• 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

R

riotous

Banned
Veelk said:
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.
Click to expand...

What evidence do we really have of the potency of Chuck's "love for the law," especially when it comes to the law being enforced and consequences applied?

He appears to be a corporate lawyer, a fine print master.. those people spend their lives bending the law as much as possible to profit themselves and their clients. He's not a prosecutor or otherwise an enforcer of the law. We know Chuck used those skills to get Jimmy off in the past as well. (and we know small things like Chuck is willing to steel his neighbors newspaper)

What we do have evidence of is his strong resentment towards Jimmy and his inability to admit this resentment motivates him (or that the resentment even exists). He's outright delusional when it comes to that topic. He's also delusional about his mental illness; another example of him lying to himself and the world.

So does Chuck actually have a profound respect for the law? Honestly it's not a question I could really answer myself. He might; it's difficult because he's also so clearly motivated by resentment and the fact that he IS on the right side of the law when it comes to what Jimmy did.
 
H

HStallion

Now what's the next step in your master plan?
Had to rewatch the last episode after falling asleep early yesterday. Wow, probably the best single episode in the show for me so far and even if I was lukewarm on some parts of seasons 1 and 2 and they were telegraphing this for a long time finally seeing it all go down was great. It wasn't a tense episode persay but I was just waiting for the hammer to fall, or gavel in this case if you will and when it finally does, well damn.

I was honestly wondering how Jimmy was finally going to get back at Chuck and I knew it was going to be through his supposed allergy to electromagnetic sources. Seeing Huell finally brought into the story for that was a great way to start tying things together for obvious future events. I didn't even remember Jimmy going to the Vet or the intro until my rewatch as I was juts kind of captured by the court scene and almost thought the entire episode took place there.
 
D

Dan

No longer boycotting the Wolfenstein franchise
Great episode.

I enjoyed Kim's line of questioning regarding nepotism, backing Howard into that corner.

barneystuta83 said:
When the Vet said 'do you need him to go in tight spaces?' I instantly knew.
Click to expand...
Heh, yeah.

duckroll said:
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.
Click to expand...
Good reading of it.
 
H

Haly

One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee.
I'd probably be on Chuck's side because I hate fungible systems and prefer rigor and clarity but he's such a prick about it.

Anyway great episode.
 
D

danm999

Member
duckroll said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really good post. There's a lot you can extract from small things along the way that Chuck has a very rigid, almost robotic view of the world, people and the law.

Even down to the way his mind works "1216; it's right after 1215 the Magna Carta, how could I ever forgot that". He's literally showing the courtroom his mental processes in that scene. Pretending our memories and our minds are this [x] leads to [y] you're talking about, when we know they can be fallible.

I reckon that's why when Chuck's deep refusal to accept his condition is mental finally breaks down is the moment he explodes with all his grievances about how Jimmy has bucked the way Chuck thinks the world is supposed to work all his life.

Because the law, just like our minds, are not like that. Humans create the law, interpret it, enforce it. That's why it has contradictions, that's why it changes. It's not about rules or hard facts it's about people.

And if the law is fundamentally about people Chuck never stood a chance against Jimmy.
 
M

Mechanical Snowman

Member
Monocle said:
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.
Click to expand...

Monocle said:
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.
Click to expand...

Monocle said:
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.
Click to expand...

Don't care much to get involved with the actual subject of you guys' debate, but I couldn't resist drawing attention to this stunning irony :p.

A quote from Vince Gilligan, the creator of Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul -

And people are always asking me about "What did the ending mean, what did this mean, did he really die at the end? Blah blah blah". And I mean, I have very definitive, definite, whatever the right word is, opinions on all of that, but I always find myself hesitating at the moment of saying "well this is the answer to that". Because, it's really, to me that's limiting, for us to sit here and tell you "this is what it means, this is what that means", it's yours now as much as it is ours. If you're a fan of the show, or a fan of Breaking Bad or whatever, you interpret it how you see fit.
Click to expand...

If an author of a work presents an opinion outside of the canon of their work, it's fair game to disagree.
 
