HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
dp
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Better Call Saul S3 |OT| Gus Who's Back - Mondays 10/9c on AMC
- Thread starter TheOddOne
- Start date
newtypepilot
Member
Kim's conversation with Chuck at the end of last episode was to confirm Chuck still has the original tape. The attempt to suppress it is a feint because this is what Chuck expected them to do. Chuck believed Jimmy would try to deny the tape when in fact, he wanted the tape to be played as part of his plan to show Chuck's personal vendetta against Jimmy.
crisdecuba
Member
Nah, never agreed with death of the author personally. Especially in situations where we have an explicit explanation from the creator of the creators intent (as opposed to simple inference based on the creator's views, experience.)
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Seriously, what episode do I need to rewatch for this?
I'm not being polite to Chumley's because his assertion was a lazy dismissal of my arguments for reasons of "Well, the creators got my back, so nyah!"
Why wouldn't I respond with a defense for that?
And why do you think that that, of all the posts, was patronizing, rude, or hostile? I don't deny that I can be sarcastic and impolite when I feel annoyed at the discourse I'm having, but there was nothing in that particular response that was out of line. The bit about how his philosophy is an appeal to authority was a tiny bit catty at best. The rest of it was me normally explaining why "But the creators says so!" is immaterial to me. That's not me being snide, it's just me explaining why I don't view it as a valid counterargument to my assertions.
I should probably make a thread on this topic, because I actually think that you can create a thought experiment to stress test that idea and how far you can go before you just have to say "No, I don't care what you intended, that's not whats on the paper"
But I think that's outside the scope of this thread, which is just about BSC. For now, we can agree to disagree, but I was just explaining why Chumley's counter is just not a counter to me. We can agree to disagree, but for me, it's always the work, not the intent, that matters.
I get that you're completely oblivious to it, but the dripping condescension about your perspective being the best one and everyone else being idiots for not sharing it is the problem here. Not Death of the Author. The reason I brought up the podcast is because a constant thing you do is trying to frame other people's opinions about Chuck being uninformed in some way, and these are the people who created the fucking show with those same opinions. Everyone is entitled to their own perspective, but you keep ramming yours down everyone's throat with constant rants. It's beyond tired at this point, and you're killing the thread with it.
It was clever because i thought after last EP: "Kim really would agree to stealing the tape copy from the house?". And even then you would not know i he didn't have a third one.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Rhea Seehorn is a goddamn find as well. What else has she been in?
Small bit parts here and there, she was virtually an unknown when they cast her. Amazing break for her. I think her and Carrie Coon have been two of the most incredible finds for actresses in TV over the last couple of years.
Seems like her first major role was in this show that no longer exists on the internet cus all that comes up is Hillary.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I'm_with_Her
She better get a shit ton of roles once BCS is done.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
I can bring up examples where I concede to people having good points that I haven't thought of and accept other arguments that I don't buy into but can agree make coherent sense. On this very page, someone disputed my use of the word tinge and I ended up conceding the point.
*shrug*
I get that I sometimes talk in an authoritative voice that people in the past have considered condescending like you do. I (usually) don't mean for it to have that (Which I'm actually genuinely curious to know how much that bit of authorial intent means to you. Does the fact I didn't intend condescension mean my posts don't contain any?), but I am open to others arguments. Perhaps I'm sometimes not polite about it. But I've been in arguments where I've gone both out of my way to be polite and where I didn't care whether I was polite. And in the end...idk, it just doesn't really matter to me whether you perceive me as being rude. It's not that I want to be rude or that I'm trying to be, but I just don't mind being perceived as such. I'm just trying to debate the points about the show. That's all I'm really here for.
