Support NeoGAF

[Ignatz Mouse]

For me, the big reason I want her to be dead is so that the writers can't do something eyerolling like having Kim show up in the "present" and order a Cinnabon from Jimmy. lol

I imagine that he picked that locale because it's close to wherever Kim went.

But.

Every single time I predict something, even something clever and satisfying, the show does something else which is even more satisfying.

So I have no idea what happens to Kim. Whatever I suppose is going to pale in terms of what actually happens.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

You all are making my head pull itself in different directions, and I want to go down them all.

 

[Veelk]

Hell, even that Air Force guy essentially lets him off, even after confronting him about using his plane for a commercial.

"Lets him off" is a polite way of saying it. What Jimmy said to him was less a con and more just straight up legal intimidation. He just let him know that he would wring his ass out in any courtroom he tried to drag Jimmy into. Guy realized he was out of his depth and backed off. He didn't walk out of that meeting charmed by Jimmy either.

 

[Kadayi]

Decent episode. II kind of figured that it would come down to showing that Chuck was just plain nuts to the committee, and therefore casting doubt on his testimony and Jimmy's conversation accordingly.

My only gripe is, there are people out there would claim to have a sensitivity to electromagnetism, and albeit I'm not sure whether it's a real thing or a mental condition. I don't know whether it's necessarily a good idea to suggest that it might just be in people's heads.

Anyway, overall liking this season more than the previous. I'm hoping there isn't too much hangover now of the whole chuck/Jimmy storyline and instead we can move towards the full transformation into Saul Goodman.

I want to see Saul in full effect before he gets embroiled with Heisenberg.

 

[firehawk12]

"Lets him off" is a polite way of saying it. What Jimmy said to him was less a con and more just straight up legal intimidation. He just let him know that he would wring his ass out in any courtroom he tried to drag Jimmy into. Guy realized he was out of his depth and backed off.

That's fair, and it's also an example of what Chuck hates about Jimmy. It's not that he's just a con, he's a con who is as smart as Chuck, and he's able to get himself out of situations that he should be punished for. It's an example of something that proves Chuck's point - but that doesn't mean Chuck is noble or wants to protect the law from being ruined by Jimmy's malfeasance. It can still stem from Chuck's jealousy of Jimmy's ability to extricate himself from any situation, whether by making friends, by running cons, or through simple logic.

I mean, I'm one of Chuck's few defenders (in that I think he's basically this show's version of Skyler), but I think his objections to Jimmy go beyond professional courtesy. It's personal for him.

I imagine that he picked that locale because it's close to wherever Kim went.

But.

Every single time I predict something, even something clever and satisfying, the show does something else which is even more satisfying.

So I have no idea what happens to Kim. Whatever I suppose is going to pale in terms of what actually happens.

The final scene of BCS:

Jimmy is making a Cinnabon and a little girl walks up to the counter and orders one from him. He mindlessly gives the girl the order and watches as she runs to her mother. The camera pans up and we see Kim, with her husband. Kim notices Jimmy and stifles any reaction except for a small smile, before taking her daughter's hand and walking away. The camera cuts back to Jimmy's face to show an ambiguous expression - is he happy? Is he sad? Cut to black.

lol

 

[RecRoulette]

The final scene of BCS:

Jimmy is making a Cinnabon and a little girl walks up to the counter and orders one from him. He mindlessly gives the girl the order and watches as she runs to her mother. The camera pans up and we see Kim, with her husband, Chuck. Kim notices Jimmy and stifles any reaction except for a small smile, before taking her daughter's hand and walking away. The camera cuts back to Jimmy's face to show an ambiguous expression - is he happy? Is he sad? Cut to black.

lol

IFC still in play

 

[SuperStiltzkin]

I honestly don't see anyone in Jimmy's story dying other than Chuck.

 

[HP_Wuvcraft]

Yeah, Kim marrying Chuck is.... what?

 

[firehawk12]

IFC still in play

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
That would be hilarious.

What if the kid is a boy and she named him Chuck?

 

[Ithil]

It is still not clear to me. Does Chuck have schizophrenia or was he outright just lying all these years that he is allergic to electricity?

He does feel the pain but it's all in his head, he doesn't have an actual allergy to electricity. This was demonstrated all the way back in Season 1 when the doctor purposely turned on a machine in his room without him noticing, and he didn't feel anything.