E

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
That's about an openended ending to a character. No one knows what happens to him because the show hasn't given us anything to form an opinion around.

Here we have the show telling us about chuck all the time, the creators and now Chuck himself.
 
M

Mechanical Snowman

Member
Einchy said:
That's about an openended ending to a character. No one knows what happens to him because the show hasn't given us anything to form an opinion around.
Click to expand...
Quote in context is actually about interpretation of a character in BCS, I imagine he gave that example (is Walt really dead?) to make a general point about how the authors' word is not the final word.

Einchy said:
Here we have the show telling us about chuck all the time, the creators and now Chuck himself.
Click to expand...
Telling us? Not sure that I agree, the show is intentionally written to not be black and white. I'd say there is enough not said , which is probably the more important thing, to allow an audience to form contrasting opinions on a character.

Lothar said:
So Walt lives at the end. Yay.
Click to expand...
Hey man that's not me! :'(
 
V

Veelk

Banned
I'm not that surprised about the quote. Generally speaking, atleast the writers I tend to like, build in ambiguity because that forces the audience to engage and think "What is this character really thinking in this scene." Both BB and BCS tend to have characters take action where multiple motives are possible and it's up to us to debate which is the real driving force. What is the point where Walt stops doing what he does for his family? Does Hank want to bring Walt in out of a sense of righteousness or egotism? And so on. That's up to us, and it's an important part of the storytelling experience because by having us engage and try to empathize with the characters we see, it means we are actually making an effort to understand the story, which is much better than having the story just dictated to us.

The writers that want their story to be the One True Interpretation tend to not write ambiguity in their scenes in the first place, so they don't need to go to interviews in order to say "No, this is how it happened" in the first place. They make character's internal thoughts clear, sometimes to the point of literally saying it to an audience what their doing and why their doing it. And those kinds of shows, I tend to not like much in the first place.
 
E

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
I honesty don't get how Chuck losing his shit and being honest about what he feels about Jimmy isnt enough.

Call it black and white but the show has been hinting at this, the creators share this interpretation and now the character himself told us.

What else do people need?
 
C

CHC

Member
GodDAMN..... what a good one!

I really like the focus also. I like Mike but lately the scenes of him have been so slow and procedural that they border on fan service at times, like 15+ minutes to basically say "look how crafty Mike is!"

Love the direction we've been going with the past couple episodes, though, and me being more critical than usual is probably just because this is the first time I've watched BCS as it airs, so I focus more on each episode individually.
 
V

Veelk

Banned
Einchy said:
I honesty don't get how Chuck losing his shit and being honest about what he feels about Jimmy isnt enough.

Call it black and white but the show has been hinting at this, the creators share this interpretation and now the character himself told us.

What else do people need?
Click to expand...

Not to go back to square one of this discussion, but I still don't see what you think has been made clear that wasn't clear before. That Chuck is resentful and his resentment drives atleast some part of his actions? Pretty old news. The content of his breakdown speech, how it's about how Jimmy always gets away with things, that's old news too. We've known that this particular element is what drives him crazy. And even if you want to believe that his resentment is his primary motivation over his idolization of the law, the idolization is still in place here.

The same way you don't get how peopel are missing this obvious revelation, I really don't see what new information you think we're missing. The turning point is that Chuck's unhingeness and mental illness has been outed to the public. But nothing regarding his personal regard for Jimmy here is new to us as far as I can see, nor does it put to rest the past arguments about law worship.
 
E

Einchy

semen stains the mountaintops
Not really going to get into this with you, Veelk I don't want the next 5 hours of my life to be discussing Chuck with you.
 
V

Veelk

Banned
Einchy said:
Not really going to get into this with you, Veelk I don't want the next 5 hours of my life to be discussing Chuck with you.
Click to expand...

*shrug*

Why ask then?

But yeah, I don't imagine I'd be saying anything different than I already have. But for the record, I am genuinely curious what it is you saw in that scene that confirmed. anything that hasn't already been believed.
 
