|
That tomorrow's the finale slipped my mind.  I'd say they need longer seasons if I didn't think it'd lower quality.
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
I was going to say that Robert Forster would fit right in this show but then I remembered he was already in Breaking Bad.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:That tomorrow's the finale slipped my mind. I think a 13-episode season would work just fine, though that's provided there's a little more meat to the plot. This season had rocky pacing in the middle so maybe adding more episodes would just exacerbate the issue.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
NO LISTEN TO ME posted:I think a 13-episode season would work just fine, though that's provided there's a little more meat to the plot. This season had rocky pacing in the middle so maybe adding more episodes would just exacerbate the issue. I think they're trying to find the correct tone of the show, and it's fun to watch them pull back and forth.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:I was going to say that Robert Forster would fit right in this show but then I remembered he was already in Breaking Bad. Which means he'd fit in with this show even better! Seriously, he's loving great and I can't wait to see how Jimmy/Saul builds that bridge.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
The only thing that was inconsistent about this season to me was Kims reaction to basically "knowing" Jimmy doctored the documents. She got really mad about him making a tape of a dude sitting in a pie that had nothing to do with her and had a very low chance of ever coming up again, but if Chuck does find proof of the doctored documents it would completely tank her reputation so I feel like she should have been a little more worried.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:44
|
|
|
RenegadeStyle1 posted:The only thing that was inconsistent about this season to me was Kims reaction to basically "knowing" Jimmy doctored the documents. She got really mad about him making a tape of a dude sitting in a pie that had nothing to do with her and had a very low chance of ever coming up again, but if Chuck does find proof of the doctored documents it would completely tank her reputation so I feel like she should have been a little more worried. At this point, Kim doesn't know that Jimmy did it. She's obviously aware that he did, but he hasn't admitted to it, and Chuck's unhinged ramblings are hardly evidence. She's not on the hook, legally speaking. If they were to have a big fight about it, or a frank discussion of how Jimmy's tracks would best be covered, she would have an obligation to report him for Fraud and Conspiracy and those other things she mentioned. Jimmy is far from off the hook in K-town, but there's only so much she can do about it as long as she doesn't want to put him in the slammer.
|
|
#
?
Apr 17, 2016 23:54
|
|
|
Yeah that actually makes a ton of sense and I didn't think about it that way, plausible deniability on her end. Thanks friend!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 00:42
|
|
|
That's why, despite living together, all she'll say to Jimmy is "you know, if I had done something like that, I'd have made VERY SURE that I covered all my tracks."
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
At first she was "Don't do that ever", but that's because police were involved. But since the suggestion of separate firms working under one roof has come about, and she's learned more about Chuck and Howard's manipulations, she's more "Go for it, but the less I know the better". She's found a way to stick by him while still having plausible deniability.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 02:29
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:At first she was "Don't do that ever", but that's because police were involved. But since the suggestion of separate firms working under one roof has come about, and she's learned more about Chuck and Howard's manipulations, she's more "Go for it, but the less I know the better". She's found a way to stick by him while still having plausible deniability. I've got a feeling this doesn't work out for either of them though.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 02:32
|
|
|
I assume it will since if he is actually caught he would have been disbarred which he obviously isn't by the time BB rolls around.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:At first she was "Don't do that ever", but that's because police were involved. But since the suggestion of separate firms working under one roof has come about, and she's learned more about Chuck and Howard's manipulations, she's more "Go for it, but the less I know the better". She's found a way to stick by him while still having plausible deniability. I feel like this is related to how Kim is repeatedly shown to be risk-averse while at the same time she really wants to take risks and actually live her life. I think a big component of her attraction to Jimmy is that he is (in some ways) living out his life in ways that she can't bring herself to do. Jimmy sees something and says "this is right" or "that's hosed up" and he does what he feels is right, or does what he needs to to get the job done. Kim on the other hand might have similar thoughts as Jimmy does, but she does a lot of cool calculation about how things might go wrong if she actually tried to interact with the world in a way that is consistent with her morals or passions. They're kind of complementary in this way together, but at the same time each one probably goes too far in each direction, with Kim being too cautious and Jimmy not being cautious enough.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 03:27
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:I was going to say that Robert Forster would fit right in this show but then I remembered he was already in Breaking Bad. God that was great casting, and I fully support almost anything that involves Robert Forster being on screen  Obviously the "<x> has fallen" movies don't count.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 03:49
|
|
|
So apparently Vince Gilligan wrote and directed the s2 finale, something he hasn't done since the pilot. Neat!
