Support NeoGAF

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Goddamn was this episode satisfying.

https://www.reddit.com/r/FuckChuck/

The official Chuck sub is so happy right now.

I have never seen a weirder subforum.

 

[Leona Lewis]

"HE DEFECATED THROUGH A SUNROOF!"

 

[Einchy]

Chuck is completely indefensible after tonight's episode.

That's the face of a man who knows his creamy bullshit just fell out of his pockets and in front of his ex-wife to boot.

 

[Veelk]

Except his parents loving him more, in his eyes. And getting a law degree.

But sure. Blame the user for watching the show wrong or whatever.

Except even if that is true, that hardly accounts for 'everything in his life', and his parents loving him wasn't even a factor in this episode except to insinuate that it allowed him to steal from them. Which is a strong possibility if nothing else.

And yeah, it's perfectly possible to say a person is misinterpreting a character. I'm not saying your outright wrong, it's just that the episode in question didn't really offer any new evidence of Chuck blaming Jimmy for anything and from our past discussions, I'm saying it seems to me that you'd read Chuck blaming Jimmy bad weather if you saw him complaining about it.

And what does he 'blame him for getting a law degree' even maen? It didn't just fall out of the sky. If you mean he is upset that he got it and think he didn't deserve it, well, yeah that's not news, but it doesn't really make sense to phrase it like he thinks Jimmy doing it to personally offend him. He's outraged at the idea of Jimmy being a lawyer, but he didn't 'blame him' for getting it as if Jimmy did it to personally insult him and his life wasn't negatively affected by it until Mesa Verde.

 

[8BitsAtATime]

"HE DEFECATED THROUGH A SUNROOF!"

Chicago Sunroof.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

That was some engrossing television, almost all of it took place in one setting and I couldn't believe it was over so quickly. I really does feel like Chuck is going to end up losing his license and it possibly being the straw that breaks the camel's back though on the other hand... It sounds like Jimmy (preview related)

Spoiler

might be changing his name no longer disparage the McGill name.

Was that still Lavell Crawford? If so, he's lost some weight.

Yeah, he lost over a hundred pounds from what I read from last year.

I think in most states, he'd have be be shown to be a danger to himself or others.


Sepinwall has a great review up. http://uproxx.com/sepinwall/better-call-saul-chicanery-recap-review/2/

And this better be an Emmy nom at the least.

Yeah it better and someone on the show has to finally win too.

 

[Exclamation-One]

Chicago Sunroof

Holy fuck!!!

Did Jimmy "make up" the Chicago Sunroof the same way he made up the Hoboken Squat Cobbler??

It adds some subtlety and wile to his character. All along, he may have been using that term to make it sound more socially 'acceptable' whenever he discussed it with others.

So, fully clothed Mr. Wormald by himself doing what?
Yeah, come on, man. What?

[Sighs] Squat cobbler.

What's a s-squat cobbler?

Squat cobbler. *You know what squat cobbler is.

No, I don't... I don't know what a squat cobbler is.
No, me neither.
What is it?

What? And you two guys are cops? Hoboken squat cobbler. Full moon moon-pie. Boston cream splat. [Chuckles] Seriously? Simple-Simon-the-ass-man. Dutch apple ass. Guys, am I not speaking English here?

What the hell is a squat cobbler?!

It's when a man sits in pie! He sits in a pie! And he... he wiggles around. Maybe it's like hellmann's mayonnaise. It has a different name west of the rockies.

 

[Chumley]

Holy fuck that was so good and so satisfying to watch. Chuck finally breaking down and putting lie to all of the ridiculous "but it's about the law" defenses once and for all, not to mention his bullshit illness.

 

[ScottSullivan]

That moment was so much greater because of the build up of their relationship through the season. Masterful. That wouldn't have been nearly as great as a typical law an order courtroom showdown

 

[Chumley]

Huell the MVP

 

[Veelk]

Holy fuck that was so good and so satisfying to watch. Chuck finally breaking down and putting lie to all of the ridiculous "but it's about the law" defenses once and for all, not to mention his bullshit illness.