M

Mechanical Snowman

Member
Veelk said:
I'm not that surprised about the quote. Generally speaking, atleast the writers I tend to like, build in ambiguity because that forces the audience to engage and think "What is this character really thinking in this scene." Both BB and BCS tend to have characters take action where multiple motives are possible and it's up to us to debate which is the real driving force. What is the point where Walt stops doing what he does for his family? Does Hank want to bring Walt in out of a sense of righteousness or egotism? And so on. That's up to us, and it's an important part of the storytelling experience because by having us engage and try to empathize with the characters we see, it means we are actually making an effort to understand the story, which is much better than having the story just dictated to us.

The writers that want their story to be the One True Interpretation tend to not write ambiguity in their scenes in the first place, so they don't need to go to interviews in order to say "No, this is how it happened" in the first place. They make character's internal thoughts clear, sometimes to the point of literally saying it to an audience what their doing and why their doing it. And those kinds of shows, I tend to not like much in the first place.
Click to expand...
Yah and the other thing, is that i'm not sure how much people realize that ambiguity is put into art all the time to intentionally let / encourage the audience form an opinion on it that is personal to them. It's not a disservice to an artist to have an opinion on something, in something like a TV show especially where even the cast, crew and creators can actually disagree with each other on interpretations.

Creators of this show absolutely want us to disagree on some things, otherwise they'd have locked down the writing by now to include more obvious "this is bad guy" "this is good guy" exposition.

That said, Chuck is such a dick.

Einchy said:
I honesty don't get how Chuck losing his shit and being honest about what he feels about Jimmy isnt enough.

Call it black and white but the show has been hinting at this, the creators share this interpretation and now the character himself told us.

What else do people need?
Click to expand...

i actually do think Chuck is a huge asshole, I really wanted to bring up that Gilligan quote as a general thing. I think a more interesting discussion is why is he an asshole, and to what extent is Jimmy to blame for that? Their past is kinda ambiguous.
 
H

Haly

One day I realized that sadness is just another word for not enough coffee.
I'd love to see Chuck interact with Gus before the end of this show.
 
B

BunnyBear

Member
Veelk said:
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.
Click to expand...

It might be time to have a lie down. You're looking for justification when it isn't there.

Anyway, that was an incredible episode. Powerful stuff from McKean. At times this show has been slow (something I only ever realise on the rewatch) but it's episode like this - when it all comes together - that highlight why the build-up is all worth it.

The show will probably pick up a steaming pace from here too. I just feel privileged that I even get to watch a show like this.

Side note: Kim and Jimmy don't kiss enough!
 
1

1upsuper

Member
Oh, we're talking about the intent of creators? Yeah, that ship sailed. Interpretation is a far more satisfying and rich avenue.
 
I

IggyChooChoo

Member
Dusktildawn48 said:
It's amazing what great writers can do with a spin off. Has there ever been a spin off with this kind of quality?
Click to expand...
Usually they are cheap cash-ins. And frankly, TV is a lot better than it used to be. So I think it probably is the best spin-off for dramas. For me, I'll say Colbert Report, Tim and Eric Awesome Show, Great Job! (also featuring Bob Odenkirk), and Check It Out!. Funny coincidence that one of Michael McKean's most famous roles was also on a spinoff.
 
Compsiox

Compsiox

Banned
I wonder what next week will hold.

Great episode. If Chuck didn't insist on giving his testimony Jimmy would have lost so badly.
 
M

MegaManTrigger

Banned
1upsuper said:
Oh, we're talking about the intent of creators? Yeah, that ship sailed. Interpretation is a far more satisfying and rich avenue.
Click to expand...

Until you get the people who stray so far beyond the source material (not ITT but in general), and then get mad when you try to introduce facts and how their interpretation doesn't really go in line. This drove university professors crazy, and now I understand why.
 
C

Cornballer

Member
Posting this again...
Cornballer said:
Folks, I'm getting a bit weary of the metacommentary, namecalling, and other nonsense in this thread. If you don't agree with what someone is saying, post a counter argument rather than resorting to insults and gif responses. Or talk about something else. Or don't reply. Or use the ignore feature.

If you see something that's against the TOS, please send me or another moderator a PM, and we'll take a look. In the meantime, behave yourselves. Thank you.
Click to expand...
 