He has a mental illness but he refuses to believe it's anything but a physical illness.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

Knight Templars aren't necessarily about purity, but zealotry. It's pretty common for Knight Templars to get so blindly focused in their persuit of moral ideals that they end up violating them without realizing. I mean, here's the trope page if you want to read more about it, but the part that sticks out to me is: "they get blinded by themselves and their ideals, and this extreme becomes tyrannical sociopathy. It's not the Forces of Darkness' fault, but they are laughing their asses off and taking a great deal of satisfaction that they were right. " and "Knights Templar believe fully that they are on the side of righteousness and draw strength from that, and that their opponents are not." And particularly the part where the Knight Templar refuses to see any fault in their actions. All this sounds remarkably like Chuck to me.

I don't see zealotry in Chuck. I see a wounded son and brother who wants to be loved and accepted, and can't understand why Jimmy isn't rejected and alone. Chuck obviously cares about the law, but forcing him into this Templar trope is a serious distortion of the character and his motivations IMO. The law in this disbarment hearing is a means for him, not an end. And Chuck's also not taking the law to any extreme conclusion or extreme application. He's got a factual, clear, open-and-shut case against Jimmy pursued via normal means with a normal punishment.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I honestly don't see anyone in Jimmy's story dying other than Chuck.

I am certain that this is not true. Nacho at the very least. I figure Saul blames him for whatever because he's dead and thus a convenient scapegoat.

 

[Ithil]

I like that Chuck met his well earned downfall, and yet it wasn't really satisfying to watch, it was simply sad. Jimmy clearly took zero pleasure from any of this, too, but he'll do whatever he has to do get out of a sticky situation.

This is for sure the final end of their relationship, which I'm sure Jimmy knew going on, which makes it sadder still.

 

[smokeymicpot]

I am certain that this is not true. Nacho at the very least. I figure Saul blames him for whatever because he's dead and thus a convenient scapegoat.

Nacho might not be dead during the BB era. Saul mentions him causally in one of his first episodes he appeared in.

 

[Loris146]

10/10.

 

[Veelk]

I don't see zealotry in Chuck. I see a wounded son and brother who wants to be loved and accepted, and can't understand why Jimmy isn't rejected and alone. Chuck obviously cares about the law, but forcing him into this Templar trope is a serious distortion of the character and his motivations IMO. The law in this disbarment hearing is a means for him, not an end. And Chuck's also not taking the law to any extreme conclusion or extreme application. He's got a factual, clear, open-and-shut case against Jimmy pursued via normal means with a normal punishment.

Well, I certainly see the zealotry. I don't really have much of a counter argument to what you said here except to point out that he meets a large amount of the definition laid out in the link, which is a site, while hardly academic (not that Knight Templar as a trope is an academic term to begin with), dedicated to accounting, defining, and cataloging such tropes.

By the defintion of the term as I understand it, Chuck is a knight templar. It doesn't mean he doesn't also have those things your talking about, but he has a fervent dedication to seeing his ideals in the law through, while not accounting for his own faults or that his ideals are being distorted by his personal resentment. What what satisfies the trope definition for me.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Nacho might not be dead during the BB era. Saul mentions him causally in one of his first episodes he appeared in.

Might not. But I imagine he is, and that's why Saul blames him for whatever unspoken act he thinks has led two armed men after him. (I just watched this episode last night after BCS btw.)


See also: everything I predict is wrong.

 

[firehawk12]

Well, I certainly see the zealotry. I don't really have much of a counter argument to what you said here except to point out that he meets a large amount of the definition laid out in the link, which is a site, while hardly academic (not that Knight Templar as a trope is an academic term to begin with), dedicated to accounting, defining, and cataloging such tropes.

By the defintion of the term as I understand it, Chuck is a knight templar. It doesn't mean he doesn't also have those things your talking about, but he has a fervent dedication to seeing his ideals in the law through, while not accounting for his own faults or that his ideals are being distorted by his personal resentment. What what satisfies the trope definition for me.

The point is that most people see that simply as an excuse that he can use to justify his attacks on Jimmy. His breakdown in court is evidence of that.

 

[Hermii]

Decent episode. II kind of figured that it would come down to showing that Chuck was just plain nuts to the committee, and therefore casting doubt on his testimony and Jimmy's conversation accordingly.

