But not a bluffer.

Edited October 10, 2018 by Clanstarling

[Eulipian 5k]

2 hours ago, Bannon said:

Who has suggested that Jimmy had a right to start at the top of the legal profession?

Jimmy did. The very night of his party he was telling Chuck to tell Howard to change the sign on the doors to add another M.

Did Kim ask for a partnership when she got Mesa Verde while in the Doc Review dungeon?

[Soobs]

I agree with you guys who said Werner went to his death too easily. He was like, "meh, I've had a good run".

I cannot believe the season is over and we never saw anymore of the cab driver in Omaha. More Omaha less cartel, please.

I liked the scenes with Chuck. Even the most dysfunctional of relationships have moments of closeness and humanity.

Kim's probably gone or she should be. Actually, she should have moved on ages ago. I'm sure there are other bad boy lawyers out there for her.

Do we really have to wait a whole year? Argh.

[Clanstarling]

2 hours ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Jimmy did. The very night of his party he was telling Chuck to tell Howard to change the sign on the doors to add another M.

Did Kim ask for a partnership when she got Mesa Verde while in the Doc Review dungeon?

He did, but to be fair, Howard got his letter though he was less than a stellar lawyer (if I'm remembering correctly). It's not unreasonable (in some regards) for family to think they've got the inside track.

[Bannon]

2 hours ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Jimmy did. The very night of his party he was telling Chuck to tell Howard to change the sign on the doors to add another M.

Did Kim ask for a partnership when she got Mesa Verde while in the Doc Review dungeon?

Good grief, you take the yammering of a Abba- singin' karaoke drunkard seriously?

[Captanne]

While I don't think that drunken yammering is necessarily significant -- I do think the Abba song is.  "Winner Takes It All" probably has reference in the very title of the episode.

[JudyObscure]

In vito veritas.  At the very least Jimmy was revealing his long term dream at a moment when he should have just been saying, "Wow, Chuck, can you believe I'm a lawyer?"

[Captanne]

As for Kim leaving?  Earlier in this thread (or was it Coushatta?) I suggested my own version of her "leaving"

Spoiler

that she dies during a grift

because I just don't see her leaving any other way.  I could be wrong (for a lot of reasons, not the least of which are I'm not a writer on the show and I'm not on the creative team) but it seems reasonable to me.  She keeps coming back -- even as recently as two episodes ago within the timeline of the ongoing plot (ie, not in a dream or a memory).  Also, the resulting spiral of Jimmy McGill/Saul Goodman would be explained by causing that event (or believing he did.)  Ziegler's situation alone shows us that they are orbiting around the stomping ground of very serious and very bad people.  Paths do cross.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Captanne

[Bryce Lynch]

38 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

In vito veritas.  At the very least Jimmy was revealing his long term dream at a moment when he should have just been saying, "Wow, Chuck, can you believe I'm a lawyer?"

Jimmy should have named his firm, "I Can't Believe It's a Law Firm!".  Oh wait, I think that's taken.

[PeterPirate]

14 hours ago, Bannon said:

That theft was post Chuck, when Jimmy was far past scamming greedy larcenous jerks he met in a bar. He's about 90% Saul by then, and  yes, they were innocent. Making Jimmy mad by being too credulous in response to a sales pitch does not make someone a worthy target of a burglury. The sad part is that Jimmy could have taken the job, put in a week of hard work, and simply offered to take the "crap" in the display case off their hands, and they probably would have given it to him. That would have been slightly unethical, but not illegal at all. Another instance where Jimmy's inner anger leads him into yet more bad acts.

Here is what Jimmy says about himself to the skateboard twins in the opening episode of the series:

Let me tell you about a young guy, actually, he's about your age. He lived a long way from here in a town called Cicero, Illinois. And in Cicero, he was the man. I mean, when he strolled down the street, all the corner boys would give him the high five. All the finest babes would smile at him and hope that he would smile back. They called him "Slippin' Jimmy," and everybody wanted to be his friend. "Slippin' Jimmy?" What the hell kind of name is that? Well, I'll tell you, now, winters in Cicero are murder. You guys growing up out here in the golden west, you don't know, okay? I'm talking cold that'll freeze the snot right in your nose. I'm talking wind that'll cut through your jacket and carve you up like a Ginsu knife. In fact, most folks in Cicero were scared of winter, but not Jimmy. Jimmy waited around all summer, and when September finally rolled around and he'd feel that first cold wind come sweeping off lake Michigan, he knew it was coming. Was it Christmas? Was it Kwanzaa? Better, it was slip 'n fall season. Soon as it was cold enough, he'd find a nice, smooth patch of ice. State Street was good. Michigan Avenue was better. He'd pick his spot, wait for it to get busy, then he'd walk out on the ice, and, boom! He would biff it so hard, people would come running from five blocks away. - Yeah, but did he collect? - "Did he collect?" Slippin' Jimmy had it dialed in, all right? One good fall, he'd clear 6, 8 grand. That'd keep him in old Milwaukee and Maui Wowie right through Labor Day.

