Reply to Topic
I hate him so much I enjoyed it. Vindictive Italian in the house. 
I can understand why people hate him. I really can. I just can't because I love watching him so much.
Better Call Saul...whatcha think?
I can understand why people hate him. I really can. I just can't because I love watching him so much.
I hate him so much I enjoyed it. Vindictive Italian in the house.
I can understand why people hate him. I really can. I just can't because I love watching him so much.
X
Favorite Movies
Do I finally have to write my big "Chuck isn't a bad guy" post? It feels like I do. I feel like almost everybody in here but me hates him. 
X
Favorite Movies
I don't have anything too elaborate or long-winded to say, but I think Chuck is, as that tweet I posted earlier alluded to, being met with the same kind of distaste Skyler was, simply because he's an impediment to the main character.
When trying to determine which characters are good or bad, and deserving of sympathy or scorn, I try to step outside the idea of the show and what it's showing us, and simply imagine them as an actual person. And Chuck, as an actual person, is largely right about Jimmy, and (more importantly) behaving pretty sensibly given what he actually knows.
Now, this is a good show, which means it has characters and not caricatures, so their relationship is sufficiently nuanced: Chuck's beliefs about Jimmy have become self-fulfilling. But they were not invented out of thin air, either. Jimmy stole from their father! He may have been the reason the store went under and his father died unhappy. That's positively awful. Chuck saw it happen. He saw this happen, and saw Jimmy grow up into a con man, even with an honest, generous father, and a supportive and nurturing older brother.
So if you're Chuck...what are you supposed to conclude? Your brother conned his own father and has been doing the same thing to others ever since. He seems constitutionally incapable of being honest or playing it straight, and the burden has fallen on you and the family you love. It also poses a particular threat to your chosen profession. And now he wants a job in your firm, of all places. What logical reason do you have to think he won't start to ruin your life (and the lives of your friends and colleagues), too?
As the audience, we get to see Jimmy in his unguarded moments, so we know he's made some genuine efforts to reform. But how can Chuck know that? How can Chuck give him so much benefit of the doubt after all he's done?
This isn't to say I agree with all his choices. It seems like, if he'd been more generous, more forgiving, Jimmy might have made it as a legitimate attorney. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest he never would have (even when trying to play it straight, he's tempted to cut corners with even the slightest hint of headwind or bureaucracy), and to whatever degree he's met with suspicion, it's a clear result of the actions he'd taken for decades and decades before.
When trying to determine which characters are good or bad, and deserving of sympathy or scorn, I try to step outside the idea of the show and what it's showing us, and simply imagine them as an actual person. And Chuck, as an actual person, is largely right about Jimmy, and (more importantly) behaving pretty sensibly given what he actually knows.
Now, this is a good show, which means it has characters and not caricatures, so their relationship is sufficiently nuanced: Chuck's beliefs about Jimmy have become self-fulfilling. But they were not invented out of thin air, either. Jimmy stole from their father! He may have been the reason the store went under and his father died unhappy. That's positively awful. Chuck saw it happen. He saw this happen, and saw Jimmy grow up into a con man, even with an honest, generous father, and a supportive and nurturing older brother.
So if you're Chuck...what are you supposed to conclude? Your brother conned his own father and has been doing the same thing to others ever since. He seems constitutionally incapable of being honest or playing it straight, and the burden has fallen on you and the family you love. It also poses a particular threat to your chosen profession. And now he wants a job in your firm, of all places. What logical reason do you have to think he won't start to ruin your life (and the lives of your friends and colleagues), too?
As the audience, we get to see Jimmy in his unguarded moments, so we know he's made some genuine efforts to reform. But how can Chuck know that? How can Chuck give him so much benefit of the doubt after all he's done?
This isn't to say I agree with all his choices. It seems like, if he'd been more generous, more forgiving, Jimmy might have made it as a legitimate attorney. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest he never would have (even when trying to play it straight, he's tempted to cut corners with even the slightest hint of headwind or bureaucracy), and to whatever degree he's met with suspicion, it's a clear result of the actions he'd taken for decades and decades before.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Have Jimmy really been the reason the store went under and his father died unhappy? Forgive me if I didn't see it in the show, we only have Chuck's words, and he tends to see devils everywhere (figuratively & literally). Jimmy might steal some small money, but I can't bring myself to believe that he would deliberately bring his father to ruin. It can simply be that his father was too naive and was stolen by everybody. We saw Jimmy redeem himself several times and give back his dirty money, like with the accountant guy of S1. He wouldn't have killed his father like that.
