|
vermin posted:These sort of questions lead me to thinking about the logistics of mid-to-street level organized crime. How do you know who to sell drugs to? Do you just sell to people you know? Where do you hide the drugs? At what point do you need to launder money? How do you become a fence? How do fences find buyers for their stolen stuff? Is there one guy everybody knows who forges documents? Do hitmen hire themselves out or are they just one guy in a crime organization who does the lion's share of the killing? Do back-alley doctors become vets first or do they wait for retired corrupt policemen to show up on their doorstep and offer them cash for service? I would really love a crime thread that explained stuff like this in A/T 
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 14:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
Supercar Gautier posted:If they do a third show in this setting, they're gonna need to start coming forward in time, not jump backward again. badger, skinny pete, babylon 5: The Best Hitmen West of the Mississippi
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 16:40
|
|
|
Durzel posted:This sounds immensely condescending I'm sure, but talking about this show with people who don't do subtlety very well (that's about as nice as I can put it) is frustrating. Between "but batteries don't give off EM??" and saying that the reason Kim wanted to subpoena the tape at the end of episode 4 was about trying to get HHM to admit that the tape they had was a copy - "which would be invalid in court".. I end up wanting to scream. Kim's thing wasn't about getting the tape barred as evidence, it was about getting Chuck to admit there's still a tape so she could build a case on him being a mean, manipulative, bitter person. Hamlin tried to stop him but Chuck is so egotistical he's just like "yeah we deffo have that tape" 
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 16:48
|
|
|
Philip Rivers posted:Kim's thing wasn't about getting the tape barred as evidence, it was about getting Chuck to admit there's still a tape so she could build a case on him being a mean, manipulative, bitter person. Hamlin tried to stop him but Chuck is so egotistical he's just like "yeah we deffo have that tape" This really is the thread that keeps on giving
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 16:53
|
|
|
hiddenmovement posted:The best pre breaking bad role (except for Mikes psa about tampons) is Giancarlo in Do the Right Thing I remember when I finally got around to watching Do the Right Thing post-Breaking Bad having no idea he was in it. I kept squinting at the high-strung guy with the big glasses until it hit me who it was, but even then I had to go to imdb to confirm it.
|
|
#
?
May 12, 2017 17:08
|
|
|
Same but the Usual Suspects.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 01:09
|
|
|
Durzel posted:This sounds immensely condescending I'm sure, but talking about this show with people who don't do subtlety very well (that's about as nice as I can put it) is frustrating. Between "but batteries don't give off EM??" and saying that the reason Kim wanted to subpoena the tape at the end of episode 4 was about trying to get HHM to admit that the tape they had was a copy - "which would be invalid in court".. I end up wanting to scream. To be fair BCS has been one of the more realistic shows when it comes to the courtroom, as a practicing litigator.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 01:38
|
|
|
Spuckuk posted:I would really love a crime thread that explained stuff like this in A/T
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:To be fair BCS has been one of the more realistic shows when it comes to the courtroom, as a practicing litigator. Could you go into a bit more depth about this? I don't usually watch law related programs but I'm quite curious how BCS compares to most and whether or not its convincing to real lawyers and such.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 02:51
|
|
|
khwarezm posted:Could you go into a bit more depth about this? I don't usually watch law related programs but I'm quite curious how BCS compares to most and whether or not its convincing to real lawyers and such. Just all around. The portrayal of the rat race of being a solo practioner (I'm not one, but I know many), the daily grind of being in court negotiating plea deals, and the government prosecutor's jealousy/almost daydreaming about Jimmy's sweet gig as a partner track lawyer. But also in "Chicanery" the actual proceeding before the disciplinary panel was about as close to realistic as it gets for TV shows. It followed a realistic question and answer format for the most part with reasonable objections and judge reactions. Obviously there was a little artistic leeway in following evidentiary rules and format, but the "feel" of it was spot on. Most courtroom scenes are horrible. Not only do they flatout disregard the Rules of Evidence, but they typically abandon having any semblance of a realistic question/answer format for direct/cross examination.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 05:37
|
|
|
What you're saying is that Vince and Peter have out-lawyered Dick Wolf, someone who's been doing it going on 30 years now? Because that's incredible.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 06:26
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:What you're saying is that Vince and Peter have out-lawyered Dick Wolf, someone who's been doing it going on 30 years now? Law and Order is one of the worst offenders of unrealistic court scenes. They barely even pretend to care about making it seem legit.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 08:35
|
|
|
But how is Phoenix Wright?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 10:52
|
|
|
Steve2911 posted:But how is Phoenix Wright? OBJECTION! Saif fiction is not currently a tv show. Motion to bar the question from the record.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 12:31
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:OBJECTION! Saif fiction is not currently a tv show. Motion to bar the question from the record. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ277chBxfU
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 12:34
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:Just all around. The portrayal of the rat race of being a solo practioner (I'm not one, but I know many), the daily grind of being in court negotiating plea deals, and the government prosecutor's jealousy/almost daydreaming about Jimmy's sweet gig as a partner track lawyer. The BCS official podcast goes into the great lengths about how deep the entire crew goes into to make anything law-related seem as realistic as possible. It's insane
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 15:40
|
|
|
Chicanery's podcast said they even dug up a disbarment hearing from the disciplinary commission for North Carolina. It dragged on for 6 hours and they watched the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 16:04
|
|
|
Given how how slowly this show moves (which I loving love) I'm hoping that we get like 15 seasons before we see Jimmy move into his BB office, and at least 8 of those feature long uncut scenes of Gale Boetticher just having fun around Albuquerque. I don't care if they have any relevance to the plot, I just love Gale.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 17:16
|
|
|
I'm hoping we achieve overlap with Breaking Bad from Jimmy's perspective. In his first scene, he requests payment from Badger to Ice Station Zebra Associates. Could he still be in business with Kim?