Scamming someone out of six to eight thousand dollars is a crime.  It's a felony.  And these were not larcenous jerks in the bar.  They were innocent people who happened to be driving in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

Jimmy is a criminal.  He has always been a criminal.  Doesn't make him a bad guy.  "Saul Goodman" is just his DBA.    

Edited October 11, 2018 by PeterPirate

[benteen]

Chuck was 100% right not to hire Jimmy once he passed the bar.  Jimmy was a guy with a shady past and a criminal record, who just acquired a dubious law degree.  HHM is supposed to be one of the top law firms in the entire Southwest.  So they look for the best possible candidates and Jimmy sure as hell wasn't it.  Jimmy didn't deserve a job at HHM and wasn't entitled to get one.  Chuck's fault was not explaining this to him, in a less brutal fashion.  But Jimmy is very self-entitled and ME ME ME so he probably would have taken it very personally.

[ShadowFacts]

50 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

Here is what Jimmy says about himself to the skateboard twins in the opening episode of the series:

Let me tell you about a young guy, actually, he's about your age. He lived a long way from here in a town called Cicero, Illinois. And in Cicero, he was the man. I mean, when he strolled down the street, all the corner boys would give him the high five. All the finest babes would smile at him and hope that he would smile back. They called him "Slippin' Jimmy," and everybody wanted to be his friend. "Slippin' Jimmy?" What the hell kind of name is that? Well, I'll tell you, now, winters in Cicero are murder. You guys growing up out here in the golden west, you don't know, okay? I'm talking cold that'll freeze the snot right in your nose. I'm talking wind that'll cut through your jacket and carve you up like a Ginsu knife. In fact, most folks in Cicero were scared of winter, but not Jimmy. Jimmy waited around all summer, and when September finally rolled around and he'd feel that first cold wind come sweeping off lake Michigan, he knew it was coming. Was it Christmas? Was it Kwanzaa? Better, it was slip 'n fall season. Soon as it was cold enough, he'd find a nice, smooth patch of ice. State Street was good. Michigan Avenue was better. He'd pick his spot, wait for it to get busy, then he'd walk out on the ice, and, boom! He would biff it so hard, people would come running from five blocks away. - Yeah, but did he collect? - "Did he collect?" Slippin' Jimmy had it dialed in, all right? One good fall, he'd clear 6, 8 grand. That'd keep him in old Milwaukee and Maui Wowie right through Labor Day.

Scamming someone out of six to eight thousand dollars is a crime.  It's a felony.  And these were not larcenous jerks in the bar.  They were innocent people who happened to be driving in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

Jimmy is a criminal.  He has always been a criminal.  Doesn't make him a bad guy.  "Saul Goodman" is just his DBA.    

At this point, I think he is a pretty bad guy.  I don't like him.  He has done some nice things, he can be funny (though humor has been notably absent this whole season, for me), but he is not to be trusted to do the right thing at any given time.  He has once again had his ass pulled out of a fire by a) Kim's ideas, and b) his conniving, contemptuous, actor self.  Until he really has to pay, as he apparently is doing as Cinnabon Gene, he is not going to change, and probably not then, either. 

[JudyObscure]

16 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

At this point, I think he is a pretty bad guy.  I don't like him

I still like him, but, as I think it is with Kim now, I have moments when I'm ashamed of myself for liking him.  The Jimmy I fell for, and what made me love the show so much, was the one who was a good brother, a devoted boyfriend to Kim, and an excellent elder-law attorney.  That guy in the white suit saying, "I dress like Matlock, but I  look  like a young Paul Newman."  I even agreed about the looks thing.  I may be the only one who thinks Jimmy is an equal with Kim on the attractiveness scale, although he has recently been hit pretty hard with the age stick.

[ShadowFacts]

2 minutes ago, JudyObscure said:

I still like him, but, as I think it is with Kim now, I have moments when I'm ashamed of myself for liking him.  The Jimmy I fell for, and what made me love the show so much, was the one who was a good brother, a devoted boyfriend to Kim, and an excellent elder-law attorney.  That guy in the white suit saying, "I dress like Matlock, but I  look  like a young Paul Newman."  I even agreed about the looks thing.  I may be the only one who thinks Jimmy is an equal with Kim on the attractiveness scale, although he has recently been hit pretty hard with the age stick.

Yes, I liked all those things about him, too.  I also think he is a looks equal with Kim, but they are lit and shot to look harsh, in my opinion.  Anyway, that was all overpowered by his crowing about how he pulled the wool over the bar panel's eyes with his fake devotion to Chuck's memory.  That revealed to me the ugliness in his soul that has taken over his better impulses, and it would take a lot for me to go back to liking him.  Possible, I suppose, but we already know what Saul does in the future, but not yet how Gene ends up.  I'll keep an open mind on that. 

[Bannon]

Quote

Scamming someone out of six to eight thousand dollars is a crime.  It's a felony.  And these were not larcenous jerks in the bar.  They were innocent people who happened to be driving in the wrong place at the wrong time.  

Jimmy is a criminal.  He has always been a criminal.  Doesn't make him a bad guy.  "Saul Goodman" is just his DBA.    