Except it doesn't put the lie to it at all. All it does is confirm that it's accusations are tinged with personal resentment. Which was never in contention by anybody.

 

[rekameohs]

Gordon Smith is immediately on my list for writers to look out for. He wrote this episode, Five-O (the Mike flashback episode), and Inflatable (where Jimmy purposely gets fired from Davis and Main), which were all incredible.

 

[Einchy]

Veelk, come on, man.

This episode couldn't have been more clear about Chuck being full of shit about everything he has claimed thus far.

 

[Demption]

This show seems to get better after each season? People seems really positive on S3, im watching the second season atm.

 

[Bounceounce]

Chuck is completely indefensible after tonight's episode.

That's the face of a man who knows his creamy bullshit just fell out of his pockets and in front of his ex-wife to boot.

No it's the face of a mentally ill/sick man with legitmage gripes mixed in with hypocrisy/ego and maliciousness.

That's the face of a breakdown/being outed as "crazy" and having your reputation permanently damaged and your worst fear realized, not someone's plans being foiled.

 

[Veelk]

Veelk, come on, man.

This episode couldn't have been more clear about Chuck being full of shit about everything he has claimed thus far.

His breakdown consisted of him ranting and raving about how Jimmy gets away with everything through scheming. Like, literally, his entire breakdown is about how Jimmy always, always gets away with doing wrong. Faking a crisis, stealing from his parents.

What about this to you suggest that it isn't, fundamentally, about him defending the law?

I'm asking genuinely because I just don't see how one concludes that him being upset about Jimmy getting away with crimes is something that proves it actually isn't about that at all. How does him insisting for the upteenth time that it's about how a fundamental criminal shouldn't be a lawyer proves that it was never about Jimmy being a criminal? Seriously, how?

 

[Corpekata]

http://www.youtubemultiplier.com/5911547a5e9f0-chuck-gets-found-out-by-phoenix-wright.php

Fits so well.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

His breakdown consisted of him ranting and raving about how Jimmy gets away with everything through scheming. Like, literally, his entire breakdown is about how Jimmy always, always gets away with doing wrong. Faking a crisis, stealing from his parents.

What about this to you suggest that it isn't, fundamentally, about him defending the law?

I'm asking genuinely because I just don't see how one concludes that him being upset about Jimmy getting away with crimes is something that proves it actually isn't about that at all. How does him insisting for the upteenth time that it's about how a fundamental criminal shouldn't be a lawyer proves that it was never about Jimmy being a criminal? Seriously, how?

You have the shows creators even saying that Chuck is doing this out of spite.

 

[Veelk]

You have the shows creators even saying that Chuck is doing this out of spite.

No shit he is, and you don't need the creators to tell you that. It's in the show. He personally resents Jimmy down to his bones.

But resents him for what?

For being above the rule, every time. Everything, including this trial, supports that. How is that, then, not about it being about the law?

 

[RatskyWatsky]

That was the tensest episode of anything I've seen this year, so thick in the back half that you could have sliced it with a box cutter. And the conclusion was just devastating.

Phenomenal stuff!

 

[Kyzer]

No shit he is, and you don't need the creators to tell you that. It's in the show.

But spite for what?

For being above the rule, every time. Everything, including this trial, supports that. How is that, then, not about it being about the law?

For his mom loving him more than Chuck and her last word being "Jimmy", despite him being the one that worked so hard and never left her side, which Chuck never told Jimmy

 

[Chumley]

No shit he is, and you don't need the creators to tell you that. It's in the show. He personally resents Jimmy down to his bones.

But resents him for what?

For being above the rule, every time. Everything, including this trial, supports that. How is that, then, not about it being about the law?

This reads like the post of someone who's only seen the latest episode of the show.

 

[Veelk]

For his mom loving him more than Chuck and her last word being "Jimmy", despite him being the one that worked so hard and never left her side, which Chuck never told Jimmy

Sure, sure, that's also a factor.

But

Stay with me here

But what if

Focus. Stay with me.

He also resents him for all the stuff he says he resents him for, 90% of which being a criminal, which is about the law.

