306 - "Off Brand"

Director: Keith Gordon
Writer: Ann Cherkis
«1

Comments

  • mwspiakmwspiak Upstate NY
    Man that's big talk from the women that walked out on Chuck...Jimmy doesn't owe Chuck anything
    emnofseattleDummyDoubleA_Ron
  • I have to say I don't buy Rebecca defending Chuck and being angry at Saul. The notion that "[Jimmy] owes Chuck" is laughable.
    mwspiakDreamRycherDoctor_Nick
  • mwspiakmwspiak Upstate NY
    No way Jimmy can last a year without practicing law. I think Saul Goodman may be coming before the season ends.
  • mwspiak said:

    No way Jimmy can last a year without practicing law. I think Saul Goodman may be coming before the season ends.

    He's already here....
  • Great epsidoe IMO, thouhhtnit flowed well outside of a few hiccups, but this show is on a roll now. All of what happened on top of finding out the origins of Saul Goodman make for a winner.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    mwspiak said:

    Man that's big talk from the women that walked out on Chuck...Jimmy doesn't owe Chuck anything

    I know right? 

    Do you think maybe Rebecca was trying to bait Jimmy in some way? 

    normally these types of probation pleas have conditions attached like no contact with the victim of your crime, Jimmy would've been arrested and prosecuted on all charges if he went back to Chuck's house. 

    Either she was baiting him or she was just blind, she got to see the whole meeting where Chuck was revealed to be a fraud, and used his fraud to screw his brother who did nothing but care for him through the whole ordeal. 
    mwspiak
  • CretanBullCretanBull Toronto
    Zsa004 said:

    I have to say I don't buy Rebecca defending Chuck and being angry at Saul. The notion that "[Jimmy] owes Chuck" is laughable.

    She doesn't have the same view of the relationship that we've had though.  She'd heard about the things that Jimmy has done to help him, but actually seen what he's done to hurt him (in the court room) and witness the impact that it's had on Chuck.  She's responding to that.
  • HatorianHatorian Dagobah

    Zsa004 said:

    I have to say I don't buy Rebecca defending Chuck and being angry at Saul. The notion that "[Jimmy] owes Chuck" is laughable.

    She doesn't have the same view of the relationship that we've had though.  She'd heard about the things that Jimmy has done to help him, but actually seen what he's done to hurt him (in the court room) and witness the impact that it's had on Chuck.  She's responding to that.
    You also have to imagine she's been fed a one-way story from Chuck during their marriage. I'm sure Chuck has told countless stories to his Wife on how he's bailed out and helped Jimmy.
    CretanBull
    No Half Measures....
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    KingKobra said:

    mwspiak said:

    No way Jimmy can last a year without practicing law. I think Saul Goodman may be coming before the season ends.

    He's already here....
    It's only a matter of time before an inflatable Statue of Liberty appears on the roof of Wexler McGuil

    He kind of looks like some conspiracy theorist you'd find in a desert, like with the hat and sun glasses taking pictures in front of radio towers, he looks like he could work at some Alex Jones affiliate station

    Murderbear
  • DreamRycherDreamRycher Newark, DE
    Zsa004 said:

    I have to say I don't buy Rebecca defending Chuck and being angry at Saul. The notion that "[Jimmy] owes Chuck" is laughable.

    All I kept thinking while she was yelling at him was #fuckchuck  . . . and #fuckrebecca while your at it!  Bye Felicia!!
  • edited May 16
    the ending was the best in a surprising way they played it, all of it. the words:
    "that guy has a lot of energy"
    "it's just a name"
    "huh"

    to kim's reaction (processing, but kinda amused) and jimmy as just jimmy on the couch with a beer.

    perhaps while walt BECAME heisenberg, jimmy never BECOMES saul and that's why there's previews of gene.
  • Also, Nacho gets a story arc! and all the pieces were already there!
  • Unless Fargo shits out a golden egg, CLEARLY the week has been won by BCS. I can't wait to hear why Frasier is better...
  • amyja89amyja89 Oxford, England
    So now we have a concrete time period for this show/season. Howard brings out the "35 year old" scotch with 1966 etched on it, making the year 2001.

    Hector's downfall could potentially be at the hands of Nacho now then, maybe he's going to find out what that medication was and mess with dosage or swap it out completely, leading to a stroke of some sort.
    emnofseattleDummy
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    amyja89 said:

    So now we have a concrete time period for this show/season. Howard brings out the "35 year old" scotch with 1966 etched on it, making the year 2001.


    Hector's downfall could potentially be at the hands of Nacho now then, maybe he's going to find out what that medication was and mess with dosage or swap it out completely, leading to a stroke of some sort.
    Yeah but if you remember the first episode where Jimmy loses his cool over being paid 700 for the three teens he tried together, there's a moment where he slams the check on the window and it has a 2002 date on it

    C0915
  • DrKenDrKen Chicago
    Macallan 35 is like champagne.  You can buy any vintage you can find.  Took a look and you can get a 1967 Macallan for $5700 or so.  BALD MOVE FUND DRIVE!!