Scamming larcenous, greedy, jerks you meet in a bar is a felony, too, so in no place did I imply otherwise. The scam you describe rips off the insurance company, meaning the shareholders and policyholders, in a diffuse, felonious, nonviolent fashion.

Commissioning burglaries is on an entirely different level, in that the potential for violence against innocent people is huge. Jimmy had no idea what his contractor was like, in terms of potential for violence against a business owner who happened to show up, and if the writers wanted to get really dark this season, as I suspect they will next, they would have had the contractor get out of the office while killing or seriously harming the business owner. Jimmy achieving 100% Saul, the person who actively seeks murder as a means of problem resolution, who participates in the concealment of child murder, would have taken place this season.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Bannon

[Eulipian 5k]

11 hours ago, Bannon said:

Good grief, you take the yammering of a Abba- singin' karaoke drunkard seriously?

Eggzactly. But Jimmy took it seriously, and it cost Chuck his life. (Just kidding, Chuck's responsible for his own suicide)

[Bannon]

58 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

At this point, I think he is a pretty bad guy.  I don't like him.  He has done some nice things, he can be funny (though humor has been notably absent this whole season, for me), but he is not to be trusted to do the right thing at any given time.  He has once again had his ass pulled out of a fire by a) Kim's ideas, and b) his conniving, contemptuous, actor self.  Until he really has to pay, as he apparently is doing as Cinnabon Gene, he is not going to change, and probably not then, either. 

What I love about this show is how it deals with the complexity of human beings. Guess what? Nearly every person on this planet is a scumbag, meaning a person who has engaged in contemptible behavior. Those same people have also usually engaged in very laudable behavior. Is everbody the same proportionally, or in degree? Of course not, but that doesn't render any single contemptible act less contemptible, and what I love about these writers is that they tend to illuminate, far better than most writers, that every human being is responsible for their contemptible behavior, and, no, that behavior is not preordained. What has frustrated me about some commentary here, to the effect that Jimmy was bound to always be scamming, no matter what, is that this is, ironically, an excuse. If Jimmy's future behavior is 100% certain, then Jimmy actually does not have free will. I think the writers, thankfully, have given us plenty of reason to think this is not the case.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Bannon

[Tikichick]

16 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

As far as Jimmy not scamming innocent victims, I can't remember what the copier sales guys did that made them "fair game" for Jimmy's heist of the Hummel.  I know he told them they were stupid for wanting to hire him, but I view them as innocent victims whether they cared about their Hummel or not.  They had something of value and he had his co-conspirator bust in and steal it.  He received the proceeds of the sale of stolen goods. 

 

16 hours ago, Bannon said:

That theft was post Chuck, when Jimmy was far past scamming greedy larcenous jerks he met in a bar. He's about 90% Saul by then, and  yes, they were innocent. Making Jimmy mad by being too credulous in response to a sales pitch does not make someone a worthy target of a burglury. The sad part is that Jimmy could have taken the job, put in a week of hard work, and simply offered to take the "crap" in the display case off their hands, and they probably would have given it to him. That would have been slightly unethical, but not illegal at all. Another instance where Jimmy's inner anger leads him into yet more bad acts.

The guys at the copier company got under Jimmy's skin because their response to his pitch brought him right back to his father's store, watching his father's same naivete.   The chord of disgust and fury little Jimmy had in his father's store is clearly still with him.  

Jimmy unburdening himself to a therapist could probably have been a show unto itself.

[Tikichick]

15 hours ago, icemiser69 said:

I expect more from this series than predictability.  It was predictable that Jimmy would give Howard a verbal kick in the ass to get him in a better frame of mind that resulted in the firm doing better financially.  It was predictable shitty writing.

Howard was seeing a mental health professional before that verbal kick in the ass.  I think the writers should have explored that more in terms of what Howard was going through and what type of therapy he was receiving.

It doesn't seem logical to try and piss someone off in an effort to motivate that person.  More often then not, people do stupid things when they are angry, not smart things.   Jimmy is living proof of that.

In terms of what's driving Jimmy the list may be long, but I don't buy for a minute that logic factors into it at all.  Not even remotely.   He was thrown by the blowup with Chuck.  Since Chuck's death he's been completely rudderless, desperately scrabbling around for a direction, an escape from Chuck's inescapable indictment, completely terrified it's always going to be shared by everyone no matter what he does.   It may not literally be kicking over a lamp, but in the end he decided killing Jimmy is the only way.    

[ShadowFacts]

24 minutes ago, Bannon said:

What I love about this show is how it deals with the complexity of human beings. Guess what? Nearly every person on this planet is a scumbag, meaning a person who has engaged in contemptible behavior. Those same people have also usually engaged in very laudable behavior. Is everbody the same proportionally, or in degree? Of course not, but that doesn't render any single contemptible act less contemptible, and what I love about these writers is that they tend to illuminate, far better than most writers, that every human being is responsible for their contemptible behavior, and, no, that behavior is not preordained. What has frustrated me about some commentary here, to the effect that Jimmy was bound to always be scamming, no matter what, is that this is, ironically, an excuse. If Jimmy's future behavior is 100% certain, then Jimmy actually does not have free will. I think the writers, thankfully, have given us plenty of reason to think this is not the case.

