Same thing with Mike and Francesca. Mike has to go from someone who's distraught over the killing of an innocent man to thinking it's no big deal to kill them while robbing a train. Francesca has to go from being nice, shy, and nervous to standing up to Heisinberg and ordering him to give her 25k.
People are really missing the mark with Francesca, her first scene literally had her say the DMV or whatever was "too much red tape", she's already jaded and is currently just that isn't ran by "Saul" "Saul", so it's not like she can just let go and be her BB self.
That line tells you more than enough about what they'll be doing with her character.
Edit:
Also did Mike suggest killing them or did he say that he knows a heist only ends in two ways and lists that as one of the outcomes?
People are really missing the mark with Francesca, her first scene literally had her say the DMV or whatever was "too much red tape", she's already jaded and is currently just that isn't ran by "Saul" "Saul", so it's not like she can just let go and be her BB self.
That line tells you more than enough about what they'll be doing with her character.
Edit:
Also did Mike suggest killing them or did he say that he knows a heist only ends in two ways and lists that as one of the outcomes?
It was the former, but he was trying to poke holes in the plan, for context. The main difference between the two Mikes is their lust for money. I believe that BB's Mike would kill anyone to get money for Kaylee, We're not quite there yet with BCS's Mike, who would kill to protect Kaylee, which isn't quite the same thing. I'm not sure what you push him further in that agenda, but it's coming.
M: You know what this means, don't you? We've gotta off the crew.
W: How do you figure?
M: Well, if we don't, the engineer's gonna call the cops as soon as he gets out of the dead zone.
###
Can't we just tie them up or something?
And then what? Even if we wear a mask, we're leaving two witnesses behind.
M: Bottom line, I have done this long enough to know that there are two kinds of heists: Those where the guys get away with it and those that leave witnesses.
Rewatched Saul's introductory episode in Breaking Bad today.
Saul is a completely different person, literally to such an extent I almost feel it's almost going to be impossible for this show to get the character to that point in any kind of convincing way. At one point, he literally comes on to Francesca by offering to follow her home and then mentions how he has an obsession with her ass. The dude is a straight up amoral creep, who cheerfully discusses offing Badger and boasting about getting handjobs from masseuses.
How far can this character possibly fall in the space of six years?
I was just doing the exact same today! He seems so diametrically different that it's difficult to see any of Jimmy in him at all. It will be interesting to see what finally pushes him over the edge. I have faith in the writers.
This show is going to be as much about "Breaking Bad" as the origin; Walt decides to sell meth and then actually kills someone in the first episode. Jimmy actually starts the series almost becoming a better person than his past, as does Mike.
And yeah I've been re-watching BB as well; just got to season 5. Crazy how varied the plot of this show is; when Gustav was killed I originally was disappointed and wondered where the show was going to go from there but then we get so much more after that including completely new characters they manage to flesh out pretty well.
I think I'm gonna rewatch BB after this season of Saul because I have a lot of gaps in my memory of that show. I had no idea Francesca was even in it until I heard people mention it.
Rewatched Saul's introductory episode in Breaking Bad today.
Saul is a completely different person, literally to such an extent I almost feel it's almost going to be impossible for this show to get the character to that point in any kind of convincing way. At one point, he literally comes on to Francesca by offering to follow her home and then mentions how he has an obsession with her ass. The dude is a straight up amoral creep, who cheerfully discusses offing Badger and boasting about getting handjobs from masseuses.
How far can this character possibly fall in the space of six years?
I'm not sure why people seem to think it's hard to envision him changing to that extent. We're already seeing shades of Saul Goodman when Jimmy "uncharacteristically" goes for blood by conning who he deems assholes with Kim. It's still a long way from being desensitized to murder and being a-ok with drug empires, but that'll come when he has no problems representing criminals. I don't think it's that hard to see him become morally decrepit as the fulcrum of that is Chuck thinking Jimmy will never not be his Slippin' Jimmy self. All Jimmy has to do is just double down on what makes him Slippin' Jimmy and crank it up 10-fold.
Same thing with Mike and Francesca. Mike has to go from someone who's distraught over the killing of an innocent man to thinking it's no big deal to kill them while robbing a train. Francesca has to go from being nice, shy, and nervous to standing up to Heisinberg and ordering him to give her 25k.
Wait, what? Mike was jaded at that whole thing, but he was also pissed off when Todd killed the little kid as Walt and Jesse finished robbing the methylamine from the train. Unless I'm mixing things up? The Francesca thing will likely come with experience as she deals more and more with Saul's dubious clients and develops a tougher skin.