If Chuck didn't want Jimmy in his firm, fine,it's not that you have to take in all of your brothers and cousins and family relatives. But then he robbed Jimmy of his Sandpiper case, all the while pretending to be a cooperative bro. That I can't digest. It's natural that the audience roots for Jimmy in that relationship: he's the one who still go back to Chuck and care for him, while Chuck never really go back to Jimmy.
He may have never broken the law, unlike Jimmy, but that makes he thinks he's above all others. That's a trait that I can't stand: he thought that his law is absolute and all, in life. Surely, as a dang lawyer, he must have know how lacking and incomplete the law system is. To think otherwise is pure naive (just like his father) and hypocrite.
He's not pleased with Jimmy, he sue Jimmy.
He's not pleased with Howard, he sue the firm. He thinks that the suing represent justice in life?
I like this phrase in a lawsuit novel of Michael Crichton:
"Law has nothing to do with justice. It's just a way to resolve disputes." (paraphrase)
Then he continue to be an a$$ to everybody. I'm glad that finally Howard threw it in his face, and I hope that Howard won't have to sacrifice himself in the flame, as Dani posted.
If Chuck didn't want Jimmy in his firm, fine,it's not that you have to take in all of your brothers and cousins and family relatives. But then he robbed Jimmy of his Sandpiper case, all the while pretending to be a cooperative bro. That I can't digest. It's natural that the audience roots for Jimmy in that relationship: he's the one who still go back to Chuck and care for him, while Chuck never really go back to Jimmy.
He may have never broken the law, unlike Jimmy, but that makes he thinks he's above all others. That's a trait that I can't stand: he thought that his law is absolute and all, in life. Surely, as a dang lawyer, he must have know how lacking and incomplete the law system is. To think otherwise is pure naive (just like his father) and hypocrite.
He's not pleased with Jimmy, he sue Jimmy.
He's not pleased with Howard, he sue the firm. He thinks that the suing represent justice in life?
I like this phrase in a lawsuit novel of Michael Crichton:
"Law has nothing to do with justice. It's just a way to resolve disputes." (paraphrase)
Then he continue to be an a$$ to everybody. I'm glad that finally Howard threw it in his face, and I hope that Howard won't have to sacrifice himself in the flame, as Dani posted.
__________________
Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien.
Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar tenn' Ambar-metta!
Et Eärello Endorenna utúlien.
Sinome maruvan ar Hildinyar tenn' Ambar-metta!
Last edited by Elessar; 06-22-17 at 02:22 PM.
Re: their father. I suppose there could be some embellishment or interpretation in Chuck's retelling, but I think he said it was thousands of dollars, which seems too specific to be made up. At the minimum, we know Jimmy had a hand in the store's financial troubles (so to speak), and that they were ruinous for his father. As you say, his father was naive, but I don't think that excuses joining in. Out of all the things Jimmy or Chuck have done, this seems like the worst.
Certainly not going to defend how underhanded Chuck was in hampering Jimmy's attempts, though if you're Chuck, you really have no reason to trust him, and you can safely assume that if he knows you're behind it, he'll retaliate...which is exactly what he did when he found out. He basically destroyed Chuck's career. Would he have done it if he was upfront about it? Dunno. Hell of a chance to take, though. Either you let him in the firm and hope and pray he doesn't do what he's been doing all his life, or you tell him he can't and hope and pray he doesn't seek revenge. Lose-lose. Which is what I love about it: you can totally see why both of them are mad, and feel they're in the right.
As for Jimmy taking care of Chuck: well, that certainly does look nice, but I think it gets a little more complicated if we believe--as the show insinuates many times--that Chuck's condition is largely the result of stress about his brother, anyway.
Won't argue that he's arrogant and overbearing, but that's actually kind of my point: I think on TV shows, we tend to excuse actual misdeeds, but punish personal quirks. But if you actually add up the raw damage to society the two of them have caused, I think it's pretty hard to make the case that Chuck being kind of an a**hole is on par with Jimmy stealing from people. But the stealing is clever and interesting to watch and probably seems far removed from each of our experiences, whereas nobody likes watching an a**hole be an a**hole, and all of us know a few.