Yes, people have their dark impulses and dark sides.  For me there has been less balance this season, and certainly this episode, of the good and the bad in Jimmy.  He's been pretty bad, and the trouble is, we know if we have seen BrBa that he does continue with that.  He has free will, all right, he has just been exercising it in a way that is pretty detrimental to society, and ultimately, himself.  

[PeterPirate]

17 hours ago, Bannon said:

Scamming larcenous, greedy, jerks you meet in a bar is a felony, too, so in no place did I imply otherwise. The scam you describe rips off the insurance company, meaning the shareholders and policyholders, in a diffuse, felonious, nonviolent fashion.

Commissioning burglaries is on an entirely different level, in that the potential for violence against innocent people is huge. Jimmy had no idea what his contractor was like, in terms of potential for violence against a business owner who happened to show up, and if the writers wanted to get really dark this season, as I suspect they will next, they would have had the contractor get out of the office while killing or seriously harming the business owner. Jimmy achieving 100% Saul, the person who actively seeks murder as a means of problem resolution, who participates in the concealment of child murder, would have taken place this season.

 

That bit about the insurance company paying off is a presumption on your part.  As presented in the show, the scam involves threatening to call the cops on the victim, and taking cash to keep quiet.  But even if we accept your premise, a payout by the insurance company will require a police report and an official finding that the driver was a fault for the injury.  That will go on the driver's record, drive up his or her insurance premiums, and make them pay for fixing any dents in their car.  

I see little to no difference between scamming drivers and hiring a burglar to steal a figurine or a million dollars of ill-gotten public funds.  I think a solid case can be made that scamming drivers is worse, because it produces severe psychological stress in the victim, as evidenced by Tuco's grandmother.   Indeed, the intent of the skateboard scam is to induce psychological trauma in the victim in order to get them to pay without necessitating a call to the cops, which the skateboarders would assuredly like to avoid.  

Whether Slipping Jimmy targeted businesses along the sidewalk, or drivers in the street, is not specified in the show.  I would agree that targeting a business is not the same as targeting an individual driver.  

 

18 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

At this point, I think he is a pretty bad guy.  I don't like him.  He has done some nice things, he can be funny (though humor has been notably absent this whole season, for me), but he is not to be trusted to do the right thing at any given time.  He has once again had his ass pulled out of a fire by a) Kim's ideas, and b) his conniving, contemptuous, actor self.  Until he really has to pay, as he apparently is doing as Cinnabon Gene, he is not going to change, and probably not then, either. 

 

17 hours ago, ShadowFacts said:

Yes, I liked all those things about him, too.  I also think he is a looks equal with Kim, but they are lit and shot to look harsh, in my opinion.  Anyway, that was all overpowered by his crowing about how he pulled the wool over the bar panel's eyes with his fake devotion to Chuck's memory.  That revealed to me the ugliness in his soul that has taken over his better impulses, and it would take a lot for me to go back to liking him.  Possible, I suppose, but we already know what Saul does in the future, but not yet how Gene ends up.  I'll keep an open mind on that. 

Next season will be interesting.  I think it's possible that "Saul Goodman" will be more than just a name, it will be an affected personality.  We may see flashes of the old, charming Jimmy McGill when he's not playing the role of the criminal lawyer. 

After all, "November 12" will come around eventually.  It's fascinating to consider the possibilities.  Kim, in particular, can break bad, or not, but I think she is going to stick around Jimmy like a moth to a flame.    

Edited October 12, 2018 by PeterPirate

[benteen]

15 hours ago, icemiser69 said:

I expect more from this series than predictability.  It was predictable that Jimmy would give Howard a verbal kick in the ass to get him in a better frame of mind that resulted in the firm doing better financially.  It was predictable shitty writing.

Howard was seeing a mental health professional before that verbal kick in the ass.  I think the writers should have explored that more in terms of what Howard was going through and what type of therapy he was receiving.

It doesn't seem logical to try and piss someone off in an effort to motivate that person.  More often then not, people do stupid things when they are angry, not smart things.   Jimmy is living proof of that.

I don't think it was shitty writing for Jimmy to give Howard a verbal kick in the ass.  The shitty writing happened afterwards by putting Howard on the shelf for the rest of the season, only for him to pop up for 30 second and declare that HHM has been fixed (completely off-camera).  THAT is shitty writing.

[Bryce Lynch]

1 minute ago, benteen said:

I don't think it was shitty writing for Jimmy to give Howard a verbal kick in the ass.  The shitty writing happened afterwards by putting Howard on the shelf for the rest of the season, only for him to pop up for 30 second and declare that HHM has been fixed (completely off-camera).  THAT is shitty writing.

I would have liked to have seen more Howard also.  I think they probably couldn't find room for much Howard plot.   I am really hoping that in season 5 we find that Howard saved HHM, partly by getting Los Pollos Hermanos as a client.  It would be funny and ironic to see Jimmy warn him, "Be careful.  I can't tell you how I know, but I think that Fring guy is dirty."  