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 18:00
|
|
|
Accretionist posted:I'm hoping we achieve overlap with Breaking Bad from Jimmy's perspective. A lot of people pooh-pooh the idea of this show ever overlapping with Breaking Bad, but personally I would be very interested in gaining more understanding into certain weird inconsistencies in his character, like how Saul goes from casually advocating shanking one of his own clients in jail in his first appearance, to apparently retaining enough of a personal code that he refuses to betray the location of a client to Mike at the risk of his own life and limb. My suspicion is that they simply conceived him as a slightly more amoral character than they eventually ended up settling on, but it would be interesting if they could still somehow make it work. Like maybe there's some character development stuff going on with Saul behind the scenes that we didn't know about, where he starts to regain some of his more Jimmy-like qualities for whatever reason. But this seeming discrepancy has always been one of the most intriguing things about Saul's character in Breaking Bad to me.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 22:19
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:A lot of people pooh-pooh the idea of this show ever overlapping with Breaking Bad, but personally I would be very interested in gaining more understanding into certain weird inconsistencies in his character, like how Saul goes from casually advocating shanking one of his own clients in jail in his first appearance, to apparently retaining enough of a personal code that he refuses to betray the location of a client to Mike at the risk of his own life and limb. My suspicion is that they simply conceived him as a slightly more amoral character than they eventually ended up settling on, but it would be interesting if they could still somehow make it work. Like maybe there's some character development stuff going on with Saul behind the scenes that we didn't know about, where he starts to regain some of his more Jimmy-like qualities for whatever reason. isnt his client in BB is walter, not badger (even though he reps badger, walt is paying)? i think he gives it his all for who he works for.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 22:28
|
|
|
I think the killing Badger stuff is overblown. It's not like Saul was salivating at the idea, he was just used to working with cartel members and dealers who solve problems that way. It was more him asking "Why don't you do what you normally do?"
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
I always love stuff like when he wouldn't give Mike the address, but "oh, now I might have an address on my desk, and now I'm going to step away for a bit and assume that you WON'T go looking for it" sort of thing. Like how he demanded that Walt and Jesse give him a dollar each so that he could legally be considered their council. I like those 'skirting the law' things where he doesn't have to technically lie or whatever.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:A lot of people pooh-pooh the idea of this show ever overlapping with Breaking Bad, but personally I would be very interested in gaining more understanding into certain weird inconsistencies in his character Overlapping with Breaking Bad means that this show won't get any kind of climactic ending. And it doesn't really need to overlap to justify these "inconsistencies" you mention. True, Jimmy is not yet the person who would suggest anyone taking vacations to Belize, but his story is not yet done. And it has been clearly established that being a lawyer is very, very important to him, on a deeply existential level. He wouldn't risk the felony charges otherwise. In that way, it's completely logical that he would guard his client's location from whomever.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 23:39
|
|
|
Rupert Buttermilk posted:Like how he demanded that Walt and Jesse give him a dollar each so that he could legally be considered their council. I like those 'skirting the law' things where he doesn't have to technically lie or whatever. That seems like a common thing for lawyers to do in this universe. Jimmy did it to the Kettlemans too, I think, and Kim does it to him when she finds out about the tape.
|
|
#
?