My only gripe is, there are people out there would claim to have a sensitivity to electromagnetism, and albeit I'm not sure whether it's a real thing or a mental condition. I don't know whether it's necessarily a good idea to suggest that it might just be in people's heads.

Anyway, overall liking this season more than the previous. I'm hoping there isn't too much hangover now of the whole chuck/Jimmy storyline and instead we can move towards the full transformation into Saul Goodman.

I want to see Saul in full effect before he gets embroiled with Heisenberg.

Well there has been zero research so far suggesting its real.

 

[smokeymicpot]

Might not. But I imagine he is, and that's why Saul blames him for whatever unspoken act he thinks has led two armed men after him. (I just watched this episode last night after BCS btw.)


See also: everything I predict is wrong.

I assume Nacho is in jail because of someone probably Hector.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

The point is that most people see that simply as an excuse that he can use to justify his attacks on Jimmy. His breakdown in court is evidence of that.

Yup.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if he were more of a purist about the law *directly in reaction* to Jimmy.

Like, "if my brother's going to be a screw-up, I will be the most upright person you can imagine." I don't think it's love of law that makes him hate Jimmy, but I think it's possible his resentment of Jimmy led him deeper into the law.

 

[Cmerrill]

Really good episode. The last couple have really redeemed the season for me.

 

[barneystuta83]

When the Vet said 'do you need him to go in tight spaces?' I instantly knew.

Brilliant.

That episode is everything that Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul is all about.

The 'slow' build up of the season so far, it all comes to a head a Saul centric episode. No Mike. No Gus.

Outstanding performances all around. These actors, characters, and writing are on another level.

Just everything about it felt so great.

From the off I guesses what would happen and it was all a little obvious. But when it is delivered to that level... I actually clapped as the credits rolled.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

Well there has been zero research so far suggesting its real.

It does seem like something that would trivially easy to prove if it were real.

 

[firehawk12]

Yup.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if he were more of a purist about the law *directly in reaction* to Jimmy.

Like, "if my brother's going to be a screw-up, I will be the most upright person you can imagine." I don't think it's love of law that makes him hate Jimmy, but I think it's possible his resentment of Jimmy led him deeper into the law.

Yeah. Like they could both be doctors, accountants, journalists, police officers, whatever, and Chuck would find a way to make it about trying to protect the profession from his brother rather than some outright hostility/jealousy toward his brother's success in life.

 

[Creamium]

I'm inching ever closer to the BCS > BrBa camp here. This episode was incredible and shows how important buildup is, to get to a magnificent payoff like this. This could've been the season finale actually, so glad we're just halfway.

 

[Hella Lugosi]

I imagine that he picked that locale because it's close to wherever Kim went.

Did he pick that location? I was under the impression that the Disappearer Guy just placed you wherever he had to.

Also weird because I remember Saul saying "I'll be lucky if I'm managing a Cinnabon in Omaha" like it was a throwaway joke line and not where he was actually going.

 

[Veelk]

The point is that most people see that simply as an excuse that he can use to justify his attacks on Jimmy. His breakdown in court is evidence of that.

Right, but his attacks are driven by his outrage at Jimmy breaking the law and getting away with it.

I feel there is some kind of disconnect trying to argue that Chuck's using his dedication for the law as an unrelated excuse to attack Jimmy out of his resentment for Jimmy ability to ignore the law.

If you are arguing that Chuck hates Jimmy over his ability to get away with breaking the law without consequence (in addition to personal matters like his mother and wife and all that), then how is him saying that it's about how Jimmy breaks the law without consequence inconsistent?

It's literally not a coherent argument. You're claiming that he's saying it's about Jimmy breaking the law, but that's actually an excuse and he's truly just outraged that Jimmy breaks the law. It's the same thing. The only difference is that Chuck tries to act like it's not as personal for him as he shows to others, but that's not the same thing as making it an excuse. It's real, just plagued with more bitterness and resentment than Chuck can let anyone know lest they doubt his word. That is how Chuck tries to clean up his image, but that's just a pragmatic measure to make his rhetoric more effective, not an outright lie of his true intentions.

 

[Robdraggoo]

Did he pick that location? I was under the impression that the Disappearer Guy just placed you wherever he had to.

Also weird because I remember Saul saying "I'll be lucky if I'm managing a Cinnabon in Omaha" like it was a throwaway joke line and not where he was actually going.