V

Veelk

Banned
Toa TAK said:
I gotta ask LawGAF, is what Jimmy did with the battery even legal or be taken into court at all?
Click to expand...

Not a lawyer, but regardless of whether it is 'technically' admissible, it's purpose was to cast doubt onto Chuck's mental health and his lucidity. It worked in two parts: first it established that Chuck's sensitivity is something that only exists in his mind. If he's unaware that something electric is near him, then he's not hurt by it. And the fact that he is in denial of that proves that he atleast doesn't have a full understanding of his illness. But that wouldn't mean anything on it's own if not for the second part, because even if his pain is only psychosomatic, it doesn't mean he doesn't have a lucid view on his surroundings.

The true goal was actually to get him flustered. That's why he brought in Rebecca and why he played all these mindgames. But it's been repeatedly established that Chuck takes the reputation of his mental health very seriously. He refuses to be called crazy, and Jimmy just made the insinuation that he is, atleast in his mind. That set him off, and got him raving.

Think about how the rest of the court would have percieved it. Imagine you've never seen the episode where Jimmy does the billboard scam. "The billboard! Do you think anyone falls like that? He orchestrated it! Jimmy!" What billboard, what guy, who fell, how, orchestrated what? is what everyone is thinking. "I knew it was 1216! One after Magna Carta! As if I could ever make such a mistake" What? "He defecated through a sunroof! And I saved him!" You saved him from shitting through a sunroof? And he just goes on for a solid minute that Jimmy did this, did that. He looks like a crazy person. We all know what he's talking about, but to anyone else, he's just rambling about random nouns and verbs that don't form anything coherent.

I don't know whether it will get him his liscense rejected and I don't even know if the board will not punish him for pulling something like this off, but by making such a big rant, he's drawn all the attention to himself and cast major doubt on his lucidity. Jimmy will get what he's gonna get for the breaking and entering and destruction of personal property, but there is now too much doubt cast on Chuck's lucidity to take Jimmy's confession at face value.

Edit: Actually, the smart thing would be for the Chuck's lawyer to do some damage control now. "What billboard? What about the magna carta? What sunroof?" I don't know if it'd work, but leaving it at that is the worst thing they could do.
 
B

barneystuta83

Member
Some interesting points on Chuck's condition.

My view is that it is 'real'. Just because it is in his head, doesn't make it fake. A mental condition can be, and often is, just as serious as a physical one.

The way it was portrayed and angled by Jimmy & Kim was very clever.

They showed that Chuck can play it up 'when he wants to'. They also showed, he can 'dial it down' when he needs to. That does not directly mean the condition is fake, although gives that impression it is 'just in his head's.

I think it hurt Jimmy to practically call out Chuck as a 'fake'. Because he knows it is 'real'. You could see the anguish in his face and I don't believe that reaction was false.

Even after everything, Jimmy cares for his brother. He always has and always will.
 
R

riotous

Banned
barneystuta83 said:
I think it hurt Jimmy to practically call out Chuck as a 'fake'. Because he knows it is 'real'. You could see the anguish in his face and I don't believe that reaction was false.
Click to expand...

I don't think the point was that it is fake whatsoever; in fact Jimmy's defense rests on the condition being real, but a serious mental condition. Jimmy is claiming he lied to better his brother's mental state, due to the severe nature of his mental condition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Mark Margolis, ‘Breaking Bad’ and ‘Better Call Saul’ Star, Dies at 83
News
25
3K
drganon replied
Better Call Saul - Season 6 | The Final Season
|OT| 4 5 6 7 8
387
32K
Grildon Tundy replied
Asians who grew up in the 1980s -do you look back fondly on that time?
5
1K
analog_future replied
IGN: Phil Spencer Has Now Been Head of Xbox for 10 Years; We Look Back at His First Decade
Opinion Analysis 2 3
130
11K
ZehDon replied
The Mac vs PC War is back on (sprawling newsletter article by Tom Warren about Windows & Arm)
2 3
142
8K
GHG replied
Top Bottom