Rewatched Saul's introductory episode in Breaking Bad today.
Saul is a completely different person, literally to such an extent I almost feel it's almost going to be impossible for this show to get the character to that point in any kind of convincing way.
I think I might actually enjoy this more than Breaking Bad. Breaking Bad's highs are higher but this show feels more interesting overall. The legal plots are way more captivating to me than Walt's family.
I do wonder how they'll make this show consistent with BB considering Saul is a 3 dimensional character compared to how crudly drawn he was in BB.
Wait, what? Mike was jaded at that whole thing, but he was also pissed off when Todd killed the little kid as Walt and Jesse finished robbing the methylamine from the train. Unless I'm mixing things up? The Francesca thing will likely come with experience as she deals more and more with Saul's dubious clients and develops a tougher skin.
M: You know what this means, don't you? We've gotta off the crew.
W: How do you figure?
M: Well, if we don't, the engineer's gonna call the cops as soon as he gets out of the dead zone.
###
Can't we just tie them up or something?
And then what? Even if we wear a mask, we're leaving two witnesses behind.
M: Bottom line, I have done this long enough to know that there are two kinds of heists: Those where the guys get away with it and those that leave witnesses.
It might not have been correct of me to say he felt it was no big deal. I posted fast without thinking how best to phrase it. But he just threw out "You know we're gonna have to kill these guys, right?" I definitely don't get the impression he would have refused to go along if Walt and Jesse went with that option. Mike needed money that badly. Remember that Mike was going to kill Walt and Jesse at the end of Season 3 because Gus told him to. He threatened to beat Saul so badly his legs wouldn't work if he didn't give up Jesse's address. Mike is a completely different person in BB.
I think I'm gonna rewatch BB after this season of Saul because I have a lot of gaps in my memory of that show. I had no idea Francesca was even in it until I heard people mention it.
Nope and at this point with how leaky my memory of that show is I'll just wait until I rewatch it.
Also RE: Saul being ruthless in his BB introduction, I may be mistaken but I don't think they intended for him to be a long-term character on that show, but they liked Bob Odenkirk so much they decided to make him a regular. Maybe that's why he comes off a little extreme? Again, haven't watched BB in ages so I don't really remember.
Nope and at this point with how leaky my memory of that show is I'll just wait until I rewatch it.
Also RE: Saul being ruthless in his BB introduction, I may be mistaken but I don't think they intended for him to be a long-term character on that show, but they liked Bob Odenkirk so much they decided to make him a regular. Maybe that's why he comes off a little extreme? Again, haven't watched BB in ages so I don't really remember.
I mean yeah, that's the real world reason, but as a prequel BCS's story has to account for that.
They're aware the character has to turn into that eventually when they write BCS, so it's definitely in their plans to make him get to that point one way or another.
I mean yeah, that's the real world reason, but as a prequel BCS's story has to account for that.
They're aware the character has to turn into that eventually when they write BCS, so it's definitely in their plans to make him get to that point one way or another.
Yeah I know, I meant more like, I think they ease off that a little bit when they make him permanent on the show and make him maybe slightly more likeable. So I'm willing to meet them halfway on that if they introduced him as a total unscrupulous immoral asshole but later decided that there's something like a conscience in this guy. Anyway this show basically is the slow-motion fall of Jimmy McGill, I'm sure they'll get there.
Yeah I know, I meant more like, I think they ease off that a little bit when they make him permanent on the show and make him maybe slightly more likeable. So I'm willing to meet them halfway on that if they introduced him as a total unscrupulous immoral asshole but later decided that there's something like a conscience in this guy. Anyway this show basically is the slow-motion fall of Jimmy McGill, I'm sure they'll get there.
Ah, gotcha. Imo the easiest way to do it would be to end the show a while before the point where BB starts, with just enough indicating that Jimmy will fully reach that mindset, but without ending his past story on him being a complete scumbag. The way they talk about the show makes it feel like they want to connect it as much as possible though, so we'll see how it goes. They're starting to juggle with a lot now with all the characters.
Just how selfish Saul is in breaking bad is what makes me think either Kim or chuck will die by the end of the series. Only a shock that big could debase jimmy into Saul so thoroughly, I think. Maybe there are other possibilitieskim going to jail for life as a result of some of jimmy's chicanerybut death seems likely.
It might not have been correct of me to say he felt it was no big deal. I posted fast without thinking how best to phrase it. But he just threw out "You know we're gonna have to kill these guys, right?" I definitely don't get the impression he would have refused to go along if Walt and Jesse went with that option. Mike needed money that badly. Remember that Mike was going to kill Walt and Jesse at the end of Season 3 because Gus told him to. He threatened to beat Saul so badly his legs wouldn't work if he didn't give up Jesse's address. Mike is a completely different person in BB.