This reads like the post of someone who's only seen the latest episode of the show.

*throws up hands*

There's no winning with some of you. If Chuck does something that indicates that he's resentful for reasons outside of the law, you run away saying it's the only motivation for his actions. If he does something that indicates he's resentful for reasons not outside the law, that too is an indication that it's only a cover for his actual feelings that are not about the law.

I asked this before and I still haven't gotten an answer: What precisely is it that Chuck could theoretically do that would count as evidence that he is authentic in his accusations if everything he does is an indictment of his inauthenticity?

 

[crisdecuba]

Except it doesn't put the lie to it at all. All it does is confirm that it's accusations are tinged with personal resentment. Which was never in contention by anybody.

Tinged is too light a word. The intensity of his break at the end betrays more than a tinge of personal resentment.

I think the more reasonable interpretation is that his "defense of the law" explanation is to a large extent a rationalization for the intensity of his personal resentment and for the resulting lengths he's willing to go to ensure Jimmy doesn't practice law.

 

[Dash_Riprock]

Sure, sure, that's also a factor.

But

Stay with me here

But what if

Focus. Stay with me.

He also resents him for all the stuff he says he resents him for, 90% of which being a criminal, which is about the law.

Veelk, I distinctly remember you being banned last season for starting this smug, condescending bullshit. Are we gonna have a repeat of that?

 

[Rastafarian42]

Best episode of the series

 

[MegaManTrigger]

No shit he is, and you don't need the creators to tell you that. It's in the show. He personally resents Jimmy down to his bones.

But resents him for what?

For being above the rule, every time. Everything, including this trial, supports that. How is that, then, not about it being about the law?

Because the law isn't going to do what Chuck did during the trial. The fundamentals about law are always impartiality (which is huge as the law wouldn't judge what Jimmy's past all the way to childhood in relation to the Mesa Verde crime) and justice, and Chuck's resentment for Jimmy, his emotional state and outburst compromised any semblance of impartiality he had. I mean even the show itself heavily suggests this through Hamlin telling Chuck that his cross examination wouldn't even be necessary if they had gone with their original plan. Everything in that rant was to punish Jimmy outside the confines of the law, hell Jimmy got busted for the Chicago Sunroof and STILL Chuck brings that up. Chuck also brings up stealing from the family till as if that's relevant.

 

[Veelk]

Tinged is too light a word. The intensity of his break at the end betrays more than a tinge of personal resentment.

I think the more reasonable interpretation is that his "defense of the law" explanation is to a large extent a rationalization for the intensity of his personal resentment and for the resulting lengths he's willing to go to ensure Jimmy doesn't practice law.

I can agree that he rationalizes a lot of his actions to suit his worldview of the law being imperative. For example, in the beginning of the episode where howard tells Chuck to drop it. Notice that he first argues that it's for the sake of PR for HHM. Howard counters that it would be worse PR for him to show that his documents could have been broken into and stolen in the first place. Right there, Chuck's argument shifts into it being about the principle and they just have to suffer a little bad PR to put away a man who doesn't deserve to practice law.

That, not the breakdown, would be a greater indicator of Chuck's priorities shifting to suit his needs, but no one seems to be bringing it up.

Regardless, fundamentally, Chuck's objection to Jimmy is that he does break the law. That's the source of his resentment. You can't argue that it's all about spite on Chuck's part and ignore what cause the spite in the first place: Jimmy ignoring the law.

Veelk, I distinctly remember you being banned last season for starting this smug, condescending bullshit. Are we gonna have a repeat of that?

I was banned because it escalated into straight up insults between me and another user. Nothing here has escalated into that. I'm being snide and sarcastic and condescending out of frustration, but that's all allowed within the ToS or atleast tolerated lest 70% of gaf be banned. Straight up insults aren't. And I'm still making actual argumentative points in my posts, not just shittalking. Though if a mod wants me to tone it down, I will.