    So, I'd say he's mentioning to not ask how much it costs because it is already a collectible year and he bought it at auction or private seller.
  • DrKenDrKen Chicago
    The guy at the station says he's never seen so many star wipes in a row. It's never been done.

    That was hilarious.
  • JamesJames southern California
    amyja89 said:

    So now we have a concrete time period for this show/season. Howard brings out the "35 year old" scotch with 1966 etched on it, making the year 2001.


    Hector's downfall could potentially be at the hands of Nacho now then, maybe he's going to find out what that medication was and mess with dosage or swap it out completely, leading to a stroke of some sort.
    Not an expert here, but I read on another site that, with scotch, the age refers to the age at the time it was bottled. It could conceivably be a 1- or 10- or 100-year old bottle, but it still would be referred to as 35-year old scotch.

    That said, it makes sense to me that the date on the check he receives in 1-01 (which someone above says is 2002) is the closest thing we have to a solid date. If a year has passed since then, it would now be 2003. This puts us 4-5 years BW (before Walt). It's going to take a few years for Gus to excavate the basement for his Lab, for Tuco to finish his amended sentence, and for Saul to finish his suspension and establish himself as ABQ's best-known ambulance chaser.
    toncicaamyja89C0915
  • davemcbdavemcb Melbourne
    The guy at the station says he's never seen so many star wipes in a row. It's never been done.

    That was hilarious.
    I thought of the Simpsons straight away when Homer is making Ned's dating video



    DummyAjasCaptainTrips
  • MrXMrX CO
    edited May 16
    James said:

    amyja89 said:

    So now we have a concrete time period for this show/season. Howard brings out the "35 year old" scotch with 1966 etched on it, making the year 2001.


    Hector's downfall could potentially be at the hands of Nacho now then, maybe he's going to find out what that medication was and mess with dosage or swap it out completely, leading to a stroke of some sort.
    Not an expert here, but I read on another site that, with scotch, the age refers to the age at the time it was bottled. It could conceivably be a 1- or 10- or 100-year old bottle, but it still would be referred to as 35-year old scotch.

    That said, it makes sense to me that the date on the check he receives in 1-01 (which someone above says is 2002) is the closest thing we have to a solid date. If a year has passed since then, it would now be 2003. This puts us 4-5 years BW (before Walt). It's going to take a few years for Gus to excavate the basement for his Lab, for Tuco to finish his amended sentence, and for Saul to finish his suspension and establish himself as ABQ's best-known ambulance chaser.
    This is correct. The age of a scotch refers to how long it was in the barrel. Scotch doesn't continue to age (in terms of developing flavor, complexity, etc) once it's sealed in a bottle. So it has to be at least the year 2001, but most likely 2003 or so based on other evidence folks have mentioned.

    "Unlike wine, whisky does not mature in the bottle. So even if you keep a 12 year old bottle for 100 years, it will always remain a 12 year old whisky."

    http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/understanding-scotch/faqs/
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    MrX said:

    James said:

    amyja89 said:

    So now we have a concrete time period for this show/season. Howard brings out the "35 year old" scotch with 1966 etched on it, making the year 2001.


    Hector's downfall could potentially be at the hands of Nacho now then, maybe he's going to find out what that medication was and mess with dosage or swap it out completely, leading to a stroke of some sort.
    Not an expert here, but I read on another site that, with scotch, the age refers to the age at the time it was bottled. It could conceivably be a 1- or 10- or 100-year old bottle, but it still would be referred to as 35-year old scotch.

    That said, it makes sense to me that the date on the check he receives in 1-01 (which someone above says is 2002) is the closest thing we have to a solid date. If a year has passed since then, it would now be 2003. This puts us 4-5 years BW (before Walt). It's going to take a few years for Gus to excavate the basement for his Lab, for Tuco to finish his amended sentence, and for Saul to finish his suspension and establish himself as ABQ's best-known ambulance chaser.
    This is correct. The age of a scotch refers to how long it was in the barrel. Scotch doesn't continue to age (in terms of developing flavor, complexity, etc) once it's sealed in a bottle. So it has to be at least the year 2001, but most likely 2003 or so based on other evidence folks have mentioned.

    "Unlike wine, whisky does not mature in the bottle. So even if you keep a 12 year old bottle for 100 years, it will always remain a 12 year old whisky."

    http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/understanding-scotch/faqs/
    Also if you mix scotches of different ages you have to use the lower year number. I was listening to Cigar Dave on the radio a couple weeks ago and he was talking about a brand of scotch (can't remember which) that used to use 10 year aged and now they have so much demand they use half 10 year and half 5 year, but they can only market it as five because the age is a guarantee of the youngest whiskey in the bottle.... 
  • Ironically, I was drinking a Macallan 18 while watching the episode.
  • emnofseattleemnofseattle Mason County, Washington USA
    So I went back and watched s1ep1, when Jimmy slams the paycheck on the wall and says "what the hell kind of math is this?" the date of the check is May 13th, 2002 
  • edited May 17


    http://www.amc.com/shows/better-call-saul/season-1

    "Set six years before he became Walter White’s lawyer, Saul Goodman is known as Jimmy McGill, a small-time lawyer searching for his destiny."