Saul tells Jesse he can go wherever he wants
And Jesse wants to go Alaska. He never goes though.

Walt didn't get this luxury due to his high profile

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

There's a primacy of emotion that you are missing.

Chuck is pretty un-self-aware of his own feelings. He probably believes that he's doing all this for the sake of law. But the show has made it clear that there's a prior, deeper motive in the personal resentment.

There's a theory of emotion that says that our body has an emotional reaction, and then we label that reaction with a name (and meaning) after the fact. This is similar. Chuck resents Jimmy and has since an early age. His outburst showed that. The rest is rationalization built up on that. Is it true, that Chuck loves the law, and that Jimmy abuses it? Absolutely. But Chuck's resentment is deeper than that.

That's where the Knight Templar trope fails to do him justice.It's deeply personal. Most of us on the thread seem to have thought so already, but this episode makes it pretty explicit.

 

[| Praxis |]

Really enjoyed that episode. It was over far too quickly.

 

[Veelk]

That's where the Knight Templar trope fails to do him justice.It's deeply personal. Most of us on the thread seem to have thought so already, but this episode makes it pretty explicit.

Putting aside that even from an early age his resentment was centered around Jimmy breaking the law (Him stealing from his parents) so it's not even correct to say that his resentment predated his fixation on his faith in mankind's rules and how they should be obeyed, why do you think a Knight Templar has to be impersonal to be zealous?

There's nothing I've ever read anywhere that stated such a thing. The basic attribute is that the character in question just has to be truly believe in the ideals he's espousing and going to extreme lengths to try and realize them while absolute in the belief that they are right to do so regardless of the collateral around them. If that zealotry is driven by a personal incident, such as Chuck's resentment of Jimmy, then that's not a contrast to the archtype.

If we're going to keep beating on this archtype thing (which I'm not sure why people take so seriously. For me, it's just a shorthand to sum up chuck's characteristics, but I am happy not using it because my understanding of his characteristics won't changed. It'll just make my posts wordier), could you give me your definition of Knight Templar that is independent of the shows? Because we just seem to be talking about two different things that somehow share the same name.

 

[firehawk12]

It's literally not a coherent argument. You're claiming that he's saying it's about Jimmy breaking the law, but that's actually an excuse and he's truly just outraged that Jimmy breaks the law. It's the same thing. The only difference is that Chuck tries to act like it's not as personal for him as he shows to others, but that's not the same thing as making it an excuse. It's real, just plagued with more bitterness and resentment than Chuck can let anyone know lest they doubt his word. That is how Chuck tries to clean up his image, but that's just a pragmatic measure to make his rhetoric more effective, not an outright lie of his true intentions.

No, I'm saying Chuck is motivated by his jealousy over Jimmy's ability to use social engineering (whether that's wit, charm, charisma, intelligence or any combination thereof) to get what he wants. The law, or breaking it, is incidental.

I genuinely think if the show was about two brothers who were postal workers, and Jimmy found a way to deliver mail without having to walk door to door, Chuck would use the "sanctity of mail delivery" to find a way to get Jimmy fired.

 

[Veelk]

No, I'm saying Chuck is motivated by his jealousy over Jimmy's ability to use social engineering (whether that's wit, charm, charisma, intelligence or any combination thereof) to get what he wants. The law, or breaking it, is incidental.

I genuinely think if the show was about two brothers who were postal workers, and Jimmy found a way to deliver mail without having to walk door to door, Chuck would use the "sanctity of mail delivery" to find a way to get Jimmy fired.

Well, all I can say is that I see little evidence of that. On one hand, you have two scenes of his wife appreciating Jimmy at dinner and his mother having her last words be for Jimmy, which I agree is evidence that his resentment also runs on a personal level, but does not act as a contradiction to his outrage regarding the law.

On the other hand, we have his entire backstory written up about how he's a career lawyer whose dedicated his life to the law and tries his best to live up it's ideals. This is how the stage was set for the character to be introduced to us. Everyone in law loves and respects Chuck at which point the show starts, and Chuck's interactions outside Jimmy shows that he tries to live his line in accordance to that. He's so into it that he can't so much as take his neighbor's paper without leaving money under a rock for him to find.

