US: Better Call Saul

Kyo · 9 May 2017 at 22:12

-Gamble- said:
Brilliant third episode!!!!
I swear, if Mike had a spinoff I would enjoy it just as much.

Same if Gus had his own spin off it would be great too.

Andelusion said:
Latest episode was superb! Jimmy is such a dirt bag

Chuck is such a jealous ingrate. I hope Jimmy not only gets out of this but pulls a number on him. I am just worried for Kim.

GAM8LE · 10 May 2017 at 15:00

Kyo said:
Same if Gus had his own spin off it would be great too.

Chuck is such a jealous ingrate. I hope Jimmy not only gets out of this but pulls a number on him. I am just worried for Kim.

That sounds interesting! I would definitely watch that.

I wonder if we will find out what happens to Hector in this as well - get to see the story building up to it etc.

Loved the last episode - fantastic play from Jimmy!

Nitefly · 10 May 2017 at 23:35

Great episode

bloodiedathame · 10 May 2017 at 23:46

Nitefly said:
Great episode

One of the best, so well put together, dare I say perfect.

robfosters · 11 May 2017 at 09:19

Superb episode. I found the look from Howard when Chuck had his crack up quite telling. It was as if he realised at that moment that this whole thing is borne from Chucks jealousy and bitterness and that he is indeed, mentally ill.

I've thought for a while now that Howard actually doesn't have a problem with Jimmy at all, he's just in awe of
Chuck as a lawyer and so goes along with everything Chuck asks of him.

Getting more and more likely to me that Chuck spends Breaking Bad in a nuthouse. With such obvious signs of mental illness, surely this case against Jimmy must now collapse. If Jimmy maintains that he knew his brother was ill and was telling him what he wanted to hear to make it easy for him, I don't know how the panel can really go against that now. It's one sane lawyer who obviously cares about his brother against a nutty one with an irrational hatred of him. The way Chuck kept practising saying "I don't hate my brother" makes it clear he actually does. He's one ungrateful dude.

doodah · 11 May 2017 at 10:24

I must have watched Chuck rage almost 10 times by now, what a scene.

Nitefly · 11 May 2017 at 13:00

bloodiedathame said:
One of the best, so well put together, dare I say perfect.

I was a little worried that the initial shot of a lawnmower would drag on for 5 minutes but I'm glad they bucked the trend

Zefan · 11 May 2017 at 13:35

I watched this week's episode last night, and what an episode it was.

The only thing that got to me was the battery being in his pocket. I'm pretty sure they clarified that it was current flow that caused his symptoms, yet they use the presence and proximity of a battery (no current flow) to suggest it's all a crock. It works as a story telling mechanic, but doesn't really stand up to even the slightest of scrutiny from the audience.

nicktay2605 · 11 May 2017 at 15:54

What a fantastic episode.

I would have preferred it if they'd had Huel plant a phone in his pocket rather than just the battery and then had him ring it while in the court room, but it still worked as an effective story mechanic. I loved Chuck's blowup in court, it will be interesting to see how Howard and co react to it all, they must seriously question his mental health now.

robfosters · 11 May 2017 at 17:20

nicktay2605 said:
What a fantastic episode.

I would have preferred it if they'd had Huel plant a phone in his pocket rather than just the battery and then had him ring it while in the court room, but it still worked as an effective story mechanic. I loved Chuck's blowup in court, it will be interesting to see how Howard and co react to it all, they must seriously question his mental health now.

As I said, I think the look on Howard's face showed that he realises Chuck is quite the fruitcake now. Damn risky to let someone like that anywhere near a respectable firm like HHM. Will soon be just H&H imo.

Nitefly · 11 May 2017 at 17:51

I have to say - I really do like how they capture the life of large commercial law firms in this series. Yes it's Americanised and, from what I understand, it's actually way harder to be an attorney in the US than a mere solicitor in the UK... but the way some of the characters are portrayed is very good!!

I did particularly like Howard specifically commenting that 'damage' does not imply the irrevocable nature of what happened.... such lawyerly dialogue, excellent

dowie · 11 May 2017 at 21:30

Why are people using spoiler tags to discuss an episode that has aired in the UK? The point of the thread is to discuss the series/episodes etc.. no?

I also thought the battery placement was a bit odd, though I guess he does require phones to be placed in his mailbox before entering his house and not simply turned off. I did think, as the other poster above suggested, that there was going to be an actual phone placed there and perhaps dialled during the questioning.

Zefan · 11 May 2017 at 23:41

dowie said:
Why are people using spoiler tags to discuss an episode that has aired in the UK? The point of the thread is to discuss the series/episodes etc.. no?