May 13, 2017 23:49
|
|
|
KIM JONG TRILL posted:To be fair BCS has been one of the more realistic shows when it comes to the courtroom, as a practicing litigator. I like that even if this is true, they still managed to sneak in a "I'll allow it... but watch yourself" trope.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 00:06
|
|
|
Every so often I just go back and watch Chuck's breakdown on the stand again, it's soooooo good
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Rexides posted:Overlapping with Breaking Bad means that this show won't get any kind of climactic ending. How does that follow? Rupert Buttermilk posted:I always love stuff like when he wouldn't give Mike the address, but "oh, now I might have an address on my desk, and now I'm going to step away for a bit and assume that you WON'T go looking for it" sort of thing. Like how he demanded that Walt and Jesse give him a dollar each so that he could legally be considered their council. I like those 'skirting the law' things where he doesn't have to technically lie or whatever. Well, that wasn't even Jesse's actual location. The whole rigmarole where he pretends to let Mike see it on a technicality is just so Mike won't suspect that Saul is still defying him. Saul even tells Mike in that scene that he wouldn't be able to live with himself if he gave up Jesse, and he sounds strangely sincere. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 04:54 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:52
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:How does that follow? I'm with you. It's quite clear that the end of this show is post breaking bad. The last episode is almost guaranteed to give us some sort of closure to the gene storyline.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:54
|
|
|
Cromulent posted:I think the killing Badger stuff is overblown. It's not like Saul was salivating at the idea, he was just used to working with cartel members and dealers who solve problems that way. It was more him asking "Why don't you do what you normally do?" yeah I just wanna second that this is how I've always read that scene too. It's not necessarily that Saul is gung ho about icing some kid, he's just genuinely confused why someone seemingly so deep in the drug business would want to go with a half measure like that. Jimmy's not dumb, he knows how they do things, and I'm sure by BB he's had plenty run ins with organized crime
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 04:57
|
|
|
I always took that as him just presenting a much more severe option B so they stick with option A (where they pay him 50 grand to arrange a decoy arrest)
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:31
|
|
|
DOPE FIEND KILLA G posted:yeah I just wanna second that this is how I've always read that scene too. It's not necessarily that Saul is gung ho about icing some kid, he's just genuinely confused why someone seemingly so deep in the drug business would want to go with a half measure like that. Jimmy's not dumb, he knows how they do things, and I'm sure by BB he's had plenty run ins with organized crime I'd like to read it this way but it doesn't really ring true. He isn't, like, actively gung ho about it, but it's pretty clear Saul is totally cool with the idea of just icing the kid. He suggests doing the same thing to Jesse when Jesse starts threatening to turn Walt in to the DEA. Javid posted:I always took that as him just presenting a much more severe option B so they stick with option A (where they pay him 50 grand to arrange a decoy arrest) That's really not how it plays at all. Right when they're about to go through with the decoy arrest plan, he even asks them one more time whether they really wouldn't rather just have Badger shanked in jail. It's pretty clear that he's taking a real risk with the convoluted Jimmy In-'N-Out plan and would rather just go with the cleaner, safer option of offing Badger so he can't talk to anyone. It comes across like this is something he's had done before as a matter of course. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 05:55 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:34
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:I'd like to read it this way but it doesn't really ring true. He isn't, like, actively gung ho about it, but it's pretty clear Saul is totally cool with the idea of just icing the kid. He suggests doing the same thing to Jesse when Jesse starts threatening to turn Walt in to the DEA. Saul goes down with Walt. It’s either going to be Jess or Saul, and it ain’t going to be Saul.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 05:39
|
|
|
Sagebrush posted:That seems like a common thing for lawyers to do in this universe. Jimmy did it to the Kettlemans too, I think, and Kim does it to him when she finds out about the tape. It also happens in John Grisham's "The Client." Some form of payment for retainer has to pass from client to lawyer to activate the attorney-client privilege mechanism.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 14:00
|
|
|
baw posted:It also happens in John Grisham's "The Client." Some form of payment for retainer has to pass from client to lawyer to activate the attorney-client privilege mechanism. This isn't strictly true, unless we are to believe that legal aid attorneys and public defenders never have attorney client privilege.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 14:41
|
|
|
Glambags posted:This isn't strictly true, unless we are to believe that legal aid attorneys and public defenders never have attorney client privilege. Or what if I have an initial meeting with a potential lawyer... it goes well, agree on pricing, and agree to bring a check with me to our next meeting where we'll hash out specifics of my defense?
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 14:55
|
|
|
Glambags posted:This isn't strictly true, unless we are to believe that legal aid attorneys and public defenders never have attorney client privilege. I'm sure public defenders have payment arranged by the court well before you ever receive their counsel. If you receive counsel. The system is a farce, to be honest, they're way too overworked to give any single client a proper defense.
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 15:25
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Chicanery's podcast said they even dug up a disbarment hearing from the disciplinary commission for North Carolina. It dragged on for 6 hours and they watched the whole thing. Stupid question: What podcast is this you speak of? Is it like offical? Also, I hope they considered getting the cast to narrate the transcript ala Rick & Morty. It'd be the biggest "funny cause it's boring" hit since that Norwegian log fire. Die Sexmonster! posted:I'm sure public defenders have payment arranged by the court well before you ever receive their counsel. If you receive counsel. The system is a farce, to be honest, they're way too overworked to give any single client a proper defense. My question is more about whether it's the payment that establishes the relationship, or agreeing to purchase services. For example: I tell lawyer I've been charged with shitposting. He tells me he can probably mount a defense for 10bux, but it might be 20bux if there was mod sass. I say yes, there was some mod sass. He says ok, come back next week at 10am with a check and we'll take a detailed statement and plan our defense. Could they really argue because money hadn't changed hands, there's no privilege? I'm not a lawyer, but as a juror I'd wrinkle my nose at that BS. maskenfreiheit fucked around with this message at 16:14 on May 14, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 16:11
|
|
|
Better Call Saul Insider podcast. Yes it's official. They did it for at least a few seasons of BrBa also. They've been getting on my nerves lately but there is always some interesting info in there
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 16:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:59 |
|
|
Tree Dude posted:Better Call Saul Insider podcast. Yes it's official. They did it for at least a few seasons of BrBa also. Really? I think it's wonderful, just wonderful
|
|
#
?
May 14, 2017 16:18
|
|