I take that as evidence that Chuck genuinely lived the ideals of the law he espouses.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

I'm not saying Chuck doesn't fit the Knight Templar trope, but rather that that's the superficial read of his character. It's the effect, not the cause. Chuck isn't trapped in this battle with Jimmy* because of unwavering principles-- if anything, he has unwavering principles in reaction to Jimmy. And that's a hell of a lot more interesting than making him into the Law's version of Rorschach.

It's also what drives a lot of audience hatred for Chuck-- since it's seen as disingenuous. You don't see it as disingenuous, but to miss that is to miss the emotional core of the conflict. Not law, but resentment and jealousy.

*(And I do see both of them as trapped)

Serious question, are you an only child? I can tell you ways that my personality was directly influenced in reaction/opposition to my siblings. Chuck is no different.

 

[Veelk]

I'm not saying Chuck doesn't fit the Knight Templar trope, but rather that that's the superficial read of his character. It's the effect, not the cause. Chuck isn't trapped in this battle with Jimmy* because of unwavering principles-- if anything, he has unwavering principles in reaction to Jimmy. And that's a hell of a lot more interesting than making him into the Law's version of Rorschach.

It's also what drives a lot of audience hatred for Chuck-- since it's seen as disingenuous. You don't see it as disingenuous, but to miss that is to miss the emotional core of the conflict. Not law, but resentment and jealousy.

*(And I do see both of them as trapped)

Serious question, are you an only child? I can tell you ways that my personality was directly influenced in reaction/opposition to my siblings. Chuck is no different.

Again, when I use tropes, I use them as shorthand for a quick reading of certain characteristics. But that's not to say that I think "Oh, he's a knight templar, and that's that. He's just Rorschach with a legal degree" I don't see how it means that I miss anything about the core of the emotional conflict, because I've acknowledge the resentment driving Chuck's actions. Like, atleast a fifty times at this point. It's getting seriously tiring to have to that over and over again.

My contention isn't even that it is necessarily disingenuous, but not in the same way you guys mean it. It seems to me you see a blanket that covers the true and far more malicious motives. What I see is ideals that have been hollowed out and broken down by that resentment trying to reinforce those ideals again and again. It's not a lie, it's corruption.

I am an only child though, so perhaps that explains the split in perspectives. But at the same time, it's not like I haven't shaped my own personality as a response to others too, so it's not like I don't get that. My point is, the origin doesn't make it a inauthentic, it just explains why it's there.

 

[TimeEffect]

I think Kim dying is a little extreme for this show's style compared to Breaking Bad.

Maybe Kim gets into a Ted-styled accident and becomes mentally disabled, or simply suffers a random illness herself. I think it'd be more fitting than having her die.

Her walking away forever would need to be super dramatic in itself, but I find it hard to accept a character like her walking away from Jimmy forever, never to be mentioned or seen again.

Maybe she does just that, has a family, and reconciles with Jimmy in the flash forward/current time period where Jimmy is working at the mall.

 

[IggyChooChoo]

A legal zealot would pursue the law to an extreme degree against lawbreaking targets other than his own brother. A legal zealot would pursue extreme punishments for legal violations. A legal zealot would use extreme measures to defend the law. Chuck is not shown to do any of those things. He's just a serious, brainy lawyer who is using normal proportional means in a normal proceeding seeking proportional redress. There is nothing zealous about what Chuck is doing to Jimmy. There is definitely something *personal*, though.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Again, when I use tropes, I use them as shorthand for a quick reading of certain characteristics. But that's not to say that I think "Oh, he's a knight templar, and that's that. He's just Rorschach with a legal degree" I don't see how it means that I miss anything about the core of the emotional conflict, because I've acknowledge the resentment driving Chuck's actions. Like, atleast a fifty times at this point. It's getting seriously tiring to have to that over and over again.

My contention isn't even that it is necessarily disingenuous, but not in the same way you guys mean it. It seems to me you see a blanket that covers the true and far more malicious motives. What I see is ideals that have been hollowed out and broken down by that resentment trying to reinforce those ideals again and again. It's not a lie, it's corruption.

I am an only child though, so perhaps that explains the split in perspectives. But at the same time, it's not like I haven't shaped my own personality as a response to others too, so it's not like I don't get that. My point is, the origin doesn't make it a inauthentic, it just explains why it's there.

Right, but his attacks are driven by his outrage at Jimmy breaking the law and getting away with it.