I use spoiler tags so that people can come in here and read about the series without having key moments spoiled. It takes almost no effort to stick stuff in spoiler tags, and it takes almost no effort to click a spoiler tag to read what's within if you decide you're caught up enough to do so.

dowie · 12 May 2017 at 00:13

Zefan said:
I use spoiler tags so that people can come in here and read about the series without having key moments spoiled. It takes almost no effort to stick stuff in spoiler tags, and it takes almost no effort to click a spoiler tag to read what's within if you decide you're caught up enough to do so.

My comment wasn't about effort, I was just questioning the logic behind it

I'd assumed that in a general thread about a TV show you openly discuss episodes that have aired - spoilers being things like stuff that has leaked online, content from any books a TV series is based on or perhaps episodes that have already aired overseas. When it comes to discussing the stuff that has already aired then what is or isn't a spoiler is rather subjective - potentially anything concerning the plot of an episode could be a spoiler and that would be rather odd to see every post in the thread containing spoiler tags. Regardless of the ease of clicking an individual post if everyone took that approach it would be rather inefficient. It also means that an actual spoiler people might not want to read is treated the same way as stuff that simply discussed the previous episode.

Nitefly · 12 May 2017 at 08:22

Moses said:
I thought it was just horribly expensive rather than hugely difficult.

My, limited, understanding is that there are far more hoops to jump through to start practicing (it's a postgraduate degree, for one, and I'm pretty sure there is a general entry exam too) and, once practicing, you are expected to practice across a broader range of subject areas than a UK solicitor would. You're also expected to advocate. In the show, Kim has been advocating generally, dealing criminal prosecutions and now is assisting with banking... a fictional work, but you see what I mean - you'd pretty much have one person for each role in the UK.

I may be wrong but I have always though UK solicitors were sort of 'specialist desk monkeys' by comparison.

Nitefly · 12 May 2017 at 12:34

Moses said:
Here there's a postgraduate element, too. Either the LPC or BPTC. Yes there's an entrance exam for law school, but I don't know if it's particularly difficult, or like here where any Tom, ****, or Harry can throw money at a law school and they'll take them on... I assume there are rubbish ones in America which'll happily take your money under almost any circumstances! But once you've completed your degree, JD, and bar exam in whatever state... you're an attorney... whilst here it's degree/degree + GDL, LPC, two year training contract, then you're a solicitor. The job might be different post-qualification, but you were talking about becoming an attorney, so I thought you meant the journey to be a fully qualified attorney vs becoming a solicitor, rather than the job itself.

Just looked and the JD is three years . Although you can do it it in two. I guess that means the legal training is comparable in that you have a three year JD vs a GDL and two year training contract.

Yes, by 'be an attorney' I was initially talking about the job itself being more difficult / demanding, rather than the route towards becoming qualified. That said, as I assume you will agree... the LPC, lol what a complete joke

dowie · 12 May 2017 at 15:06

Nitefly said:
In the show, Kim has been advocating generally, dealing criminal prosecutions and now is assisting with banking... a fictional work, but you see what I mean - you'd pretty much have one person for each role in the UK.

Is that not more like a Dr Karl Kennedy type effect... (granted it is over a decade since I watched neighbours but IIRC he used to be the local GP yet would show up in the hospital too when a cast member was in there).

Surely someone at say a big NYC law firm wouldn't have anything to do with random criminal cases - then again in the TV show Suits they seem to have this jack of all trades thing too....

Nitefly · 12 May 2017 at 15:27

It probably is not as dissimilar as the TV shows, and I, have made out. Just on a common sense basis.... you can't know everything!

Nitefly · 13 May 2017 at 08:01

Moses said:
TBF, what's she actually done that's amazing? She's good with banking stuff, so we can assume she'd consider that her core speciality. Then she's filled in a bit with wills which really aren't difficult at the run of the mill high street lawyer end of the spectrum (where you'd shirely have little firms where people are jacks of a few trades doing wills/conveyancing/etc?). Then she's worked with Jimmy to try and get him out of this pickle, but that's friends working together rather than some massive multimillion dollar issue... I'd back a couple of decent lawyers to look up what they need to/leverage their network/etc to adequately prepare themselves for that... especially as we don't know their full background in terms of the range of stuff they've dealt with on a professional basis throughout their careers.

It just makes me think of when I've, outside of any education or work setting, had to look up stuff... eg. employment law when it comes to stuff like overtime pay, or harassment stuff, or interpreting the leases when it came to two flats in one building where they shared the freehold. I did those things and gave completely informal advice with all the caveats you'd expect etc etc, but it wasn't exactly difficult.

She's also on good terms with the district attorney and was able to strike up a 'decent' settlement to the criminal case with the two bumbling idiots from season 1 - which I recall was supposed to be 'good work'.

I've given similar advice as you have, but generally I'm ultra cautious of 'unknown unknowns' - things that I have no idea I don't know about. So much material ultra-curveball stuff out there it's often a good idea, to a certain extent, to just keep schtum.

Kerplunk · 16 May 2017 at 15:55

It's Saul Goodman!