[Bannon]

14 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

That bit about the insurance company paying off is a presumption on your part.  As presented in the show, the scam involves threatening to call the cops on the victim, and taking cash to keep quiet.  But even if we accept your premise, a payout by the insurance company will require a police report and an official finding that the driver was a fault for the injury.  That will go on the driver's record, drive up his or her insurance premiums, and make them pay for fixing any dents in the person's car.  

I see little to no difference between scamming drivers and hiring a burglar to steal a figurine or a million dollars of ill-gotten public funds.  I think a solid case can be made that scamming drivers is worse, because it produces severe psychological stress, as evidenced by Tuco's grandmother.   

 

 

Next season will be interesting.  I think it's possible that "Saul Goodman" will be more than just a name, it will be an affected personality.  We may see flashes of the old, charming Jimmy McGill when he's not playing the role of the criminal lawyer. 

After all, "November 12" will come around eventually.  It's fascinating to consider the possibilities.  Kim, in particular, can break bad, or not, and her story will still be interesting.  

If you don't think crimes of violence, or crimes with huge potential for violence, are worse, then we will have to agree to disagree. That's o.k..

That "bit" about the insurance company simply reflects the fact that motorists in Illinois are required to carry insurance, and report their accidents. Yes, their premiums go up, and they endure stress. Like I acknowledged, the scam is a felony. The victims of it are still better off, compared to being beaten to death by a burglar.

11 minutes ago, benteen said:

I don't think it was shitty writing for Jimmy to give Howard a verbal kick in the ass.  The shitty writing happened afterwards by putting Howard on the shelf for the rest of the season, only for him to pop up for 30 second and declare that HHM has been fixed (completely off-camera).  THAT is shitty writing.

That's the limitations of 10 episodes. If somebody wants to say that less time should have been spent on Mike and the lab, fine, but then some would complain about lack of attention to Mike's story.

[Tikichick]

14 minutes ago, benteen said:

I don't think it was shitty writing for Jimmy to give Howard a verbal kick in the ass.  The shitty writing happened afterwards by putting Howard on the shelf for the rest of the season, only for him to pop up for 30 second and declare that HHM has been fixed (completely off-camera).  THAT is shitty writing.

 

9 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I would have liked to have seen more Howard also.  I think they probably couldn't find room for much Howard plot.   I am really hoping that in season 5 we find that Howard saved HHM, partly by getting Los Pollos Hermanos as a client.  It would be funny and ironic to see Jimmy warn him, "Be careful.  I can't tell you how I know, but I think that Fring guy is dirty."  

 

6 minutes ago, Bannon said:

That's the limitations of 10 episodes. If somebody wants to say that less time should have been spent on Mike and the lab, fine, but then some would complain about lack of attention to Mike's story.

Would it be nice to have gotten a look into what's going on with Howard and Nacho, absolutely.  It's simply a reality that there are time and budget constraints.  I wouldn't be one bit surprised if there aren't writers disappointed that they didn't get to explore their ideas with these characters, or further ideas they had for characters we did spend more time with this season.  Both Nacho's and Howard's stories have always been told in spurts followed by absences. 

I'd understand the complaining a bit more if the show were an adaptation of a known work and many stories were cut for time (GOT, Harry Potter anyone?).  In those cases the audience frequently would have an attachment to a particular plotline or character and be disappointed not to see it play on the screen.  But to dog out a story we don't even know as shitty writing and insist that hypothetical backstory that doesn't exist will be necessary, I don't understand that at all.    

[Bannon]

42 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

That bit about the insurance company paying off is a presumption on your part.  As presented in the show, the scam involves threatening to call the cops on the victim, and taking cash to keep quiet.  But even if we accept your premise, a payout by the insurance company will require a police report and an official finding that the driver was a fault for the injury.  That will go on the driver's record, drive up his or her insurance premiums, and make them pay for fixing any dents in the person's car.  

I see little to no difference between scamming drivers and hiring a burglar to steal a figurine or a million dollars of ill-gotten public funds.  I think a solid case can be made that scamming drivers is worse, because it produces severe psychological stress, as evidenced by Tuco's grandmother.   

 

 

Next season will be interesting.  I think it's possible that "Saul Goodman" will be more than just a name, it will be an affected personality.  We may see flashes of the old, charming Jimmy McGill when he's not playing the role of the criminal lawyer. 

After all, "November 12" will come around eventually.  It's fascinating to consider the possibilities.  Kim, in particular, can break bad, or not, and her story will still be interesting.  

I really don't think we need 10 episodes of Saul being Saul, nor do we need any more of Mike's story. A brief illumination of what being Saul means, how Kim responds to that (her story needs a finish), hopefully with Howard involved somehow,  along with whether Nacho escapes, would still leave a lot of room for other stuff, including some extended Gene exploration. I tend to think next season should be the last.

[Bannon]

7 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I think burglary and the faked skateboard accident are on a similar level, assuming the burglar is unarmed.  Intruding into someone else's home to steal is a very serious thing. But, the skateboard cam could have gotten someone killed.  Suppose Betsy or Abuelita swerved to miss the skateboarder and ran over a kid or something?  It is a very reckless scam, IMO.

I'd consider a lot of Jimmy's other scams, like his old slip and falls on the sidewalk, less serious than burglary, though.   