In fairness, this is the same Mike who had no problems killing the two police officers responsible for the death of his son. Also it's the same Mike who made a similar suggestion to Nacho with regards to switching the drugs and then reswitch them to avoid any suspicion. The only difference in those cases is that Mike had a vendetta against the people involved at the time, whereas, when he works for Gus Fring (and then Walt and Jesse) he's stopped caring about whether innocents die or not. Maybe not full-stop caring since he was pissed that Todd killed Drew, but enough to make sure his interests aren't harmed.
Just how selfish Saul is in breaking bad is what makes me think either Kim or chuck will die by the end of the series. Only a shock that big could debase jimmy into Saul so thoroughly, I think. Maybe there are other possibilitieskim going to jail for life as a result of some of jimmy's chicanerybut death seems likely.
Killing Kim off would pay a hideous disservice to that character, as well as serving to reduce the complexity of this tragedy by reverting to an overly familiar, sexist cliche by killing off a love interest purely as a means furthering a male protagonist's character development.
I generally don't like to make predictions because whether something works is always more rooted in how they do a thing, not in what thing they do. I'm sure whatever Gilligan decides to do, it will be great.
But for my two cents, I think there's one possibility that has yet to be brought up: Jimmy rat fucks her, like he did Chuck.
It'd be interesting to see how they might justify this given Jimmy's nearly deific worship of Kim, but we already know he's not above forcing her involvement in shady shit if he feels it's worth it (meaning the Mesa Verde case), which is what he always does when he starts to feel the pressure. And now he's feeling the pressure because of his money issues.
The only thing is that I feel it would be repetitive. Jimmy's intruded on and interrupted her work life atleast 3 separate times at this point. But then again, you can call it thematic. Jimmy wants to keep his schemes isolated to himself, but that's just not how it works.
Killing Kim off would pay a hideous disservice to that character, as well as serving to reduce the complexity of this tragedy by reverting on an overly familiar, sexist cliche by killing off a love interest purely as a means furthering a male protagonist's character development.
Yeah this is not that show, I agree. My prediction is that Kim will be disbarred or something, at least in New Mexico, thanks to the Mesa Verde shit, or something else that Jimmy pulls that somehow blows back on Kim as well. A running theme is Jimmy's "good" intentions affecting those around him negatively, especially Kim, because she's willing to forgive a lot of his sleazier aspects. And she's up to her neck at this point because of Mesa Verde. As she said a few episodes ago, "sunk costs fallacy" - she's gonna stick by Jimmy because she's already come this far with him. But she's already starting to feel dirty about her own involvement with the Chuck case, and as Jimmy keeps slippin' and sliding I think there will come a time when she sees who he really is and doesn't want any part of it.
Read this on the BCS blog and was very happy they are approaching all versions of Saul, starting from Jimmy all the way to Gene for the whole series
Seems I won't be left with blue balls in terms of the future Gene story line at least.
Q: You've talked before about how much you love seeing Gene. What did you make of the most recent glimpse of him? Is there still a possibility of doing an all-Gene episode?
A: I think we're bound to have at least a full Gene episode at some point, if not more. There's just so much to tell about where he is in that post-Breaking Bad world. The story doesn't end with Saul. It continues. Wrapping up that story involves wrapping up the Jimmy story, wrapping up the Saul story and then wrapping up the Gene story. We as writers want to tell the complete picture and complete novelization of Jimmy McGill and play out a full, rich story of what happens to him and that will involve Gene, the Cinnabon manager. We see that keeping this persona is not as easy as he thinks it is.
He may have slipped deeply into it and become Gene , but there are little things happening like when he's screaming at a perp to get a lawyer. He knows he should just shut up, but he can't help himself. That Saul Goodman persona squashed out a lot of the Jimmy McGill we know and love, and now that he's inhabiting the Gene persona, maybe the real person may be trying to worm his way out.
I think the title of the final episode is a big clue, considering how much foreshadowing seems to have surrounded Chuck's lantern. There's gonna be a fire, I think. And with all that newspaper around...
Rewatched Saul's introductory episode in Breaking Bad today.
Saul is a completely different person, literally to such an extent I almost feel it's almost going to be impossible for this show to get the character to that point in any kind of convincing way. At one point, he literally comes on to Francesca by offering to follow her home and then mentions how he has an obsession with her ass. The dude is a straight up amoral creep, who cheerfully discusses offing Badger and boasting about getting handjobs from masseuses.