    I think the amount of time between the shows is a personally more interesting than knowing the year in the show, so well, there you are.  Not sure how I had not noticed it before on the site.

  • edited May 17
    Melia004 said:

    Unless Fargo shits out a golden egg, CLEARLY the week has been won by BCS. I can't wait to hear why Frasier is better...

    We certainly all have our opinions, but for me, it's easy to see why BCS would lose in the match-up, and possibly even third place.  This episode had some moments, specifically Nacho, who was the best part imo, but the rest just seemed like placing pieces for the cool reveals to come in "Breaking Bad".  I can't even imagine what this episode looks like to people that haven't watched BB.  Outside Nacho, there was little in moving characters forward outside of setting them up for cameos and things that only have real payoff in "Breaking Bad".  Even the long-time coming Saul introduction seemed more like they needed to do it or the fans riot than it really feeling impactful.

    Again, we all have our opinions, but it's not a stretch to see how Leftovers could sweep again this week, especially from, imo, a fairly weak episode of mostly plate setting.   
  • AjasAjas Seattle, WA
    Man, this episode was fantastic.  It switched into so many different gears and nailed each of them-- from the truck unloading montage, to "Hector is expecting 6".  Then the "Jimmy calls his clients" montage followed by the absolutely magical shots of Jimmy and Kim contemplating their futures outside of the glass wall.

    I don't need to recount them all, but it was brilliant.

    My only problem, just like last week, is the Rebecca character stands out as an awful acting performance.  I am just not buying anything she's selling.  Last week I said "Just imagine if it were Carrie Coon" (half-jokingly, because of Fargo and Leftovers, but also seriously).  

    The best way to tidy up the Chuck and Rebecca character arcs is with a murder-suicide.
  • davemcbdavemcb Melbourne
    I'm sure it won't come back to anything but I keep thinking that Chucks line of "Are you right to drive?" Coming back at some stage. Does the downfall of HHM come from Mr Hamlindigo crashing the car or injuring someone when driving home from Chuck's after few too many $2500 Scotches.

    If he left the scene of an accident whilst drunk im sure that could lead to disbarrment. What happens to a firm when its lead partner is disbarred?
    amyja89
  • Not mentioned in the 'Insider' podcast, but I'm pretty sure this is you-know-who, right?

    image
  • Garthgou81Garthgou81 Placerville, CA
    This was an odd episode. I really enjoyed much of it. The Saul Goodman reveal, Nacho's own storyline, the Kim/Jimmy stuff. But then other parts of it felt incredibly clunky. Specifically the stuff with Rebecca/Jimmy and that odd scene with Mike's daughter convincing him to help lay concrete. It all set-up for further storylines, but again, just clunky. 

    Also the moments with Gus checking out the future lab, his meeting with Lydia, and then the inclusion of Victor & Tyrus during the drug deal with Nacho all just seemed slightly too fan-service'y. This has always been a concern of mine with the show. It fluctuates on how deftly it handles BrBa characters. I mean look, in this episode we had Saul/Jimmy, Mike, Gus, Lydia, Krazy-8, Victor, Francessca, Tyrus, Hector. It just makes the world feel smaller to me. However, I guess it makes sense as these worlds continue to converge. Anyway...I will probably die on this hill, since other fans of the show seem to eat it up. 
  • "Do you think maybe Rebecca was trying to bait Jimmy in some way?"

    I'd have to go with a "no" here.  Rebecca's line of thinking is that no matter what, Jimmy and Chuck are brothers and Jimmy should be helping.  Rebecca hasn't been around in person to witness what has happened in person.  One thing to hear about actions, another thing to be there in the moment when it's happening.  Jimmy told Chuck that they were done with each other and he meant it.  At this point in time, Jimmy doesn't owe Chuck.  They both chose to sever the relationship.

    I also agree that sometimes giving a cameo to a character like Lydia just comes off as more of a shout-out to the Breaking Bad fans that an actual need for the show.  Do we really care if Lydia was the one to show Gus where to put the future lab?  Or would we have preferred for Gus to find it on his own?  Personally, I'd rather the latter.

    As for Saul, I'm curious to see where it goes.  Right now, Jimmy was just trying to get his 4 grand back for the unused air-time.  Assuming, he's successful and is getting calls, does Jimmy try to further this business and that's how he's going to generate money in order to pay the rent for the office and pay for secretary?

Sign In or Register to comment.