Oh, the skateboard scam was worse than most, no doubt, but I've always seen burglary as an overt crime of violence, given the number of murders and aggravated assaults that arise from them.

[Bannon]

5 minutes ago, PeterPirate said:

There is a third possibility:  That I am considering the overall harm to the victim, and that potential violence is just one component of that harm.  

Consider that the skateboard brothers' scam actually includes a planned act of violence--namely, a car hitting a human being.  That in itself is going to leave a psychological impact on the driver.   

Contrast that with a burglary, in which the intent is to avoid contact with the victime.  Maybe the burglary leads to violence, maybe it doesn't.  But there are just as many news stories about road rage as there are about startled homeowners finding burglars in their home.  Edit: And as Bryce pointed out, the car scam also has potential for other unintended violence.  

So many murders and horrible assaults arise from burglaries that I consider that crime to be far worse than the faked accidents that you quoted Jimmy on. If we disagree on that, o.k..

The staged "accident" is worse than the faked accident, but I've always categorized burglary as only lesser to murder and aggravated assault. I understand that a lot of people differ with me on that. 

[Bryce Lynch]

1 minute ago, Bannon said:

Oh, the skateboard scam was worse than most, no doubt, but I've always seen burglary as an overt crime of violence, given the number of murders and aggravated assaults that arise from them.

I take burglary very seriously too.  Invading a person's home, even if unarmed, is a very serious matter, and as you say, more serious crimes can arise from them.  

2 minutes ago, Bannon said:

So many murders and horrible assaults arise from burglaries that I consider that crime to be far worse than the faked accidents that you quoted Jimmy on. If we disagree on that, o.k..

The staged "accident" is worse than the faked accident, but I've always categorized burglary as only lesser to murder and aggravated assault. I understand that a lot of people differ with me on that. 

I think you are forgetting things like sexual assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, attempted murder, etc.  But I agree, burglary is serious.   

[Bannon]

6 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

I take burglary very seriously too.  Invading a person's home, even if unarmed, is a very serious matter, and as you say, more serious crimes can arise from them.  

I think you are forgetting things like sexual assault, armed robbery, kidnapping, attempted murder, etc.  But I agree, burglary is serious.   

I lumped sexual assault in with aggravated assault. I'd put armed robbery and kidnapping on the same level. I've never understood why the attempted murderer is punished less severely than the murderer. Because he wasn't as skilled?

[ShadowFacts]

34 minutes ago, Tikichick said:

 

 

Would it be nice to have gotten a look into what's going on with Howard and Nacho, absolutely.  It's simply a reality that there are time and budget constraints.  I wouldn't be one bit surprised if there aren't writers disappointed that they didn't get to explore their ideas with these characters, or further ideas they had for characters we did spend more time with this season.  Both Nacho's and Howard's stories have always been told in spurts followed by absences. 

I'd understand the complaining a bit more if the show were an adaptation of a known work and many stories were cut for time (GOT, Harry Potter anyone?).  In those cases the audience frequently would have an attachment to a particular plotline or character and be disappointed not to see it play on the screen.  But to dog out a story we don't even know as shitty writing and insist that hypothetical backstory that doesn't exist will be necessary, I don't understand that at all.    

I think there are many ways to arrive at a diagnosis of shitty writing.  I for one thought the whole Chuck-Jimmy rivalry/struggle was brilliantly conceived and written.  However this season after Chuck was gone, we were more or less left to hypothesize how it affected Jimmy, because he never talked about it, in fact refused to.  So we have to guess.  This was less satisfying to me.  Not necessarily bad writing, but I expected more.  In this episode we at least see how coldly he pretended to grieve at the grave, and how he used Chuck's memory to fleece the bar.  But I don't think I have the interest to wait another year or several months to see if his feelings ever get addressed, so that is somewhat of a fail for me.  I do plead guilty to sometimes wanting things spelled out and this is one of those times. 

[Bryce Lynch]

15 minutes ago, Bannon said:

I lumped sexual assault in with aggravated assault. I'd put armed robbery and kidnapping on the same level. I've never understood why the attempted murderer is punished less severely than the murderer. Because he wasn't as skilled?

Decent point.  Along the same lines, I've always wondered why the drunk driver who gets pulled over or crashes into a tree usually gets a slap on the wrist, while the one who kills 4 people often gets a long prison sentence.  They both committed the same reckless act.  

We could probably apply the same principle to Huell's assault on a police officer and Jimmy's Chicago Sunroof.  Neither of them intended crimes as serious as the ones they ended up committing.  

I think we are both favor a more intent driven, rather than outcome driven system of justice.  

Edited October 11, 2018 by Bryce Lynch

[Eulipian 5k]

19 minutes ago, Bannon said:

Oh, the skateboard scam was worse than most, no doubt, but I've always seen burglary as an overt crime of violence, given the number of murders and aggravated assaults that arise from them.