Just to point out, I think this is the bone of contention for me. Resentment is personal and deep, and I'm sure has primacy over love of the law. I presume that Chuck defines himsellf as "not Jimmy" (and to an extent, Jimmy defines himself as "not Chuck" in key areas) and his love of law is more an expression of that personality. And he uses it as cover for resentment.

The episode could not have made the contrast clearer, when Chuck rehearses is "I don't hate my brother, I love him, but it's about the law" speech over and over, but when he gets spontaneous (and hence more genuine) it's about the resentment stretching back to childhood.

He does hate Jimmy. He's so emotionally impacted that he can't even admit that to himself. That kind of self-deception coupled with a desire to harm others (even a slimeball like his brother) is extremely alienating.

Somebody said Chuck was this show's Skyler. I disagree. He's this show's Walt. There is no Skyler-- these two are out of control.

 

[Veelk]

Just to point out, I think this is the bone of contention for me. Resentment is personal and deep, and I'm sure has primacy over love of the law. I presume that Chuck defines himsellf as "not Jimmy" (and to an extent, Jimmy defines himself as "not Chuck" in key areas) and his love of law is more an expression of that personality. And he uses it as cover for resentment.

The episode could not have made the contrast clearer, when Chuck rehearses is "I don't hate my brother, I love him, but it's about the law" speech over and over, but when he gets spontaneous (and hence more genuine) it's about the resentment stretching back to childhood.

He does hate Jimmy. He's so emotionally impacted that he can't even admit that to himself. That kind of self-deception coupled with a desire to harm others (even a slimeball like his brother) is extremely alienating.

Well, my contention is that primacy implies exclusivity. For me, his love of law and his resentment of Jimmy for breaking the law (and resentment in general), all exists in a homogenized mix of emotions for Chuck. I do agree that he feels much less love for Jimmy than he likes to tell himself, sure. I can even agree that perhaps his leading this charge with his resentment rather than love of law.

But it feels unrealistic to say that he's defined by Jimmy entirely. He's had a life outside Jimmy, he's perhaps 15 years his senior (if the actors ages are any indication), and Jimmy was out of his life for a long time before the Chicago Sunroof incident. No one denies that Jimmy had an affect on Chuck, but it's rather too far to say that Chuck didn't have a personality until Jimmy became a crook at 9 and showed him he had to be a law abider in turn.

But the basic difference here, for me, is that the potency of his love for the law is not lessened by his resentment of Jimmy. They not only co-exist, they have in many ways melded together into a singular thing. To be resentful of Jimmy personally is to value the law. They're one and the same and impossible to seperate because that's how Jimmy defines himself, crooked. Perhaps they're not one thing in their entirety, but in this particular case, that seems to be the case.

 

[duckroll]

Maybe Chuck's disdain for Jimmy comes from him being the physical manifestation of Chuck's insecurities. He sees in Jimmy what he is most afraid of deep inside his heart - that for all his professionalism, his efffort, and his dignity, in the end.... it might not matter at all in the world. Why does Chuck cling to tightly to the law? Is it because he really loves legal practice for what it is, or is it because the law as an abstract concept represents what Chuck wants to believe in? That there is a structure to things and that doing [x] will result in [y]? That is Chuck's worldview. Jimmy is proof that for some people that doesn't apply. You can do [x] and it could result in [z] or [a] or [c] depending on how [x] is executed and who is reacting to it. That probably scares the fuck out of Chuck.

 

[Ignatz Mouse]

Well, my contention is that primacy implies exclusivity. For me, his love of law and his resentment of Jimmy for breaking the law (and resentment in general), all exists in a homogenized mix of emotions for Chuck. I do agree that he feels much less love for Jimmy than he likes to tell himself, sure. I can even agree that perhaps his leading this charge with his resentment rather than love of law.

But it feels unrealistic to say that he's defined by Jimmy entirely. He's had a life outside Jimmy, he's perhaps 15 years his senior (if the actors ages are any indication), and Jimmy was out of his life for a long time before the Chicago Sunroof incident. No one denies that Jimmy had an affect on Chuck, but it's rather too far to say that Chuck didn't have a personality until Jimmy became a crook at 9 and showed him he had to be a law abider in turn.

But the basic difference here, for me, is that the potency of his love for the law is not lessened by his resentment of Jimmy. They not only co-exist, they have in many ways melded together into a singular thing. To be resentful of Jimmy personally is to value the law. They're one and the same and impossible to seperate because that's how Jimmy defines himself, crooked. Perhaps they're not one thing in their entirety, but in this particular case, that seems to be the case.