Certainly not going to defend how underhanded Chuck was in hampering Jimmy's attempts, though if you're Chuck, you really have no reason to trust him, and you can safely assume that if he knows you're behind it, he'll retaliate...which is exactly what he did when he found out. He basically destroyed Chuck's career. Would he have done it if he was upfront about it? Dunno. Hell of a chance to take, though. Either you let him in the firm and hope and pray he doesn't do what he's been doing all his life, or you tell him he can't and hope and pray he doesn't seek revenge. Lose-lose. Which is what I love about it: you can totally see why both of them are mad, and feel they're in the right.
As for Jimmy taking care of Chuck: well, that certainly does look nice, but I think it gets a little more complicated if we believe--as the show insinuates many times--that Chuck's condition is largely the result of stress about his brother, anyway.
Won't argue that he's arrogant and overbearing, but that's actually kind of my point: I think on TV shows, we tend to excuse actual misdeeds, but punish personal quirks. But if you actually add up the raw damage to society the two of them have caused, I think it's pretty hard to make the case that Chuck being kind of an a**hole is on par with Jimmy stealing from people. But the stealing is clever and interesting to watch and probably seems far removed from each of our experiences, whereas nobody likes watching an a**hole be an a**hole, and all of us know a few.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Gah, you keep editing new things in!
I'll just leave the reply as-is and hope most of it's covered.
I'll just leave the reply as-is and hope most of it's covered.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
Sorry, I have a bad habit of keep changing my post, 'cause I don't know what I want
For the father case: I think the show deliberately left it vague, we didn't really know what happened. Even if Chuck's retelling is honest, it might be that the store went unrepairable already and Jimmy just profited the situation. It's still the worst thing to do, I'm not defending him. Jimmy is certainly no angel.
But if you put the perspective of real life, I'd say that in real life I agree with all of your points but I wouldn't want to be near someone like Chuck, who can stab my back any moment I don't please him, or more specific, don't please his law ideal. Sure, Jimmy may have stabbed my back too, but I see it less frequently than Chuck did, and Jimmy only stab when he was pushed into a corner (father case not withstanding). He ran out of money and options, in that situation any animal would be desperate enough to stab and bite.
For the father case: I think the show deliberately left it vague, we didn't really know what happened. Even if Chuck's retelling is honest, it might be that the store went unrepairable already and Jimmy just profited the situation. It's still the worst thing to do, I'm not defending him. Jimmy is certainly no angel.
But if you put the perspective of real life, I'd say that in real life I agree with all of your points but I wouldn't want to be near someone like Chuck, who can stab my back any moment I don't please him, or more specific, don't please his law ideal. Sure, Jimmy may have stabbed my back too, but I see it less frequently than Chuck did, and Jimmy only stab when he was pushed into a corner (father case not withstanding). He ran out of money and options, in that situation any animal would be desperate enough to stab and bite.
Great dissection, Yods. Yes Chuck is an arrogant, up himself tool but has the mind of a steal trap (when it's not wrapped like a baked potato), but as you said, every step of the way he's been right about Jimmy. Jimmy gets away with it because 'Old people adore me'. Naturally the audience is rooting for him just like they rooted for the Sons of Anarchy or Heisenberg - they're the lead (and the most fun to watch). I like your comparison to Skyler - spot on but strangely enough, he's not hated nearly as much as she was, and I doubt he'll still be so violently hated years after BCS ends. That level of hatred was really quite bizarre.
Good stuff! Really made me rethink my knee-jerk reaction to hate Chuck. When you think about it, they both took turns screwing each other over, so neither is really an innocent victim. It would be easier to hate Chuck solely on his jealousy of Jimmy making mama laugh, but as Yoda pointed out, he does have a legit grievance as well that can't be ignored. That's what's so brilliant about the show, it highlights the grey areas that make up relationships. Although that comment he made to Jimmy was f&cking cold as hell! God I love this show.
X
Favorite Movies
That's what's so brilliant about the show, it highlights the grey areas that make up relationships. .
Yeah the comment was really terrible, but I posted earlier that at this point I think he was cutting ties to feel 'free' to off himself, although I could be way off base. Maybe destroying his house to pull out the wiring really did finally fry his brain. He looked almost comatose apart from his foot at the end.
OK my prediction - cant be the end of Chuck IMO because his behaviour is what sends Jimmy spiralling into Saul. His Dr turns up at the last minute to find out why he cancelled and saves him, but he;s institutionlised. Michael McK said he's dead, but will be back for flashbacks. I dont buy that because he didn't even know about the fire until just before getting the script. And I think he'd be in strife for breaching his NDA if he does know and spilled the beans.
LMAO. Finally, Saul's crying squat cobbler video
It's actually pretty bad butt I've waited too long not to share.