Yes. I think most people would forget a given fender bender as the years go by but an invasion of your home, even you were not at home, leaves a lasting scar. Laws have been written about the violence both the victim and perpetrator could/would encounter, (stand your ground), in a burglary. In  the skate board scam, the victim of "violence" was the skateboarder, ie the scammer, and the whole point is that there is no real harm to the skater and a monetary cost to the driver. The two crimes are orders of magnitude apart. Just look at the response of a police officer to a burglary in progress, (guns drawn) versus a fender bender /insurance scam in progress.

[Bryce Lynch]

2 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Yes. I think most people would forget a given fender bender as the years go by but an invasion of your home, even you were not at home, leaves a lasting scar. Laws have been written about the violence both the victim and perpetrator could/would encounter, (stand your ground), in a burglary. In  the skate board scam, the victim of "violence" was the skateboarder, ie the scammer, and the whole point is that there is no real harm to the skater and a monetary cost to the driver. The two crimes are orders of magnitude apart. Just look at the response of a police officer to a burglary in progress, (guns drawn) versus a fender bender /insurance scam in progress.

But, the skateboard scam could result in a fatal auto accident or a serious injury to an innocent person.  I would definitely put the slip and fall scams on a much lower level than burglary, but an auto accident scam involves violence, IMO.  

[Bannon]

5 minutes ago, Eulipian 5k said:

Yes. I think most people would forget a given fender bender as the years go by but an invasion of your home, even you were not at home, leaves a lasting scar. Laws have been written about the violence both the victim and perpetrator could/would encounter, (stand your ground), in a burglary. In  the skate board scam, the victim of "violence" was the skateboarder, ie the scammer, and the whole point is that there is no real harm to the skater and a monetary cost to the driver. The two crimes are orders of magnitude apart. Just look at the response of a police officer to a burglary in progress, (guns drawn) versus a fender bender /insurance scam in progress.

I largely agree, but I don't want to dimiss what it means to engage in a crime that involves deliberately having a moving 2500 pound object strike a human being, even if that human being is one of the criminals. That's a lot worse than lying about a moving 2500 pound object hitting someone. I hate, hate, hate, burglary, however. Have seen it result in just a massive amount of terrible violence visited on wholly innocent people.

Ol' Jimmy sure allows us to explore the varied degrees human misbehavior!

[benteen]

I wouldn't have minded spending less time on the superlab storyline, which is something that's cool to see but not a question that needed answering.  I have to admit I've soured on the Mike character a lot the past two years.  I think the final straw came with all the time they wasted on him in the Season 3 opener.  I had no interesting in a twenty-minute silent scene with him taking apart a car and then reverse engineering the tracker.  To me, it was obvious what he was doing and I found the whole thing self-indulgent.  I'm also tired of "Mike knows absolutely everything and everyone around him is stupid."  Which looks increasingly silly now with how his storyline came to an end in Breaking Bad.

I hate to say this too but that Entertainment Weekly writer was correct when he noted that even Gus's character, due to the timeline, is caught in a state of shadowy masterminding. 

Nacho is by far the most riveting storyline on the show and they put it on the backburner in the second half of the season.  Howard has never been a big part of the show, granted.  But the Howard working with Gus storyline that Bryce Lynch proposed would be a GREAT storyline and far better than anything the writers have done with the character to date.  Hopefully they will do that storyline next season but I won't hold my breath.

[Bryce Lynch]

It just occurred to me that Lalo did Mike a favor by cleaning up the loose ends of Fred and the Travel Wire security video for him.

Mrs. Werner would have told the police about the money she sent and they would have interviewed Fred and seen Mike on the video.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Bryce Lynch

[Bannon]

8 minutes ago, benteen said:

I wouldn't have minded spending less time on the superlab storyline, which is something that's cool to see but not a question that needed answering.  I have to admit I've soured on the Mike character a lot the past two years.  I think the final straw came with all the time they wasted on him in the Season 3 opener.  I had no interesting in a twenty-minute silent scene with him taking apart a car and then reverse engineering the tracker.  To me, it was obvious what he was doing and I found the whole thing self-indulgent.  I'm also tired of "Mike knows absolutely everything and everyone around him is stupid."  Which looks increasingly silly now with how his storyline came to an end in Breaking Bad.

I hate to say this too but that Entertainment Weekly writer was correct when he noted that even Gus's character, due to the timeline, is caught in a state of shadowy masterminding. 

Nacho is by far the most riveting storyline on the show and they put it on the backburner in the second half of the season.  Howard has never been a big part of the show, granted.  But the Howard working with Gus storyline that Bryce Lynch proposed would be a GREAT storyline and far better than anything the writers have done with the character to date.  Hopefully they will do that storyline next season but I won't hold my breath.

I really have never understood the idea that Mike is portrayed as being omniscient. We have seen him make many mistakes, in BB and BCS. I think he is shown to be a patient, very systematic man, who is prone to making mistakes because he is engaged in a very  complex undertaking, without a lot of assistance. What has been compelling to me about him is why he chose that undertaking, and what he would sacrifice in pursuing it. I think that question has been answered now fully, and he can take a very secondary role next season.

[Eulipian 5k]

You could almost see the transformation of Jimmy during his statement to the board. As soon as his hands went up and the gesticulations followed, he was hitting his stride as Saul. Kim should have seen this "tell" and Giselled her way thru, but she fell into the trap, poor thing.