Because the law isn't going to do what Chuck did during the trial. The fundamentals about law are always impartiality (which is huge as the law wouldn't judge what Jimmy's past all the way to childhood in relation to the Mesa Verde crime) and justice, and Chuck's resentment for Jimmy, his emotional state and outburst compromised any semblance of impartiality he had. I mean even the show itself heavily suggests this through Hamlin telling Chuck that his cross examination wouldn't even be necessary if they had gone with their original plan. Everything in that rant was to punish Jimmy outside the confines of the law, hell Jimmy got busted for the Chicago Sunroof and STILL Chuck brings that up. Chuck also brings up stealing from the family till as if that's relevant.

But Chuck isn't acting as a judge, he's acting as the defendant. Not even the defendant's attorney. Defendants aren't expected to be impartial or unemotional, nor necessarily prosecutors.

I keep feeling like people think that this is an either-or situation. Chuck is either an impartial statue like the law says he should be or else that he's a hypocrite and is doing it out of personal spite not related to the law. I keep saying that Chuck's spite is born FROM Jimmy acting out side the law.

As the defendant, Chuck has a right to be upset because it's his grievance that is being examined. It literally wouldn't make sense otherwise, because any prosecurtion could get the case thrown out by saying "oh, this isn't about the fact that you got robbed, it's about the fact that you are upset that you got robbed. Defendant is biased, therefore the case is null and void." That doesn't make any sense.

It just seems kind of ridiculous to act as if being upset that a criminal committed a crime against you is evidence that you have no cause to complain about the crime at all.

 

[Chumley]

I'm being snide and sarcastic and condescending, but that's all allowed within the ToS or atleast tolerated lest 70% of gaf be banned.

Jesus Christ.

 

[crisdecuba]

I can agree that he rationalizes a lot of his actions to suit his worldview of the law being imperative. For example, in the beginning of the episode where howard tells Chuck to drop it. Notice that he first argues that it's for the sake of PR for HHM. Howard counters that it would be worse PR for him to show that his documents could have been broken into and stolen in the first place. Right there, Chuck's argument shifts into it being about the principle and they just have to suffer a little bad PR to put away a man who doesn't deserve to practice law.

That, not the breakdown, would be a greater indicator of Chuck's priorities shifting to suit his needs, but no one seems to be bringing it up.

Regardless, fundamentally, Chuck's objection to Jimmy is that he does break the law. That's the source of his resentment. You can't argue that it's all about spite on Chuck's part and ignore what cause the spite in the first place: Jimmy ignoring the law.

I'm saying that the breakdown is indicative of the extent of his personal resentment, not about shifting his priorities to suit his needs. A personal resentment that you seem to undersell by seeing it as a "tinge."

I agree that Chuck does love the law and hates that Jimmy breaks it as a means to an end. Intertwined in that, however, is a resentment for how much Jimmy is liked by people (his ex-wife, his mom, etc.) despite his skirting / breaking the law.

 

[Veelk]

I'm saying that the breakdown is indicative of the extent of his personal resentment, not about shifting his priorities to suit his needs. A personal resentment that you seem to undersell by seeing it as a "tinge."

I agree that Chuck does love the law and hates that Jimmy breaks it as a means to an end. Intertwined in that, however, is a resentment for how much Jimmy is liked by people (his ex-wife, his mom, etc.) despite his skirting / breaking the law.

Okay, I understand that a bit better. You're saying that the degree of Chuck's resentment is beyond what can be called reasonable, so tinged is too weak a word to characterize it.

That, I can atleast see, so sure. I think we can all agree that Chuck's obsession with seeing the downfall of his brother is both unhealthy and out of control.

My objection was that the assertion that this was somehow not about Chuck being angry that Jimmy breaks the law because he's resentful of Jimmy for doing it. That's the part I'm asserting doesn't so much as make rational sense when, as you say, it's intertwined.

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

I knew they weren't going to do something as blunt as destroying or doctoring the tape. This was so much more satisfying and riveting. I can't believe court room drama could go by so quick, I couldn't believe the episode was over. This show is absolutely at Breaking Bad levels.