How far can this character possibly fall in the space of six years?
My theory is he tries to be a good person and everyone dies anyways or due directly to it. So he has nothing left to lose and stops "wasting his time" with morality.
I think the title of the final episode is a big clue, considering how much foreshadowing seems to have surrounded Chuck's lantern. There's gonna be a fire, I think. And with all that newspaper around...
I don't think Vince would be that literal. I am starting to come around to the idea that Chuck might kill Kim. As the Lantern is the fire that Jimmy started in Chuck. I think he'll get fired from the firm next episode, and want 'nothing to lose' revenge, or even warp it to Kim being the problem. Or maybe Chuck tries to kill Jimmy, and Jimmy has to defend himself and get Mike to clean it up. I could see Jimmy being forced to kill Chuck in self defense, that being the catalyst that sends him truly over the edge, and causes Kim to leave.
Killing Kim off would pay a hideous disservice to that character, as well as serving to reduce the complexity of this tragedy by reverting to an overly familiar, sexist cliche by killing off a love interest purely as a means furthering a male protagonist's character development.
Killing Kim off would pay a hideous disservice to that character, as well as serving to reduce the complexity of this tragedy by reverting to an overly familiar, sexist cliche by killing off a love interest purely as a means furthering a male protagonist's character development.
There has never been a single instance of a character dying without it being the conscious choice of the writer to kill them off. And as it is, there is a distinction between how female characters and male characters have been traditionally written, and the narrative purposes of their deaths have made an established pattern. So yeah, fridging is a sexist cliche. It's real. It exists.
THAT SAID
Fridging is something of an overused term that is applied too liberally every time a female character dies and a male is affected by it. For me, the distinction is rooted in how whether the character is given a 'fair shake' in the story before that death.
One good example is Andrea from Breaking Bad. She was killed by Todd as both punishment and motivation to keep Jesse cooking Meth for the neo nazi's as well. And she was a very minor character, serving mostly as Jesse's mostly offscreen family. But at the same time, I didn't feel she was an interchangable woman. She received her own characterization as a recovering drug addict trying to raise her son as a single mother, who lost a brother to street crime. It's small, this made her feel like she was just living her own life that just happened to come into view whenever she was in proximity of Walt and Jesse. A minor character, sure, but not a blank slate. I feel genuine anguish and sorrow when I rewatch her scene because I feel she a realized character, while I feel absolutely nothing for a large host of other disposed female characters in other shows because their lack of characterization. In comparison, her son Brock is less of an individual. We don't know anything about his history or his feelings or who he is. He's just a child. He could literally be anybody, because his only role in the story is how he, as a child, shouldn't die. But you get to know Andrea as a solid character with distinct traits that are unique from other characters. That makes all the difference.
Same thing for The Last of Us videogame. It's an old game at this point, but...
It opens with Sara, a girl who you only have roughly 15 minutes with before she dies, but in that small segment, you get a lot of characterization for her, both by how you explore her room, and the decisions she makes (like getting Joel a watch for his birthday).
The problem with tropes like Fridging is that they just have a bad history because bad writers used them ineffectively to make female characters artificial and dehumanized sources of emotion. You don't get to know them as people. And sometimes bad people who dehumanize others enact these tropes because dehumanizing others is what bad people, like Breaking Bad's Nazi's. But as long as the story, the narrative, doesn't treat them in a dehumanized manner, it mitigates a lot of the damage. After that, it's just a matter of not overdoing it.
If Kim dies, she will have died with significant characterization. She will never be "Random Girlfriend Jimmy Lost". And given the writers here, if she does die, it will be in such a way as to narratively satisfy her arc. That's another thing about fridging, it usually means that whatever characterization, if they had any at all, is just dropped without concern. I don't see that happening with Kim.
Sorry to play devil's advocate, but real-life deaths don't give the writers a lot of choice. Not that a real-life death is likely here, but just sayin'
Sorry to play devil's advocate, but real-life deaths don't give the writers a lot of choice. Not that a real-life death is likely here, but just sayin'
How would a real life death influence the death of a fictional character?
I mean, okay, if you want to stretch it, you can say an actor's death means the actor can't play them. But even that isn't really impossible, since you can recast, even if that might cause more problems than it'd solve.
So, no, I would say that there has never been a death of a fictional character without someone choosing to sit down and write "And then this fictional character died." Because unless they do that, they can't die. Literally, they cannot.
Funny how we label people. And yeah... that whole child poisoning thing.. lol.