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 05:49
|
|
|
why isn't the new ep on BTN yet
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 06:28
|
|
|
sticklefifer posted:At first she was "Don't do that ever", but that's because police were involved. But since the suggestion of separate firms working under one roof has come about, and she's learned more about Chuck and Howard's manipulations, she's more "Go for it, but the less I know the better". She's found a way to stick by him while still having plausible deniability. She wasn't "Don't do that ever." She was "you are stupid for risking your career for some random dude, if you ever do that again I don't want to know about it." She has always been consistently in the "I don't want poo poo to trace back to me" camp, and not the "this is wrong" campe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 06:44
|
|
|
^Fair enough.RenegadeStyle1 posted:I assume it will since if he is actually caught he would have been disbarred which he obviously isn't by the time BB rolls around. Maybe Jimmy is but "Saul" isn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 08:41
|
|
|
there's no way the dude would put his face on tv commercials if he was running a law practice under the table
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Yeah Jimmy and Saul have to be publicly the same person, it's probably just a gently caress-you-Chuck name change.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 09:26
|
|
|
Possibly that, but I think in BB he said he chose the name because people seem to want Jewish lawyers.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 13:21
|
|
|
lifts cats over head posted:Possibly that, but I think in BB he said he chose the name because people seem to want Jewish lawyers. Well yeah but in a flashback to Jimmy's past he was already using Saul Goodman as his alias while pulling that fake Rolex scam.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Slate has an article about BCS up. And it is one of the slate-iest Slate articles I have ever read. Unnecessarily provocative click-bait title? Check. Use of words like "chiaroscuro" and "denouement" and "brio" and "apparatchik"? Check. Reference to 1950s film noir? Check. Contradicting the entire article's premise in the conclusion ("Better Call Saul is better than Breaking Bad" to "It may be early to declare Better Call Saul an all-time great TV show, but the necessary ingredients are there.")? Check. I don't know why I even keep reading Slate. Inferior Third Season fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Apr 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 15:01
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Slate has an article about BCS up. And it is one of the slate-iest Slate articles I have ever read. That reminds me of Cracked.com a site I still occasionally visit, but it's a barren wasteland of clickbait titles and rushed articles. Why I still go there I don't know.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:30
|
|
|
Inferior Third Season posted:Reference to 1950s film noir? Check. The rest of your complaints are valid but there's nothing wrong with this one. It's not like they went out of their way to show off some obscure film knowledge. The Touch of Evil tracking shot is very famous and the one in BCS is an obvious homage, the producers even said so on the podcast.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 16:49
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Well yeah but in a flashback to Jimmy's past he was already using Saul Goodman as his alias while pulling that fake Rolex scam. No he wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 17:30
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:No he wasn't. I don't know the specifics but he definitely uses in a flashback. Saul Goodman, S'all good man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I don't know the specifics but he definitely uses in a flashback. Saul Goodman, S'all good man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:Isn't that exactly it? He didn't use it as an alias, it was just something he said. The mark asks Jimmy what his name is. Jimmy says, "Saul." The guy goes, "Saul what?" Jimmy: "S'all good, man." He was basically just using a canned joke response to avoid telling the dude his name.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
PriorMarcus posted:No he wasn't. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGKLhbirSAM
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:15
|
|
|
A joke isn't really an alias.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:17
|
|
|
You can't force me to read even the thinnest layers of subtext or humor. He said the words, therefore it was already established as an alias, end of story. The real question is, since he's been hiding his alter-ego's law practice all this time, why did he ever bother to sleep in Jimmy's tiny office when he could have slept in Saul's office at the strip mall?
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:28
|
|
|
Cojawfee posted:I don't know the specifics but he definitely uses in a flashback. Saul Goodman, S'all good man.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:35
|
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:A joke isn't really an alias. Ditocoaf posted:You can't force me to read even the thinnest layers of subtext or humor. He said the words, therefore it was already established as an alias, end of story. Jesus christ are you both this pedantic in real life? its a fake name he gave to con a rube, he obviously remembers it and reuses it in the future and adds a bunch of details and a fake background to flesh it out. You don't actually have to go change your name by deed poll for it to count as an alias. noun noun: alias; plural noun: aliases 1. a false or assumed identity. He could of told the guy his name was Lligcm Ymmij and it would still be an alias, just an even weaker and more obvious one.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:38
|
|
|
If I tell a knock knock joke where I say my name is "dwayne the bathtub I'm dwouning", you wouldn't say that I "used that name". The rube didn't believe that "Saul good, man" was his name, and Jimmy didn't intend for the rube to believe that was his name. They both laughed, because it was a joke to dodge the question.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:43
|
|
|
Baka-nin posted:Jesus christ are you both this pedantic in real life? its a fake name he gave to con a rube, he obviously remembers it and reuses it in the future and adds a bunch of details and a fake background to flesh it out. You don't actually have to go change your name by deed poll for it to count as an alias. Ditocoaf is clearly being sarcastic. Him using Saul did lead us on to expect something else out of season 2, but I'm really glad they didn't end up going that route.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:44
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:If I tell a knock knock joke where I say my name is "dwayne the bathtub I'm dwouning", you wouldn't say that I "used that name". The rube didn't believe that "Saul good, man" was his name, and Jimmy didn't intend for the rube to believe that was his name. They both laughed, because it was a joke to dodge the question. Alias are used as jokes all the time, and someone not believing you just means your alias is poor and you need to work on your sales pitch.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 20:52
|
|
|
Ditocoaf posted:If I tell a knock knock joke where I say my name is "dwayne the bathtub I'm dwouning", you wouldn't say that I "used that name". I don't know what thread you're reading, but I'd like to join you in it.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Better Call Slippin' Jimmy
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 21:13
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:01 |
|
|
I got the impression that the guy did think Saul was his name. Just not necessarily the Goodman part. Saul Good Man isn't really a joke on its own unless your first name is actually Saul. Also if the guy just said 'Nice to meet you Saul' and changed the subject it would have been kinda awkward.
|
|
#
?
Apr 18, 2016 21:50
|
|