The ending shot really makes you feel for Chuck because you see that once Chuck loses that respect and esteem that everyone has for him, they'll just see him as a raving mad man. And that sucks to do to your own family even if he's trying to get you disbarred. You can tell Jimmy doesn't want to have to tear down his own brother like that, but Chuck is the one who keeps picking a fight with him, forcing him to go for the kill and leaving him looking like Walt at the end of crawl space.

Michael McKean was fantastic. And Bob Odenkirk as well for playing it so reluctantly rather than with conviction. You could feel that he feels like shit for having to do that, even when he revealed the battery it wasn't some triumphant twist.

Also happy to see Huell lost weight, or rather, not yet put on the weight.

 

[Sadsic]

That was by far the best episode of the series that wasn't based around Breaking Bad nostalgia - probably going to be considered one of the core episodes of this series when all is said and done

 

[crisdecuba]

Okay, I understand that a bit better. You're saying that the degree of Chuck's resentment is beyond what can be called reasonable, so tinged is too weak a word to characterize it.

That, I can atleast see, so sure. I think we can all agree that Chuck's obsession with seeing the downfall of his brother is both unhealthy and out of control.

My objection was that the assertion that this was somehow not about Chuck being angry that Jimmy breaks the law because he's resentful of Jimmy for doing it. That's the part I'm asserting doesn't so much as make rational sense when, as you say, it's intertwined.

*high five*

 

[Blastoise]

So I guess Ernesto isn't young Huell...

 

[TheOddOne]

- A|V Club Review: Chuck takes the stand as Better Call Saul goes full courtroom.
- Sepinwall: ‘Better Call Saul’ Goes All-McGill Brothers For Some Riveting ‘Chicanery’.
- Vulture: Better Call Saul Recap: My Dinner Without Andre.
- Atlantic: Better Call Saul Stages Its Bittersweet Showdown.
- EW: Better Call Saul recap: 'Chicanery'.
- TVLine: Better Call Saul Recap: Assault, Battery.
- Variety: ‘Better Call Saul’ Star Michael McKean on Chuck’s Testimony in Tonight’s Trial Episode, ‘Chicanery’.
- THR: 'Better Call Saul' Star Michael McKean Talks Chuck's Moment on the Stand.
- Daily Beast: ‘Better Call Saul’s’ Michael McKean on Chuck’s Devastating Downfall.

 

[newtypepilot]

This episode...so fucking good. And it's only episode 5! Chuck has no one but himself to blame for that meltdown. The ending shot of him totally defeated with the buzzing of the exit sign in the foreground is so satisfying and a bit tragic at the same time. His reputation is ruined. HHM is ruined. Michael McKean definitely deserve an Emmy for that performance.

Good to see Huel again. Will Patrick appear this season too??

 

[Lord of Castamere]

So I guess Ernesto isn't young Huell...

Of course not, he's Gus' son.

 

[Donos]

So good. And it's more good because of all the "slow" buildup and character development which take their sweet time (what some don't like about BCS).

Having Rebecca sitting there while Chuck had his outbreak was even more devastating.

I have to give it to Howard, he kept his Pokerface when chuck went all in. Overall i have to say that although i would not be friends with him (because he is a Robot), Howard is not really a bad person from what they showed. He cares for his business but they showed that he also cares (a little bit) for people and doesn't do things just out of spite.

 

[MBison]

What were Jimmy and Kim excited about at the end of the last episode saying we got him? I thought it was about the existence of the duplicate tape and they were going to steal it or switch it? What was the point of it?

 

[Trey]

The dialogue and pacing of the disbarment scene was phenomenal. Chuck becoming increasingly smug as he blows past his own counsel's objections to Jimmy's tricks - all leading to Chuck hanging his case. Like Chuck says of Jimmy all the time: he just can't help himself.

What were Jimmy and Kim excited about at the end of the last episode saying we got him? I thought it was about the existence of the duplicate tape and they were going to steal it or switch it? What was the point of it?

rebecca's address/information, in order to bring her to he courtroom and throw Chuck off his game.

 

[Donos]

I already dread what happens to Kim at the end of the series.

 

[Leona Lewis]

doesn't do things just out of spite.

Kim on desk duty would likely beg to differ.