Primacy is not exclusivity. It just means it's older, and more emotionally based.

Chuck isn't so old to have been out of the house when Jimmy stole at age 9.

"Much less love for" is soft-pedaling it. He hates him. Hate is not exclusive to love, but he denies that he hates him at all, and that's part of the big lie.

I don't think Chuck's defined by Jimmy entirely, and I also how they shaped each other is just my thesis. It could be wrong. But modern day he certainly defines himself in contrast with Jimmy.

I agree with your last paragraph. The two things are bound up in each other. Chuck's denial of the resentment and strong assertion that it's all about the law makes him very unlikable.

It's a hypothetical, but I can imagine a self-aware Chuck who openly resents his brother and openly enjoys fucking with via the law him would actually be a far more likable character, although more of a caricature, and far less interesting.

Man, Gilligan and Gould have sibling relationships down cold. As much as I thought Marie was an extraneous character in Breaking Bad, you could read right into that relationship the issues she and Skyler had, expressed all the way to their choice of mates.

Maybe Chuck's disdain for Jimmy comes from him being the physical manifestation of Chuck's insecurities. He sees in Jimmy what he is most afraid of deep inside his heart - that for all his professionalism, his efffort, and his dignity, in the end.... it might not matter at all in the world. Why does Chuck cling to tightly to the law? Is it because he really loves legal practice for what it is, or is it because the law as an abstract concept represents what Chuck wants to believe in? That there is a structure to things and that doing [x] will result in [y]? That is Chuck's worldview. Jimmy is proof that for some people that doesn't apply. You can do [x] and it could result in [z] or [a] or [c] depending on how [x] is executed and who is reacting to it. That probably scares the fuck out of Chuck.

A+ post. And I imagine that sense of injustice would date back to their childhood, with Jimmy going unpunished.

 

[Undead Fantasy]

What a great episode.

Get fucked Chuck.

 

[CharminUltra]

Every episode this season has been great. Amazing show.

 

[BadTaste]

The courtroom took up 30 minutes of the episode, not complaining, when the credits showed I was like "What, already?"

Satisfying episode.

 

[Dangerblade]

Amazing episode. The Jimmy and Chuck equivalent of the "I broke my boy" Mike episode.

 

[Necron]

Amazing episode... probably my favourite one so far.

In a way, I feel sorry for Chuck.

 

[T Dollarz]

Perhaps my favorite episode of the series. So fucking good.

 

[TheSun]

Great episodes, Gould really is good on his own.

Still can't really antagonize Chuck like some folk'll do. Still nice to see them get their acting chops out there. Good stuff.

Mike stuff is alright, though I personally didn't miss his appearance this episode.

 

[Fuu]

Absolutely amazing episode and also kind of depressing. This show has always been great but season has been crazy.

edit: laughed out loud when Huell bumped into Chuck. wasn't expecting that at all.

To me, Chuck's very real passion for Law is a subconscious guise for why he treats Jimmy the way he does when it's very clearly about a lifetime of resentment about how their parents treated them differently. This is all well-trod ground both in psychology and in story-telling.

That doesn't make Chuck's observations of Jimmy's law breaking wrong, nor does his resentment expunge Jimmy's misdeeds. But acting like Chuck simply wants to protect the Law because Jimmy is immoral (in his Chuck's eyes) is a hopelessly simple explanation when we have all of the above laid out for us.

The unfortunate thing for me in this discussion over the last few pages is that this is being painted as an if/then, black/white, therefore/thus conclusion about fully dimensional characters. You're supposed to be conflicted. You are at once supposed to sympathize with Chuck for doing things The Right Way while Jimmy gets easy accolades while also loathing Chuck for how he looks down on Jimmy. You are SUPPOSED to side-eye Jimmy's methods and think he's a bit of a scumbag while understanding his motivations come from an empathizable place.

We had this conversation last week and y'all -- not just Vleek -- do the show injustice by painting with too broad of strokes. You are supposed to have cognitive dissonance about these characters. It's the hallmark of great writing and a credit to the show. A show which deserves a better conversation than what I'm seeing here.

Agreed. It's a disservice to the show to try to paint it as black and white when they go out of their way so much to make things so deliciously complicated in subtle ways. Excellent character work for sure.