The basic line here is that there are valid and rational arguments you can make and invalid, irrational ones. If someone came in here saying Jimmy was a fire breathing dragon, polite or no, the basic response to that should be "No, you're wrong." While the arguments about Chuck's character haven't necessarily been that extreme, the content of the show shows pretty strongly that his stance is more than "fuck Jimmy". So when I feel that you are making the argument that all that stance is, then yeah, I have the urge to come down on that and say "No, you're wrong." Because I genuinely feel you are. That's not me thinking my view is the only acceptable one, it's me disputing a claim I find incoherent with the content of the show. I say this because I still genuinely don't get how you interpreted Chuck's "putting lie to all of the ridiculous "but it's about the law" defenses once and for all" when his breakdown is literally centered around how Jimmy schemes himself out of the law. You still haven't supported that argument.
And frankly, that's what I'm here for. That's discussion. My putting your argument under scrutiny, you putting mine under the same. It's argumentative and maybe unfriendly since I don't get the impression you like me very much, but it's what the board is for. And it's okay that you don't like me. I honestly don't mind. If you don't want ot discuss things with me, feel free to not respond to my posts. Maybe put me on ignore. But I feel I'm within my rights to post as I have been.
Fried Food
Banned
Man this show is good. I like it more than Breaking Bad.
Hella Lugosi
Member
Nice to see the first appearance of Huell, master of the reverse pickpocket.
I loved the Huell reference when the Vet said, "you gotta fit him in a tight space?" Best possible way they could have reintroduced him.
Love how they utilize flashbacks in this show. The intro scene not only gave some added depth to the characters but was super relevant to the events at the end of the episode.
Love how they utilize flashbacks in this show. The intro scene not only gave some added depth to the characters but was super relevant to the events at the end of the episode.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I think it's clear that he's jealous of the carefree way that Jimmy lives his life. They're both equally intelligent, but we know that their father's naivety is what causes their lives to diverge - Jimmy doesn't want to be a patsy. Chuck sees himself as morally superior, and resents the fact that Jimmy can be as successful as him by doing everything "wrong", starting with the way he got his law degree.
That's not to say Chuck is wrong, since we know that Jimmy ends up as a Cinnabon manager in the middle of nowhere because of his behaviour, but it's also clear that Chuck's motivated by more than wanting to preserve the dignity of being a lawyer.
Monocle
Member
This is fucking stupid. You're saying a show's creators have no authority to speak to the meaning of their own work?
No. Dump this postmodern filth in the crapper where it belongs. Make your own damn art if you want to hoist your opinion to the same height as an actual writer.
That's some insidious bullshit.
It's hardly postmodern. The original essay for it was written in 1967, though I would say it probably evolved past the original meaning, as all artistic theories tend to do. Granted, it's hardly the oldest of literary theories, but it's hardly anything novel.
Regardless, it's not that they have no authority whatsoever. They just don't have any more authority than anyone else. The validity what they say is based on how much it correlates to the work they make, and their validity doesn't override anyone elses.
Basically, suppose the original artist of this insists that they were only only trying to draw a vase, it doesn't change the fact that you can interpret it as two faces and have that be valid because...well, you can clearly see two faces in there. The original artist can scream it's just a vase until they're red in the face, but the product itself shows two faces, so it their objections are moot. So it's not that the original artist is wrong, necessarily, because the vase is in there. However, his being the artist is not the reason he's not wrong. He's not wrong because the art shows a vase. And the people who see two faces are right because there are two faces there. It comes down to the same thing: It's the product that determines if an interpretation is right, not the artist.
A bit simplified, but that's the gist of it. Hence, the artist's intentions are immaterial, not like the product.
Daria Morgendorffer
Member
All I see in that is 2 Mike Ehrmantrauts
Monocle
Member
The artist's intent adds important context. You can interpret a text however you want, but it's just fanfiction. Your interpretation doesn't have greater or equal weight than that of the person who had something to say, and then said it, and then explained what they said.It's hardly postmodern. The original essay for it was written in 1967, though I would say it probably evolved past the original meaning, as all artistic theories tend to do.
Regardless, it's not that they have no authority whatsoever. They just don't have any more authority than anyone else. The validity what they say is based on how much it correlates to the context of the work they make, and their validity doesn't override anyone elses.