 

[MBison]

The dialogue and pacing of the disbarment scene scene was phenomenal. Chuck becoming increasingly smug as he blows past his own counsel's objections to Jimmy's tricks - all leading to Chuck hanging his case. Like Chuck says of Jimmy all the time: he just can't help himself.



rebecca's address/information, in order to bring her to he courtroom and throw Chuck off his game.

Huh? At the end of the last episode they get all excited when chuck talks about the tapes. There wasn't talk in that scene of the address.

 

[Leona Lewis]

What were Jimmy and Kim excited about at the end of the last episode saying we got him? I thought it was about the existence of the duplicate tape and they were going to steal it or switch it? What was the point of it?

Yeah, I was confused too. It seemed that they were keen last episode on Chuck having a backup copy, but then Kim pressed the panel to suppress its playback in this episode.

So what was the point of their excitement over Chuck's little slip that his property wasn't actually irrevocably destroyed?

 

[Trey]

Huh? At the end of the last episode they get all excited when chuck talks about the tapes. There wasn't talk in that scene of the address.

it meant Howard and Chuck were planning on introducing the tape as the principal evidence to get Jimmy disbarred, wherein Jimmy would use said tape - contextualized with rebecca, the pictures mike took, and courtroom shenanigans - to paint Chuck as both incontinent and biased against Jimmy, and Jimmy as saying whatever it took to talk Chuck off the ledge. You kill two birds with one stone, a stone provided by the birds themselves.

it was their counter plan.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

No shit he is, and you don't need the creators to tell you that. It's in the show. He personally resents Jimmy down to his bones.

But resents him for what?

For being above the rule, every time. Everything, including this trial, supports that. How is that, then, not about it being about the law?

"But what did the creator of the show really mean?"

And now you're trying to justify why your patronization of other users is okay? Over a TV show? Okay. Sure. I'm not sure if you think this is clever or not.

This episode...so fucking good. And it's only episode 5! Chuck has no one but himself to blame for that meltdown. The ending shot of him totally defeated with the buzzing of the exit sign in the foreground is so satisfying and a bit tragic at the same time. His reputation is ruined. HHM is ruined. Michael McKean definitely deserve an Emmy for that performance.

Good to see Huel again. Will Patrick appear this season too??

I really want to see how he tries to attack Jimmy now that his legal angle is gone. I don't see him resorting to violence.

 

[Chumley]

"But what did the creator of the show really mean?"

Every week it's the same thing. The creators of the show refute everything he's saying on the podcast, yet he still goes on ballistic multi-paragraph rants when people talk about Chuck in the same way they do.

 

[Veelk]

Every week it's the same thing. The creators of the show refute everything he's saying on the podcast, yet he still goes on ballistic multi-paragraph rants when people talk about Chuck in the same way they do.

IIRC, the actor, McKean basically repeats a lot of the stuff I say about it, if you want to do the whole appeal to authority bit, I can do that too. And I'd have to see those reciepts myself, because I'd want to hear myself if they say all that you say they say.

But I just think that's a bad literary criticism. If you view the true message of the show as being what the creators say after the podcast, then it's unnecessary to watch the show at all, just listen to the podcast to know whats it really about.

I reject that. What the creators of the show say about show doesn't matter. The show is what matters. So if the creators have a different viewpoint of it than I do, in my eyes, that means nothing more than just that: they have a perspective that's different from mine on the show. They're position is basically not any more significant than yours, or mine, or anyone elses. Their writing matters. Their intentions do not or thoughts after the fact do not, except as trivia information.

Death of the Author. Live it.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Every week it's the same thing. The creators of the show refute everything he's saying on the podcast, yet he still goes on ballistic multi-paragraph rants when people talk about Chuck in the same way they do.

I think they do a fantastic job with Chuck. I want to see flashbacks of him being a lawyer pre-electroBS. We've never, ever seen that.

Death of the Author. Live it.

Veelk. The only reason people are bringing up the podcast is because of the incredibly patronizing, rude, and downright hostile way you post. It's not because we can't watch the show for ourselves.