It's actually pretty bad butt I've waited too long not to share.
I don't have anything too elaborate or long-winded to say, but I think Chuck is, as that tweet I posted earlier alluded to, being met with the same kind of distaste Skyler was, simply because he's an impediment to the main character.
When trying to determine which characters are good or bad, and deserving of sympathy or scorn, I try to step outside the idea of the show and what it's showing us, and simply imagine them as an actual person. And Chuck, as an actual person, is largely right about Jimmy, and (more importantly) behaving pretty sensibly given what he actually knows.
Now, this is a good show, which means it has characters and not caricatures, so their relationship is sufficiently nuanced: Chuck's beliefs about Jimmy have become self-fulfilling. But they were not invented out of thin air, either. Jimmy stole from their father! He may have been the reason the store went under and his father died unhappy. That's positively awful. Chuck saw it happen. He saw this happen, and saw Jimmy grow up into a con man, even with an honest, generous father, and a supportive and nurturing older brother.
So if you're Chuck...what are you supposed to conclude? Your brother conned his own father and has been doing the same thing to others ever since. He seems constitutionally incapable of being honest or playing it straight, and the burden has fallen on you and the family you love. It also poses a particular threat to your chosen profession. And now he wants a job in your firm, of all places. What logical reason do you have to think he won't start to ruin your life (and the lives of your friends and colleagues), too?
As the audience, we get to see Jimmy in his unguarded moments, so we know he's made some genuine efforts to reform. But how can Chuck know that? How can Chuck give him so much benefit of the doubt after all he's done?
This isn't to say I agree with all his choices. It seems like, if he'd been more generous, more forgiving, Jimmy might have made it as a legitimate attorney. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest he never would have (even when trying to play it straight, he's tempted to cut corners with even the slightest hint of headwind or bureaucracy), and to whatever degree he's met with suspicion, it's a clear result of the actions he'd taken for decades and decades before.
When trying to determine which characters are good or bad, and deserving of sympathy or scorn, I try to step outside the idea of the show and what it's showing us, and simply imagine them as an actual person. And Chuck, as an actual person, is largely right about Jimmy, and (more importantly) behaving pretty sensibly given what he actually knows.
Now, this is a good show, which means it has characters and not caricatures, so their relationship is sufficiently nuanced: Chuck's beliefs about Jimmy have become self-fulfilling. But they were not invented out of thin air, either. Jimmy stole from their father! He may have been the reason the store went under and his father died unhappy. That's positively awful. Chuck saw it happen. He saw this happen, and saw Jimmy grow up into a con man, even with an honest, generous father, and a supportive and nurturing older brother.
So if you're Chuck...what are you supposed to conclude? Your brother conned his own father and has been doing the same thing to others ever since. He seems constitutionally incapable of being honest or playing it straight, and the burden has fallen on you and the family you love. It also poses a particular threat to your chosen profession. And now he wants a job in your firm, of all places. What logical reason do you have to think he won't start to ruin your life (and the lives of your friends and colleagues), too?
As the audience, we get to see Jimmy in his unguarded moments, so we know he's made some genuine efforts to reform. But how can Chuck know that? How can Chuck give him so much benefit of the doubt after all he's done?
This isn't to say I agree with all his choices. It seems like, if he'd been more generous, more forgiving, Jimmy might have made it as a legitimate attorney. But there's plenty of evidence to suggest he never would have (even when trying to play it straight, he's tempted to cut corners with even the slightest hint of headwind or bureaucracy), and to whatever degree he's met with suspicion, it's a clear result of the actions he'd taken for decades and decades before.
__________________
Letterboxd
Letterboxd
X
Favorite Movies
Yeah, I hear ya'. I think that's just the nature of watching a show, where this stuff can make sense on an intellectual level but feel so different actually watching it. There's a degree to which television writers have to warp reality, because things we find annoying or abhorrent in real life are not necessarily transferable to the show. In real life we'd prefer someone we know to be overbearing rather than a literal thief, for example, but on a show, they can be equal, or even slanted the other way, if one is entertaining, or if we're privy to the inner workings of one mind more than another.
X
Favorite Movies
X
User Lists
I'm not sure how interesting Gene will be (I kind of find him a bit depressing but maybe he 'breaks out') but this is promising that they still seem to be planning for 5. Urgh. Not enjoying the lack of announcement
http://cartermatt.com/258606/better-...er-gene-story/
http://cartermatt.com/258606/better-...er-gene-story/