Basically, suppose the original artist of this insists that they were only only trying to draw a vase, it doesn't change the fact that you can interpret it as two faces and have that be valid because...well, you can clearly see two faces in there. The original artist can scream it's just a vase until they're red in the face, but the product itself shows two faces, so it their objections are moot. So it's not that the original artist is wrong, necessarily, because the vase is in there. However, his being the artist is not the reason he's not wrong. He's not wrong because the art shows a vase. And the people who see two faces are right because there are two faces there. It comes down to the same thing: It's the product that determines if an interpretation is right, not the artist.
A bit simplified, but that's the gist of it.
Like, it's not for you to say "actually, Dumbledore isn't gay." It's like, fuck off. He exists by the grace of JK Rowling and it's her understanding of the character that informs everything you read on the page. You don't get to revise the creator's canon. You're free to enjoy your private fictional duplicate of other people's work though.
An artists intent adds a possible perspective. Nothing more. And the problem with your theory is that there isn't actual proof of this. It's just an implicit assumption that the creator of a work has complete understanding of that which he produces(and therefore authority), when that's not true at all, or atleast there is no explicit evidence of it. Take any creative writing class and you can find people who read a character differently than how you intended it, yet find solid evidence supporting their interpretation of that work. And that's just scratching the surface of how nubulous and imprecise the journey from your mind, to paper, to readers mind can be.
And fanfiction is like the worst term in literary study ever. As if almost every artist isn't a fan of their own art. I mean, yeah, there are some, but generally speaking, artists tend to put out something if they've made it so that they actually like it. They've made fanfiction because they themselves are fans of it. JK Rowling is a probably a fan of Harry Potter, so she's a technically fan fiction writer.
But like I said, this isn't really the place to discuss it. It goes way, way beyond BSC alone and basically encapsulates all fiction everywhere. PM me if you want to discuss it further, or just wait until I get my lazy ass around to writing the topic for it.
Sure it isn't for me to say. It's for the books to say. And there's nothing in the books that establishes it. Personally, me, I don't deny Dumbledore's gay because there's also nothing in the book denying it, so it's really more of a "sure, why not" thing, but if I found something in the books that somehow established the Dumbledore is heterosexual, then yeah, I'd say JK Rowling is wrong. But nothing like that is in there, so, yeah, sure, gay Dumbledore, I'll roll with it.
It is kind of odd that you think that anybody who reads anything doesn't carry their own version of how any story plays out though. That....doesn't happen. No one has perfect retention of any work (so the memory of what they read and what they actually read is always going to be different), and even if they do, the subtext and inferences they draw on will be different across different people. So it's never truly the same story, to anyone. Everyone carries around a duplicate, even you. Even JK Rowling. You're just trying to make your match to JK's as much as possible for some reason.
Monocle
Member
All I'm seeing is self-serving reasoning designed to elevate the audience's subjective opinions above the people who have real editorial authority on account of being the creators of the work. To create a character or tell a story is to establish, by fiat, what is and what isn't. The artist has the final word. That's built into their role. And frankly, it's disrespectful to try to wrest the steering wheel from their hands because you've decided you can chart a better course.
If everything fictional is fully open to real-time revision by any random fan, based on what they think they can derive from the text, then nothing fictional can be pinned down as canon. Any given interpretation can be contradicted at anyone's whim.
Anyway, if you start that thread, I'm sure I'll be there.
This show is a level above everything else on currently. It is an absolute masterpiece in character building. Jimmy knew exactly what buttons to press. Yeah technically Chuck is the right but on a human and emotional level Jimmy is so much more genuine. It was also really interesting to see Jimmy and Kim's contrasting styles. Best episode of the season.
Not really. You're misunderstanding the argument I'm presenting. I'm not saying there is no canon (though I have experimented with that idea too). I'm saying the product is the canon, not the person who made it. Until you internalize this distinction of my argument, we're going to be debating on the basis of misunderstanding.
The canon of Harry Potter isn't JK Rowling. It's Harry Potter. And that's the last post I'll make on the subject in this thread.
Monocle
Member
I will ruminate on this for a while, and maybe explore this subject further in a more suitable thread.