Concerning Mike and Werner, Lydia pretty much summed up all of Mike's road map for this entire season, "You have earned the respect of Gustavo Fring, I'd advise you to keep it" IIRC.

But something's curious, before he had Mike, Gustavo was so far ahead he was able to track Mike and leave a note "Don"t" in his car, (when Mike had sights on Hector). This time around Lalo was able to follow Mike undetected. Has Gus lowered his guard or did he trust Mike that much?, Why no Gas cap tracker on Lalo after the LPH visit?

[ShadowFacts]

9 minutes ago, Bryce Lynch said:

It just occurred to me that Lalo did Mike a favor by cleaning up the loose ends of Fred and the Travel Wire security video for him.

Mrs. Werner would have told the police about the money she sent and they would have interviewed Fred and seen Mike on the video.

Dead Fred will have the police more interested if Margarethe explains where the money was wired.  Mike might be in the clear at the wire place, but he still might show up on security video at the hotel.  Margarethe has the potential to expose Mike so I think she will disappear.  Although I doubt any of this will be revisited next year, but who knows. 

[Bryce Lynch]

13 minutes ago, ShadowFacts said:

Dead Fred will have the police more interested if Margarethe explains where the money was wired.  Mike might be in the clear at the wire place, but he still might show up on security video at the hotel.  Margarethe has the potential to expose Mike so I think she will disappear.  Although I doubt any of this will be revisited next year, but who knows. 

Dead Fred is going to be a lot of police interest, obviously, and the police might connect it to Werner's disappearance.  But, at least they don't have a witness telling them Mike was looking for him and making up lies and a video of Mike.  

If the police tailed Mike, instead of questioning him right away, he would have led them to the lab and the warehouse.  

[SoMuchTV]

I thoroughly enjoyed Mike's gummy-exit trick but when I thought about it... I don't think I've ever seen a parking facility where you put in the card to exit.  I've seen where you take a card when you go in and then give it to the friendly cashier when you exit so he can tell you what you owe, and I've seen where you pay a flat fee to go in, then push a button to raise the arm when you exit...  Are my parking horizons limited?

And I know it's been said before, but Werner.  Werner, Werner, Werner.  You knew you were taking a job that was literally shrouded in secrecy, you apparently had the foresight to work out a code with Margarethe for your phone calls, but you were naive enough to think you could actually use said code to take a long weekend, no problem.  Sigh.

[Dev F]

2 hours ago, Bannon said:

That "bit" about the insurance company simply reflects the fact that motorists in Illinois are required to carry insurance, and report their accidents. Yes, their premiums go up, and they endure stress. Like I acknowledged, the scam is a felony. The victims of it are still better off, compared to being beaten to death by a burglar.

I think the implication of the original "Slippin' Jimmy" story is that Jimmy was scamming business owners rather than drivers. That's why he mentions finding a spot on State Street or, better yet, Michigan Avenue -- because those are high-end shopping areas in downtown Chicago. The idea seems to be that he would find a successful business and take a fall on its sidewalk in front of a crowd of witnesses, counting on the owner to pay him not to sue.

I would guess that such business would need to be insured as well, but the scam may have involved encouraging them to pay Jimmy under the table so their premiums wouldn't go up.

[Bannon]

6 minutes ago, SoMuchTV said:

I thoroughly enjoyed Mike's gummy-exit trick but when I thought about it... I don't think I've ever seen a parking facility where you put in the card to exit.  I've seen where you take a card when you go in and then give it to the friendly cashier when you exit so he can tell you what you owe, and I've seen where you pay a flat fee to go in, then push a button to raise the arm when you exit...  Are my parking horizons limited?

And I know it's been said before, but Werner.  Werner, Werner, Werner.  You knew you were taking a job that was literally shrouded in secrecy, you apparently had the foresight to work out a code with Margarethe for your phone calls, but you were naive enough to think you could actually use said code to take a long weekend, no problem.  Sigh.

They shortened the process for many self serve pay lots. They have a self serve kiosk in some central location where you get your ticket after parking, estimating the time you'll be there, and paying up front. When you leave, you feed the ticket into the reader at the exit gate, and if you haven't overstayed your time (this can be a big headache if some bonehead has, with cars in line), the gate rises.

[Bannon]

12 minutes ago, Dev F said:

I think the implication of the original "Slippin' Jimmy" story is that Jimmy was scamming business owners rather than drivers. That's why he mentions finding a spot on State Street or, better yet, Michigan Avenue -- because those are high-end shopping areas in downtown Chicago. The idea seems to be that he would find a successful business and take a fall on its sidewalk in front of a crowd of witnesses, counting on the owner to pay him not to sue.

I would guess that such business would need to be insured as well, but the scam may have involved encouraging them to pay Jimmy under the table so their premiums wouldn't go up.

Yeah, that makes sense as well. In real life, most of these cons usually just involve being such a pain in the ass to the insurance company, since it is just about impossible to prove that somebody isn't suffering lower back pain, that they throw a few thousand to the "victim". You eventually run out of insurance companies, however.

Edited October 11, 2018 by Bannon