Grizzlyjin
Supersonic, idiotic, disconnecting, not respecting, who would really ever wanna go and top that
Watching now!
- This show does such an amazing job with these flashback openings.
- Jimmy & Kim coming into the hearing #LegalSquadGoals
- These hearing scenes are gooooood
- Huell! I knew when that vet made the "tight spaces" comment he'd show up at some point lol
What an episode! Chuck's breakdown was magnificently acted.
- This show does such an amazing job with these flashback openings.
- Jimmy & Kim coming into the hearing #LegalSquadGoals
- These hearing scenes are gooooood
- Huell! I knew when that vet made the "tight spaces" comment he'd show up at some point lol
What an episode! Chuck's breakdown was magnificently acted.
She really loves him, despite his flaws. I can't remember the episode, but she kind of told Chuck something similar to that in season 2.
manueldelalas
Time Traveler
No it's not. Your interpretation of the text is just as valid as anyone else's.
There is nothing in the text supporting that Dumbledore is gay, and there is nothing saying he isn't; both interpretations are valid, and more importantly, him being gay or not adds absolutely nothing to the HP story IMO (maybe IYO it does, but hey! interpretations are equally valid!).
The same happens here, although I only partially agree with Veelk, his interpretation is just as valid as yours and even the author's.
I'll give you another example. In the original Star Wars movie, "Han shot first", and any person who saw that movie, knows that Han Solo was the only one shooting an alien at the cantina bar. In 1997, in the rerelease of the movie, now called A New Hope, Han shot second, after being shot.
This is the author changing a fundamental understanding of the character, and fans who saw the first release are not wrong in their appreciation of Han Solo as a character, Lucas trying to rewrite him cannot change their perception of that; once you release a material, it's open for interpretation, and there are not wrong or right interpretations.
Death of the author and all of that.
Ignatz Mouse
Banned
The fact that they were going to play the tape.
Without that, they can't make much of a case for Chuck being unhinged. Had Chuck merely kept thus to the B&E, damage, and maybe assault they might have nailed Jimmy.
Well, he is right about that. He's wrong about everything else obviously
SDCowboy
Member
Agreed. BB is one of the best shows ever, but this somehow seems to be topping it for me so far.
SDCowboy
Member
Did you forget they're a couple? That combined with what Jimmy did in that situation, even if she doesn't like the sketchy stuff, was for her.
JoshuaJSlone
Member
This is the dumbest damn thing, but about 2/3 through the episode we see some chip bags in a machine and that Jimmy's eating from, and I'm pretty sure they're unchanged modern designs. Just took me a bit out of the ~2002 vibe.
This is really the difference between chuck and jimmy. Jimmy really does love chuck, even looks up to him and respects him. Chuck finds glee in tearing jimmy down but jimmy does it because he is backed in a corner.
Amazing show. I think I may be enjoying it more than BB because of some shit I went through with my own older brother.
Such a stellar last shot. Will probably still remember this in a couple of years.
manueldelalas
Time Traveler
This gif will get some use.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.
Spieler Eins
Member
Hot DAMN. Chuck not only getting rekt, BUT WITH THE HELP OF SURPRISE HUEL!?!
This could't have possibly been better. And it's only mid-season.
This could't have possibly been better. And it's only mid-season.
Chuck is right. That's the fundamental darkness to the show. Jimmy DOES lie and cheat and swindle in his practices, and even this disproving of Chuck was more evidence of that. Jimmy is a genius, but at the same time, a bit of a crook, and Chuck can see that, and it's why he hates him, because to Chuck the law is sacred.
Jimmy had to crush his brother in court using any and every trick he could, to save himself and shake Chuck from standing in his way any more. Because Chuck, even more so than Kim, is the only one who really sees through him for what he is. Crushing Chuck is the first dark disingenuous step to becoming Saul, even if sanctimonious spiteful Chuck has a come up uppance due.
The fact that Jimmy is incredible at this is fantastic to watch, and the fact Chuck does have a mental illness do not detract from that.
I love Jimmy and I'm rooting for him, but he is an anti hero just like Walter White, except even more stealthily..